Navigating the Tension Between Christianity and Confucianism in Walter Henry Medhurst’s Translation of The Shoo King
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper primarily examines how Walter Henry Medhurst translated key concepts such as ren (仁), shen (神), and Shangdi (上帝) in his English rendition of the Book of Documents (Shangshu). Academic research on Medhurst’s translation of the Book of Documents remains limited, and this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of his work and its significance in cultural exchange.
- The article mainly compares Medhurst’s translation with that of Joseph de Prémare (Ma Ruose). However, as Prémare belonged to the Figurist (索隐派) faction, a minority group among Jesuit missionaries, the use of "Jesuit Christianity" in the title may not be entirely accurate. It would be more precise to replace it with "Figurist."
- The third section introduces the methodology of history of the book, but its application in the main body of the paper is insufficient, and the connection between the two is not tightly woven. This section could either be removed or revised for better integration.
- Typographical errors:
"王穆蔔" should be corrected to "王穆卜."
On page 16, "吴天" should be "昊天."
- In Example 3, Prémare’s translation is discussed, but it is difficult to discern Figurist influences in his rendering.
- The "Term Question" (li yi zhi zheng 礼仪之争) should be referred to as the "Term Controversy" or "Term Debate" (译名之争).
- On page 25, there is a repetition of "W.A.P. Martin" in the list of names: "such as W.A.P. Martin, John L. Nevius, and W.A.P. Martin."
- The conclusion section needs further strengthening.
- Medhurst’s translation could be more closely linked to his theological views, which would clarify his intentions in translating the Book of Documents and his choice of specific terminology.
- When translating the Book of Documents, did Medhurst exhibit arbitrariness or randomness? This is an issue that must be considered.
- Further supplementary references should be added.
- The paper must clearly distinguish its contributions from existing research by scholars such as Liu Litai and Liu Nianye, highlighting its unique value.
- The article includes too many examples; it would be better to focus on one or two specific cases, such as ren (仁) or shen (神).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent article in terms of data collection, interpretive analysis, textual evidence, and argument. The article is firmly grounded in deep knowledge and thorough research, clearly written and focused, systematically organized, and argued in articulate terms. Its theoretical methodology also serves well the overall arguments of the article. Readers who are interested in this topic will benefit a lot from this article.
I offer a few minor suggestions that might help to further clarify and highlight the key arguments of the article and to make it free of errors.
.1. The author states that Medhurst “endeavored to transmit Confucian thought to the West as authentically as possible” (p. 25) and suggests that he did so quite successfully in his translation of The Shoo King. To prove it, the author focuses on a select set of key concepts featured in a select set of sentences chosen from The Shoo King. As we know, The Shoo King consists of 58 chapters, contains hundreds of sentences, and employs hundreds of concepts to convey what it wants to convey. What the author examines is a fraction of them whether they are concepts or sentences. Readers might wonder how the author’s selective discussion is justified and contextualized, in what sense those key concepts discussed in the article represent what The Shoo King is supposed to mean, and to what extent the sentences cited in the article exhaust the multilayered or multiplex meanings of those key concepts. In addition, some readers might wonder why some key terms related to rituals and ceremonies, which are also central to The Shoo King, are examined not so vigorously enough.
.2. On p. 3, the author says that “Medhurst based his translation on Cai Shen’s Shoo King” and asks “whether Medhurst’s translation faithfully adheres to the original text of Cai Shen” in order to prove that he did. But in the main body of the article, the author rarely mentions or explores to what extent and how specifically Medhurst adhered the original text of Cai Shen. Readers might wonder to what extent Medhurst followed the lead of Cai Shen.
.3. All Chinese characters should all be unified into traditional characters. Some of them are rendered in simplified characters (jiantizi).
.4. A careful edit is needed. Some errors are found.
Author Response
Please see the attachment“A Response to Reviewer 2” the later one.
We are very grateful to the reviewers for their thorough review and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed all the review comments and improved the quality of this manuscript accordingly. Please find below our response to the review comments one-by-one.
Comment 1: The author states that Medhurst “endeavored to transmit Confucian thought to the West as authentically as possible” (p. 25) and suggests that he did so quite successfully in his translation of The Shoo King. To prove it, the author focuses on a select set of key concepts featured in a select set of sentences chosen from The Shoo King. As we know, The Shoo King consists of 58 chapters, contains hundreds of sentences, and employs hundreds of concepts to convey what it wants to convey. What the author examines is a fraction of them whether they are concepts or sentences. Readