Discipled by the West?—The Inﬂuence of the Theology of Protestant Missionaries in China on Chinese Christianity through the Translation of the Chinese Union Version of the Bible

: Over the last one hundred years, the Chinese Union Version of the Bible (CUV)—translated by Western Protestant missionaries—has enjoyed an unparalleled status as the Chinese Bible or the “Authorized Version” of the Chinese Bible. However, despite such towering signiﬁcance, no scholarly works to date have systematically examined the inﬂuences of Protestant missionary theology on the translation of the CUV and, in turn, on Chinese Christianity. As an introductory attempt to explore this question, this paper ﬁrst highlights this gap in current scholarship and the importance of ﬁlling this gap. Then, it presents four factors and two limitations in examining the theology of the CUV and conducts a case study on the theological topic of dichotomy versus trichotomy in the translation of the CUV along with four other Chinese Bible translations. After examining how the transaltors’ theology might have inﬂuenced these translations, it suggests how such inﬂuence through the translation of the CUV might have shaped Chinese Christianity both past and present, thereby demonstrating how the understanding of Chinese Christianity can be deepened by examining the relationships between missionaries’ theology, their Bible translations, and the development of Chinese Christianity.


Introduction: A Gap in Current Scholarship on Chinese Christianity
Since the 1980s, as a result of a paradigm shift in the field of Chinese studies, the indigenization of Christianity in China has increasingly become the focus of scholarship on Chinese Christianity in the English-speaking world (Ying 2005, pp. 204-10).Subsequently, studies on Chinese Christianity have gradually shifted from the earlier "western-centered" or "missionary-centered" approach to a "China-centered" one (Leung 2011, p. 58;Ng 2012), from the earlier focus on Western missionaries' contribution to the modernization of China or their failure in implanting Christianity into the Chinese soil 1 , to the presently dominant focus on Chinese Christians' success in indigenizing Christianity for China.Thus, post-1949 Christianity in China has since then been portrayed primarily as an indigenized product of Chinese Christians distinct from that in the missionary era.However, although institutionally and administratively the influences of Western missionaries on Chinese Christianity ended around 1949 2 , theologically and spiritually their influences have long survived their departure and continued to this day.One of the most powerful mediums of these lasting theological and spiritual influences is the Christian literature produced for or introduced to the Chinese by the missionaries, and among this body of literature the Chinese Union Version of the Bible (henceforth, CUV)3 is undoubtedly the most influential and significant one in the development of Chinese Christianity since its publication in 1919 (Mak 2020;Chong 2000).
However, for two reasons, to assess the influences of the theology of Protestant missionaries on Chinese Christianity4 through the translation of the CUV is to step into an uncharted territory.First, even though a great number of studies on missionaries to China have been done in the past, how the theology of the missionaries in China has influenced the development of Chinese Christianity is still an underresearched area.For example, there is still not a one-volume survey of the theology of Protestant missionaries in China5 , let alone a survey of its overall influences on Chinese Christianity.Nevertheless, the importance of studying the theology of missionaries and its influences on the native church has been noted by some scholars.As Christopher E. M. Wigram wrote, "Although most missionaries were not theologians making a contribution to theology as a discipline, they nevertheless operated with theological assumptions and arguably were to have a more enduring influence on the developing church world-wide than the 'professional' theologians" (Wigram 2007, p. 2).In the case of China, many important questions along this line are yet to be answered, such as, how has the theology of the missionaries shaped the development of Chinese Christianity?What elements in the development of Chinese Christianity are authentically "indigenous" and what are heritage from the West?In this intercultural transmission of faith, what theological elements have faded over time and what have proved long-lasting?This paper can only present one way of addressing some of these questions.Second, even though it has been generally recognized by scholars that Bible translation is "a theological task from beginning to end-from interpretation to choice of word and phrase" (Ogden 2002, p. 316) 6 , and even though many studies have been done on Chinese Bible translation (henceforth, CBT) and specifically on the CUV, overall the influences of the translators' theology on both CBT and the CUV is still an underresearched area. 7As Williams Tyndale was not only a translator but a theologian who "exerted considerable influence over English vernacular theology as well as on the theology of the English Bibles that followed his own translations" (James 2011, p. 2), many of the missionary translators of the Chinese Bibles in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had functioned in similar ways, but how their theology has shaped the theology of subsequent Chinese Bibles and thereby influenced the development of Chinese Christianity has remained mostly unexamined. 8The following sections will present a case study of one such theological influence in the making of the CUV, as an example of how other influences might likewise be examined.Besides introducing the importance of a new research field combining theology, mission history, and Bible translation in the study of Chinese Christianity, this paper hopes to contribute to the larger argument that the history of Christianity cannot be studied in isolation from the history of Christian mission and the history of theology.

Examining the Theology of the CUV's Translators: Four Factors and Two Limitations
For any examination of the theology of the CUV or of its translators, four factors should be noted.First, as the Bible version commissioned by the historic 1890 missionary conference, translated by a committee of eleven translators (just for its New Testament portion), and designed to become the standard version for all Protestant Christians in China, the theology of the CUV, as its name Union Version indicated, is necessarily "ecumenical" in nature in order to gain the support of all Protestant missionaries and societies.As such, the CUV is arguably the Bible translation that best embodies and represents the general theological consensus among the Protestant missionaries in China from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century.This ecumenical nature of the theology of the CUV is reflected in Bates' analysis of the theology of American missionaries in China in the early twentieth century, as he chose "accommodation and unity" for its general description (Bates 1974, p. 138).Therefore, the theology of the CUV should be considered as more a reflection of the collective theology of the Protestant missionaries at the time rather than that of the personal theologies of the translators.
Second, there were other factors that were "restraints on missionaries in their natural tendency to import Western theologies under established labels" (ibid, p. 142).Besides the strong yearning to unite, another factor that modified the theologies from abroad was "the need and will to simplify," for Chinese society was unfamiliar with Christianity and largely unlettered at the time, and to "preach, teach, and print the central simplicities, always for Chinese eyes and ears . . .were essential guidelines" (ibid, pp. 141-42).Thus, accommodation for unity and simplification for easy understanding and evangelism were two modifying factors that govern the theology of the CUV.
Third, starting from Walter Henry Medhurst's effort to revise Robert Morrison's monumental Bible translation of 1823, there began a strong trend among missionaries to indigenize or Sinicize Bible translation to produce a more paraphrastic and Chinesesounding translation that would be easier to be understood by the Chinese (Zetzsche 1999, pp. 59-75;Tong 2018, p. 74 ff).Over the course of the nineteenth century, this trend was strengthened as prominent figures such as James Legge worked to reverse the earlier missionary attitude from viewing Chinese traditional religious elements as anti-Christian or demonic to viewing some of them as part of genuine divine revelation and harbinger to Christianity (Legge 1852;Eber 1999, pp. 144-47;Lian 1997, pp. 172-73).Although this trend was always met with resistance from those with a more conservative theological outlook, it has nevertheless seeped into Bible translations and produced many Biblical terms that originated from Chinese culture and religions 9 .This indigenizing tendency is further strengthened as the missionary translators' Chinese assistants 10 , who knew nothing about Biblical Greek and very little if anything about theology but were steeped in Chinese classics, gained a more prominent role in the translation of the CUV and later even 8 Besides studies on the Term Question and the translation of the word baptism (Zetzsche 1999, pp. 54-57), the only work that has substantially dealt with certain theological aspects of Chinese Bible translation is Robert Menzies' The Language of the Spirit (Menzies 2010).Hui Er Yu's work (Yu 2018) is limited in both its coverage (only concerning the translation of one word) and theological depth. 9Examples of this can be seen in the debates surrounding the Term Question (Eber 1999) and the Westerners' attitude toward Daoism (Walf 1999). 10These assistants include: Wang Yuande 王元德, Cheng Jingyi 誠靜怡, Zou Liwen 鄒立文, Zhang Xixin 張洗心, Li Chunfan 李春蕃, and Liu Dacheng 劉大成 (Zetzsche 2000, pp. 10-15).
shared the equal right to vote as missionary translators in making decisions regarding the translation (Strandenaes 2006, p. 143).Fourth, as Robert Menzies (2010, p. 10) noted, the three main translators of the New Testament portion of the CUV-Calvin Wilson Mateer, Chauncey Goodrich, and Frederick  William Baller 11 -were all steeped in the Reformed tradition.In fact, out of the eleven translators who had ever worked on the New Testament portion of the CUV, at least seven of them clearly came from Reformed theological backgrounds. 12Moreover, it has been suggested that the general vocabulary of the CUV is inherited from the Delegates' Version (New Testament portion published in 1852) 13 and the Peking Version (published in 1872) (Strandenaes 1987, p. 88), and all the translators of both of these earlier versions were again closely associated with the Reformed tradition. 14Even the translator of the first Protestant version of the New Testament in Chinese (published in 1813), Robert Morrison, who also authored the first Chinese-English, English-Chinese dictionary (1815-1823) 15 , came from the Reformed tradition (London Missionary Society).Admittedly, a person's theology may not fully match that of his or her mission society.However, this overwhelmingly dominant Reformed theological profile of the translators, although very likely constrained and modified by the three previous factors, is still significant and should not be overlooked in examining the theology of the CUV and of its translators.
Two limitations in such an examination should also be noted.First, any claim of identifying influences of translators' theology on Bible translation can only be an interpretation and not a fact unless writings of the translators themselves that reveal their theological reasoning in the translation process can be found.In the case of the CUV's translators, only a small amount of such writings have been found so far 16 .Second, it has been suggested that the translators of the CUV had so heavily relied on the Peking Version that the CUV should be considered more as a revision of the Peking Version (Tong 2019).Therefore, a rendering in the CUV that seems to be a deliberate theological choice of the translators might just be the result of their following the Peking Version (or other earlier versions).Nevertheless, in that case, it should also mean that the CUV's translators at least agreed with the theological choice of those earlier translators, and this may actually strengthen the link between the Reformed tradition and the CUV's translation, for both the CUV's and the Peking Version's translators were mostly associated with the Reformed tradition.This also makes the CUV an even more representative version reflecting the theology of the Protestant missionaries in China from the 1870s or even the 1850s into the early twentieth century.This paper will mainly examine the New Testament portion partially because of the limited space allowed and partially because the subject of the case study (dichotomy versus Mateer was a Presbyterian, Goodrich a Congregationalist, and Baller a Baptist.Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and most Baptists are Reformed in their theological orientation, and this assumption about their theological leaning was somewhat substantiated by Menzies' analysis of their translation (Menzies 2010).Of course, a translator from a Reformed (or any other theological) background does not necessarily mean that he or she subscribes to every doctrinal point of that tradition.Thus, the discussion here is simply to point to the fact that the overall, dominant theological background of these missionary translators is the Reformed tradition.Besides the three main translators, these were Henry Blodget (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions), George Sidney Owen (London Missionary Society), John Livingston Nevius (American Presbyterian Mission), and Henry McKee Woods (American Southern Presbyterian Mission).All these mission societies were parts of the Reformed tradition.This Delegates' New Testament Version was the most widely published New Testament version in Chinese in the nineteenth century (Strandenaes 1987, p. 48).The translators of the New Testament portion of the Delegates' Version were William Jones Boone (American Episcopal Missionary Society); Walter Henry Medhurst, William Charles Milne, and John Stronach (London Missionary Society); and Elijah Coleman Bridgman (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions) (Strandenaes 1987, p. 48).The translators of the Pekin Version were John Shaw Burdon (Church Missionary Society), Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky (American Episcopal Church Mission), Henry Blodget (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions), Joseph Edkins (London Missionary Society), and William Alexander Parsons Martin (American Presbyterian) (Zetzsche 1999, pp. 145-46).All these affiliations were also closely associated with the Reformed tradition.For the dominance of the Reformed theological tradition among the Protestant missionaries in China, also see (Chow 2018, pp. 97-98).How the theology of Morrison might have influenced the dictionaries he produced and his Bible translation as well as later translations of the Bible is another subject worthy of study.Including Mateer's articles on the Term Questions (Mateer 1901(Mateer , 1902)), and Baller s "Notes on the Reivison of the Mandarin New Testament" (Baller 1907b).trichotomy) examined is mainly a New Testament theological issue, for verses commonly cited to support either dichotomy or trichotomy are primarily from the New Testament (Erickson 2013, pp. 477-80).Therefore, from here on the term the CUV will mostly refer to the New Testament part of the translation.

Case Study: Dichotomy Versus Trichotomy
The Greek words πνεῦµα (pneuma) and ψυχή (psuche) in reference to human constitution are commonly translated as spirit and soul in the New Testament.The treatment of these two Greek words by Bible translators-as they relate to human makeup-clearly reflects the translators' position between two traditional Christian views of human constitution as either composed of body and soul (a.k.a.dichotomy) or composed of body, soul, and spirit (a.k.a.trichotomy).The key difference between these two views lies in whether soul and spirit are basically synonymous or distinct parts of human constitution, and both of these views have a long theological tradition dated back to antiquity and the early church fathers (Erickson 2013, pp. 477-93). 17On this theological subject of human constitution being either dichotomous or trichotomous according to the Bible, the CUV's translation clearly falls in line with earlier Chinese Bible translations and shows the general theological consensus on this issue in favor of the dichotomous view among these missionary translators in nineteenth-century China.
Table 1 18 below presents a comprehensive comparison of how the Greek word pneuma (spirit) in reference to human constitution 19 in the four Gospels is translated in Robert Morrison's translation (M) 20 , the Delegates' Version (DV), the Peking Version (PV), the Chinese Union Version (CUV), the Chinese Recovery Version (CRV), the King James Version (KJV), and the (English) Revised Version (RV, published in 1881).Appendix A presents the same comparison for the rest of the New Testament, and Appendices B and C present the same comparisons for the Greek word psuche (soul) and the adjective forms of both pneuma and psuche in the New Testament, respectively.These three versions-the M, DV, and PV-are chosen besides the CUV because they are arguably the most influential Chinese Bible translations in the nineteenth century, and as such are tremendously helpful in shedding light on the overall theological consensus among the Protestant missionaries.The CRV (published in 1987) is chosen because its main translator Witness Lee (1905Lee ( -1997) ) and his spiritual mentor Watchman Nee (1903Nee ( -1972) ) are well-known trichotomists whose trichotomous view is clearly reflected in their Bible translation, which provides a stark contrast to the other Chinese versions listed here, as these earlier versions to varying degrees all reflect a dichotomous view, which is also the dominant view in the Reformed tradition.The KJV and the RV are chosen because they are the two English base texts of the CUV (Mak 2010) and the KJV was the most authoritative English version prior to the RV and should have exerted considerable influence over all these Chinese Bible translations.Therefore, any rendering in these Chinese translations that differs from the KJV's rendering (and any rendering in the CUV that differs from both the KJV's and RV's renderings) would particularly shed light on the translators' understanding of pneuma and psuche in reference to human constitution.
As in all other theological subjects, there are also variations of beliefs within each of these traditions, which will not be discussed here.All the tables in this paper were produced with the help of the FHL website (https://bible.fhl.net/accessed on 15 January 2021).Morrison's version, the Delegates' Version, and the Peking Version all used Textus Receptus as their base texts, whereas the CUV used both Textus Receptus (Scrivener 1882) and the base text of the Revised Version (Palmer 1881;see Strandenaes 1987, pp. 81-83) as its base text.The base text of the Chinese Recovery Version is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edition).These Greek texts have been examined and in most cases found to play no role in the different renderings presented in the tables in this paper.Verses where pneuma is universally interpreted as the Holy Spirit are generally not included here.Admittedly, in many verses it is hard to tell whether the word is referring to human spirit or the divine Spirit (or both), and one's judgment in each case is inevitably influenced by his or her belief whether man is dichotomous or trichotomous.For example, dichotomists often understand expressions such as "according to the spirit" (Rom.8:4-5) or "in spirit" (Eph. 2:22;3:5;5:18;6:18) in the New Testament as referring to the Holy Spirit, whereas trichotomists often understand them as refering to the human spirit.Also see (Menzies 2010, pp. 25-39).The New Testament portion of Morrison's translation was published in 1813; his translation of the entire Bible was published in 1823.An analysis of Table 1 and Appendices A and B reveal many indicators of the translators' theological position on dichotomy versus trichotomy.First, in a total of 78 verses (19 verses in the Gospels and 59 in the rest of the New Testament), the CRV consistently translated the word pneuma (spirit) in reference to human constitution 23 as ling 靈 (spirit).Both the KJV and the RV (and the later American Standard Version as well) also consistently translated the word pneuma as spirit, referring to the human spirit, and occasionally as Spirit, referring to the Spirit of God. 24Similarly, in a total of 36 verses, the CRV consistently translated the word psuche (soul) as hun 魂 (soul), and both the KJV and the RV again also consistently translated psuche as soul.This shows that the CRV's treatment of the word pneuma and psuche is basically the same as the KJV's and the RV's, which is to consistently render pneuma and psuche by the same words, as spirit and soul, respectively, thereby maintaining the clear distinction between these two words in the original.This is clearly a theological choice by the CRV's translators because, being trichotomists, they hope to preserve and convey the distinction between spirit and soul as much as possible.
In sharp contrast to the translators of the CRV, the KJV, and the RV, the translators of the M, DV, PV, and CUV generally did not consider it necessary to maintain the aforementioned distinction and instead often translated them interchangeably and into a variety RV omitted the verse "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" in the KJV.This definition is taken from Morrison's own dictionary (Morrison 1815a, p. 61).From here on, all discussions concerning pneuma and psuche are only limited to their usage in reference to human constitution.See note 19.
of other words without a clear distinction between the two, as shown in Table 2 below.This dichotomous approach 25 matches the dichotomous view dominant in the Reformed tradition, from which most of these translators came.
The table above reveals how the translators of these five versions interpreted the word pneuma in the New Testament differently from one another and especially from the CRV.In Morrisons' version, the word pneuma is translated 26 as ling 靈 (spirit) in 23 verses, feng 風 (Spirit/spirit) 27 in 15 verses, shen 神 (Spirit/spirit) 28 in 4 verses, and lingshen 靈神 (intelligent spirit) 29 in 2 verses.While it is often hard to tell whether feng 風 and shen 神 in Morrison's usage refer to the Spirit of God or the spirit of man, he was more conservative than the translators of DV, PV, and CUV in that he more often translated pneuma into Chinese words that are capable of meaning spirit, thus displaying a higher regard for conveying the literal meaning of the Greek word.However, according to Morrison's Chinese-English dictionary in 1815 30 , ling 靈 (spirit) in reference to man does There may be a variety of reasons that influence any translation choice, and one's theology is only one possible reason among many.But the fact remains that these translators generally did not consider it necessary to maintain the distinction between pneuma and psuche, and as a result, their translations fall in line with the dichotomous tradition (which views soul, spirit, heart, and mind more or less as synonymous).Therefore, while it is impossible to determine whether these translators were actually driven by a dichotomous view while translating unless they have left behind writings that stated so (which few translators would do), their translations nevertheless clearly reflect a dichotomous view.Thus, the term "dichotomous approach" here should be understood more as a description of the translation product than that of the translation process.While Morrison relied heavily on the Basset manuscript for his translation and only claimed thirteen out of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as his own work, he nevertheless edited through the entire New Testament and made what he considered necessary changes (Daily 2013, p. 145).According to Morrison's dictionary (Morrison 1815b, p. 189).According to Morrison's dictionary (Morrison 1815b, p. 749).According to Morrison's dictionary (Morrison 1815a, p. 61).Morrison's dictionary in 1815 can shed light on his translation of the Bible because it was done during the same period and provides a clear view of his understanding of the Chinese language.
not mean a constituting part of human being but that which is spiritual, intelligent 31 , or good, felicitous, and efficacious (Morrison 1815b, p. 553), while shen 神, which could mean "the human spirit" (ibid, p. 749), was used only in 4 verses to translate pneuma in the whole New Testament.Moreover, while both hun 魂 and linghun 靈魂 mean "soul" and xin 心means "heart" (ibid, pp. 308, 553, 771), all these three Chinese terms were used by Morrison to translate pneuma in 23 verses (out of 78 verses); conversely, as Appendix B shows, he also used the word ling 靈 (spirit), feng 風 (spirit), and lingshen 靈神 (intelligent spirit) to translate psuche (soul) in 8 verses (out of 35 verses).Furthermore, linghun 靈 魂 (soul) and xin 心 (heart) were both used to translate pneuma (in 18 verses) and psuche (in 20 verses).All of these indicate that to Morrison, soul, heart, and spirit are all highly interchangeable words and do not refer to distinct parts of human being.Most significantly, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, the most foundational verse supporting trichotomy, Morrison rendered pneuma (spirit) as linghun 靈魂 (soul) and rendered psuche (soul) as feng 風 (spirit), effectively identifying spirit and soul as the same entity. 32This again strongly indicates that to Morrison, spirit and soul are interchangeable words and thus, he was most likely a dichotomist.Curiously, a survey through the Bible commentaries he consulted while translating the Bible (Daily 2013, p. 146) shows that James Macknight, Philip Doddridge, and Adam Clarke whose works he consulted for translating the New Testament were all trichotomists.This shows that Morrison's dichotomous treatment of pneuma and psuche might be, among other reasons, due to his own theological conviction formed prior to the translation project.In any case, his theological view on human constitution certainly played a role in his rendering of pneuma and psuche in his Bible translation.
Similarly, the translators of the DV, PV, and CUV are most likely dichotomists 33 , for their translations also do not clearly distinguish between pneuma and psuche as different parts of human constitution.In the DV, PV, and CUV, pneuma is often translated as xin 心 (heart), which is often used to translate psuche.The PV and CUV both most often translated pneuma as xin 心or xinling 心靈 (heart) and linghun 靈魂 (soul), clearly indicating that their translators consider spirit, soul, and heart as basically synonymous.Now, in the case of the CUV, this translational decision is most striking, for in the eighteen principles of translation announced by the translation committee for the translation of the CUV, three of them explicitly say: 1.
Passages expressed in the same terms and in the same or similar connection in the original, translate in the uniform manner.

2.
Translate Greek and Hebrew words occurring in different places and used in the same sense by the same Chinese words. . . .11. Make a special effort to render literally words and phrases which have a theological or ethical importance, and which are, or may be, used by any school for proof or support of doctrines; putting explanations in the margin, if necessary.(Hykes 1892, pp.26-27) Yet, the CUV's translators clearly did not keep these principles.They did not translate pneuma and psuche when referring to human constitution "in the uniform manner" and "by the same Chinese words," and apparently did not consider the doctrine of trichotomy theologically important enough to retain the distinction between pneuma and psuche, even going against the authoritative translational tradition of the KJV (and the RV) which always According to Morrison's dictionary, man's soul is expressed by the word hun 魂 (Morrison 1815a, p. 61), and linghun 靈魂 means "the intelligent soul" (ibid.),implying that ling 靈 simply means "intelligent."This interpretation is further strengthened by his defining shen 神 as "the human spirit" and lingshen 靈神 as "the intelligent spirit" in man (Morrison 1815b, p. 749;1815a, p. 61).This understanding of ling 靈 as "ingelligent" matches the classic dichotomous definition of the spirit as the rational part of the soul.It might be possible that Morrison here purposely reversed the order of the original wording from spirit and soul to soul and spirit, but there is no clear evidence to support this.The DV never used ling 靈 (spirit) to translate pneuma (spirit)-a remarkable rejection of the use of the term and a significant departure from Morrison's translation.The DV used shen 神 (Spirit/spirit) in 29 verses to translate pneuma, but shen 神 could also mean the Spirit of God or even God to some of the translators of the DV (Tong 2018, pp. 149-50).Moreover, the DV also omitted the translation of pneuma (spirit) in six verses, more than all other versions.Thus, it is unlikely that the translators of the DV are trichotomists.retains such distinction.The same dichotomous approach can be observed also in the translation of some key Old Testament verses related to human constitution, as  (soul).The contrast between the CUV and the CRV once again became clear: the CUV with its dichotomous approach did not consider it important to maintain the distinction between spirit and soul, while the CRV almost always preserved this distinction.This dichotomous approach of the CUV's translators becomes more intriguing in light of the fact that two Bible commentaries assigned to them for their translation work (Mak 2010, pp. 97-98) were both written by trichotomists, i.e., Ellicott (1897, p. 146) and Meyer (Lünemann 1884, pp. 163-64), whose trichotomous views were clearly shown in their commentaries. 35This shows that, similar to Morrison, on this issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy the translators of the CUV were following more their own theological conviction rather than the theological position of the Bible commentaries officially assigned to them by the sponsoring organization or overseeing committee of their translation work.By translating pneuma as heart (xin 心 or xinling 心靈) and soul (linghun 靈魂), the translators of the CUV also departed from the standard Chinese word given for the translation of pneuma in this New Testament usage in the early twentieth century, roughly when the CUV was in the making: In John Leighton Stuart's Greek-Chinese-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuart 1918), the first of its kind in Chinese history, πνεῦ μα (pneuma) is defined as feng 風 (wind), qi 氣 (breath), and ling 靈 (spirit), and πνευματικος (pneumatikos) is defined as shulingde 屬靈的 (spiritual) (ibid, p. 163).In An Analytical Vocabulary of the New Testament authored by F. W. Baller, one of the main translators and revisers of the CUV, ling 靈 is clearly defined as "spirit"; hun 魂 or linghun 靈魂, as "soul"; and xin 心, as "heart" (Baller 1907a, pp. 359, 374, 119).Yet, he and other translators of the CUV would still use linghun 靈魂 (soul) and xin 心 (heart) to translate pneuma, again indicating that to them, spirit, soul, and heart are all basically synonymous-a typical dichotomous view.
Three factors should be noted about the CUV's dichotomous view.First, as mentioned earlier, since the CUV was designed to be the common version used by all is the Old Testament version translated by Samuel I. J. Schereschewsky.ould be noted that Thayer's lexicon, which was also assigned to the CUV's translators for their translation work, defined ma as capable of being both synonymous with soul and distinct from it (Thayer 1889, p. 520).
, nephesh in Herbew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as yolingderen有靈的人 (man with a spirit) in the CUV.In Genesis 41:8, what was translated as spirit ( , 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22 also in the translation of some key Old Testament verses related to human constitution, as Table 3 (soul).The contrast between the CUV and the CRV once again became clear: the CUV with its dichotomous approach did not consider it important to maintain the distinction between spirit and soul, while the CRV almost always preserved this distinction.This dichotomous approach of the CUV's translators becomes more intriguing in light of the fact that two Bible commentaries assigned to them for their translation work (Mak 2010, pp. 97-98) were both written by trichotomists, i.e., Ellicott (1897, p. 146) and Meyer (Lünemann 1884, pp. 163-64), whose trichotomous views were clearly shown in their commentaries. 35This shows that, similar to Morrison, on this issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy the translators of the CUV were following more their own theological conviction rather than the theological position of the Bible commentaries officially assigned to them by the sponsoring organization or overseeing committee of their translation work.By translating pneuma as heart (xin 心 or xinling 心靈) and soul (linghun 靈魂), the translators of the CUV also departed from the standard Chinese word given for the translation of pneuma in this New Testament usage in the early twentieth century, roughly when the CUV was in the making: In John Leighton Stuart's Greek-Chinese-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuart 1918), the first of its kind in Chinese history, πνεῦ μα (pneuma) is defined as feng 風 (wind), qi 氣 (breath), and ling 靈 (spirit), and πνευματικος (pneumatikos) is defined as shulingde 屬靈的 (spiritual) (ibid, p. 163).In An Analytical Vocabulary of the New Testament authored by F. W. Baller, one of the main translators and revisers of the CUV, ling 靈 is clearly defined as "spirit"; hun 魂 or linghun 靈魂, as "soul"; and xin 心, as "heart" (Baller 1907a, pp. 359, 374, 119).Yet, he and other translators of the CUV would still use linghun 靈魂 (soul) and xin 心 (heart) to translate pneuma, again indicating that to them, spirit, soul, and heart are all basically synonymous-a typical dichotomous view.
Three factors should be noted about the CUV's dichotomous view.First, as mentioned earlier, since the CUV was designed to be the common version used by all he Old Testament version translated by Samuel I. J. Schereschewsky.d be noted that Thayer's lexicon, which was also assigned to the CUV's translators for their translation work, defined as capable of being both synonymous with soul and distinct from it (Thayer 1889, p. 520).
, ruach in Hebrew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as xin 心 (heart) in the CUV.In Psalm 42:6, what was translated as soul (nephesh) in the KJV and the RV was transalted again as xin 心(heart) in the CUV.In contrast, the CRV's renderings, like the examples shown before, always translated what was spirit in the KJV/RV as ling 靈 (spirit) and what was soul in the KJV/RV as hun 魂(soul).The contrast between the CUV and the CRV once again became clear: the CUV with its dichotomous approach did not consider it important to maintain the distinction between spirit and soul, while the CRV almost always preserved this distinction.This dichotomous approach of the CUV's translators becomes more intriguing in light of the fact that two Bible commentaries assigned to them for their translation work (Mak 2010, pp. 97-98) were both written by trichotomists, i.e., Ellicott (1897, p. 146) and Meyer (Lünemann 1884, pp. 163-64), whose trichotomous views were clearly shown in their commentaries. 35This shows that, similar to Morrison, on this issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy the translators of the CUV were following more their own theological conviction rather than the theological position of the Bible commentaries officially assigned to them by the sponsoring organization or overseeing committee of their translation work.By translating pneuma as heart (xin 心 or xinling 心靈) and soul (linghun 靈魂), the translators of the CUV also departed from the standard Chinese word given for the translation of pneuma in this New Testament usage in the early twentieth century, roughly when the CUV was in the making: In John Leighton Stuart's Greek-Chinese-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuart 1918), the first of its kind in Chinese history, πνεῦµα (pneuma) is defined as feng 風 (wind), qi 氣 (breath), and ling 靈 (spirit), and πνευµατικóς (pneumatikos) is defined as shulingde 屬靈的 (spiritual) (ibid, p. 163).In An Analytical Vocabulary of the New Testament authored by F. W. Baller, one of the main translators and revisers of the CUV, ling 靈 is clearly defined as "spirit"; hun 魂 or linghun 靈魂, as "soul"; and xin 心, as "heart" (Baller 1907a, pp. 359, 374, 119).Yet, he and other translators of the CUV would still use linghun 靈魂 (soul) and xin 心 (heart) to translate pneuma, again indicating that to them, spirit, soul, and heart are all basically synonymous-a typical dichotomous view.
Three factors should be noted about the CUV's dichotomous view.First, as mentioned earlier, since the CUV was designed to be the common version used by all Protestant missionaries and Christians in China at the time, it is most likely that the CUV's dichotomous view reflects not just the theological position of the translators but also that of the majority of the Protestant missionaries at the time.This is confirmed by the examination of another important yet hitherto mostly neglected resource-The Conference Commentary on the New Testament commissioned also by the 1890 missionary conference (Woodbridge 1898).An examination of this Conference Commentary (first published in 1898), which was designed to be a "union commentary" (ibid, p. 355) similar to the "union Bible" and was even hailed by some as "the greatest work ever undertaken by the missionaries in China," 36 shows that its position on human constitution is also dichotomous. 37Second, the CUV's dichotomous view is likely also strengthened by the Chinese assistants of the translators, for the dichotomous view of human constitution is also a popular view among the Chinese, and the trichotomy of spirit, soul, and body is generally a foreign concept to Chinese culture. 38 Third, as the CUV was produced by missionaries whose main concern was evangelization rather than theological precision, it is understandable that the CUV's translators would prefer to produce an indigenized version that is easy to understand for the Chinese readers (Chan 2017, pp. 95-97).However, considering the Reformed theological background of the CUV's translators and the prominence of the dichotomous view in that tradition, while CUV's dichotomous translational approach could possibly have been influenced by the aforementioned factors, it is highly unlikely that the theological position of the missionary translators themselves did not play a major role also in this translational decision.

Influences of the CUV's Dichotomous Position on Chinese Christianity
The above analysis indicates that despite their outward differences in terms of language style and terminology, these four most influential Chinese Bible translations (M, DV, PV, and CUV) over the last two hundred years since Protestantism came to China are essentially the same in taking the dichotomous position on the theological subject of dichotomy versus trichotomy.As a result, Chinese Christians who read these versions without a prior understanding of the theological traditions of dichotomy versus trichotomy and without the ability to read the Bible in English and in the original Greek have been unconsciously indoctrinated with the doctrine of dichotomy through these Bible translations.At the very least, they were not able to tell the distinction between pneuma and psuche in reference to human constitution through these Bible translations.Thus, in 1925, only six years after the CUV was published, Watchman Nee, who was to become one of the most influential Chinese Christians in the twentieth century, wrote: Because the versions of the Bible we ordinarily use [referring to the CUV] do not follow a literal translation of the words "spirit" and "soul" in a strict way, readers find it difficult to differentiate between the two just by looking at the translated words.In translating the Bible, we should translate these words literally.When men in the world translate books, they invent many new terms.Why cannot the translation of the most widely circulated Book do the same?Since God has used two different terms for the spirit and the soul, we should not confuse them.(Nee 1992a, p. 5) Similarly, in addressing the CUV's tendency to add the word holy to the word spirit, which is also often done in the previous three Chinese versions to turn what might be a reference to the human spirit to a reference to the Holy Spirit-a typical dichotomous interpretation 39 -Nee wrote: In the Chinese Union Version of the Bible, it is difficult for us to tell when the word spirit refers to the Holy Spirit and when it refers to the human spirit.According to the translators of the Bible, whenever the original text used only the word spirit and not the Holy Spirit, they thought it actually referred to the Holy Spirit, and they added the word Holy before the word Spirit to indicate that it referred In the Eighty-First Annual Report of the American Tract Society (American Tract Society 1906, p. 180).The word pneuma is often translated as linghun 靈魂 (soul), xin 心 (heart), or shengling 聖靈 (Holy Spirit) throughout this commentary (Parker et al. 1899(Parker et al. , 1907)), and in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, the commentator specifically added xin 心 (heart) into the list of spirit, soul, and body, and did not mention anything about trichotomy.In the Chinese language the term linghun 靈魂, which literally means "spirit-soul," is the common term for soul, and ling 靈 (spirit) and hun 魂 (soul) also share the basic defintion of "soul."For the significant role of Chinese assistants in the translation of the CUV, see (Zetzsche 2000;Strandenaes 2006;You 2007. ) See note 19.
to the Holy Spirit . . . the word holy which is before the word Spirit, in some cases in the New Testament, is really the translator's interpretation rather than his translation.Whenever we come across this kind of situation, although we dare not think that it only refers to the human spirit, at least we may say that it sometimes refers to the human spirit.(Nee 1992b, pp. 229-31, italic added) Under the influence40 of the CUV's dichotomous approach in translating pneuma and psuche, except for a few Chinese Christian leaders such as Jia (1949, p. 116), Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee and those who followed their teachings on trichotomy, Chinese Christians over the last century (or even the last two centuries) are generally unaware of the distinction between pneuma and psuche in the New Testament and unaware of the theological tradition of trichotomy.Thus, more than Christianity in the West, those holding the teachings of trichotomy in Chinese Christianity are often misunderstood and fiercely opposed by the dichotomists, for they could not see trichotomy possibly being a biblical teaching based on the Chinese Bible(s) they read, which do not seem to lend much support to the doctrine.This might explain why sharp critiques and even questionable claims have been directed against trichotomists (Yu 2018, pp. 218-27;Liu 2020;Yu 2008, p. 96 ff), and the issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy has continued to be a source of controversy in Chinese Christianity.
The issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy certainly has also influenced Chinese Christians' understanding of many other important theological issues, such as the humanity of Christ (was Christ dichotomous or trichotomous?), the believers' relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit (in what way is the believers in union with Christ, in the soul or spirit?), the way of salvation (in what sense are the believers saved-in their soul, spirit, or body?), and the nature of the church as the body of Christ (in what sense is the church the body of Christ?).Besides these, dichotomy and trichotomy have also resulted in different views on man's fall, regeneration, ordo salutis, sanctification, glorification, and afterlife (Yu 2008, pp. 57-95), as well as the nature of Christian life and work.For example, as dichotomists generally do not distinguish between soul and spirit, they typically do not distinguish between that which is from the soul and that which is from the spirit.As a result, dichotomists tend to evaluate a believer's living and work by whether they meet certain moral or doctrinal standards, whereas trichotomists would judge by weather they are from and by the spirit (that is, from and by God, because trichotomists generally believe that God is dwelling in the believer's spirit), as Watchman Nee, a trichotomist, wrote: All the work that God calls us to do is revealed in the intuition of the spirit (see Section Five, Chapter One).When a believer acts according to the thoughts of the mind, the activities of the emotion, and the ambitions of the will, he goes outside of the will of God.Only that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; all the other things are not.All of a believer's work must only come from receiving revelation in the spirit after trusting and waiting upon God; otherwise, the flesh will come in . . .Every work which is done for God is not necessarily the work of God.Doing something for Him is not enough.The real question is who is doing it?If God Himself does not work from the spirit of the believer, and there is only the activity of a believer using his own strength, then the work cannot count before God.(Nee 1992b, pp. 259, 261) These contrasting views on Christian life and work have naturally resulted in different kinds of churches and works in Chinese Christianity.Moreover, some scholars have suggested that one's belief in dichotomy or trichotomy may influence one's view toward law, government, and politics (Wang and Hsieh 2011): for example, those who are dichotomists and embrace the Reformed tradition tend to be more politically active, as exemplified by the Presbyterian churches in Taiwan and the Reformed churches in China41 , and those who are trichotomists tend to stay away from politics and see the nature and commission of the church as solely spiritual, as exemplified by the churches that follow the teachings of Watchman Nee (Nee 1993;Pitts 2014;Kärkkäinen 2021, p. 129).All these suggested influences and correlations surely deserve further research in order to deepen our understanding of both the history and the current state of Chinese Christianity.
The CUV's translation of pneuma and psuche is surely not the only case in which a certain theological influence from the missionary transaltors may be detected and examined.Other examples include the CUV's translation of Greek words such as πρoϕητεύω (to prophesy) (cf.Menzies 2010, pp. 12-24), ζoή (life), λóγoς (word), ἐκκλεσία (church), βασιλεία (kingdom), oὐρανóς (heaven), βάπτισµα (baptism), αἵρεσις (heresy), µενó (abide), and πoιµήν (shepherd), and many theologically charged passages.As translators are called "the first-line doers of theology" (Noss 2002, p. 333), it behooves us to examine how Western theological traditions have influenced the development of Chinese Christinaity through the missionaries' translation of these theological terms and passages in the CUV and earlier Chinese Bible versions.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this paper showed that the Reformed theological tradition and specifically its dominant dichotomous view on human constitution have likely influenced the rendering of pneuma and psuche in four 19th-century Chinese Bible translations including the CUV, and this in turn has exerted a lasting influence on Chinese Christianity to this day.Commenting on the recent trend of China-centered studies on Chinese Christianity, Lian Xi wrote that this "redirecting of the spotlight to indigenous Chinese Christians should not deter us, however, from recognizing the basic historical chain of events in the rise of Chinese Christianity," and "Western missionaries, as carriers of the Gospel and initiators of China's encounter with Christianity, must be granted their critical role in the making of that movement" (Lian 2017, p. 32).Echoing Lian's remark, this paper hopes to have shown that the examination of the influences of the theology of the Western missionaries on Chinese Christianity through Bible translation is not only an underexplored research field worthy of further investigation but also a necessary missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that when discovered will help us see a more complete picture of Chinese Christianity both past and present.

Table 1 .
The translation of pneuma (spirit) in the four Gospels.

Table 2 .
Number of verses in which various Chinese words were used to translate pneuma in reference to human constitution in the New Testament.
Table 3 below shows.In Genesis 2:7, what was transalted as soul ( 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22 also in the translation of some key Old Testament verses related to human constitution, as Table 3 below shows.In Genesis 2:7, what was transalted as soul ( ‫שׁ‬ ‫ֶפֶ‬ ‫,נ‬ nephesh in Herbew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as yolingderen 有靈的人 (man with a spirit) in the CUV.In Genesis 41:8, what was translated as spirit ( ‫,רוּחַ‬ ruach in Hebrew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as xin 心 (heart) in the CUV.In Psalm 42:6, what was translated as soul (nephesh) in the KJV and the RV was transalted again as xin 心(heart) in the CUV.In contrast, the CRV's renderings, like the examples shown before, always translated what was spirit in the KJV/RV as ling 靈 (spirit) and what was soul in the KJV/RV as hun 魂

Table 3 .
The translation of ruach (spirit) and nephesh (soul) in the Old Testament.
below shows.In Genesis 2:7, what was transalted as soul ( ‫שׁ‬ ‫ֶפֶ‬ ‫,נ‬ nephesh in Herbew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as yolingderen 有靈的人 (man with a spirit) in the CUV.In Genesis 41:8, what was translated as spirit ( ‫,רוּחַ‬ ruach in Hebrew) in the KJV and the RV was transalted as xin 心 (heart) in the CUV.In Psalm 42:6, what was translated as soul (nephesh) in the KJV and the RV was transalted again as xin 心(heart) in the CUV.In contrast, the CRV's renderings, like the examples shown before, always translated what was spirit in the KJV/RV as ling 靈 (spirit) and what was soul in the KJV/RV as hun 魂

Table 3 .
The translation of ruach (spirit) and nephesh (soul) in the Old Testament.

Table 3 .
The translation of ruach (spirit) and nephesh (soul) in the Old Testament.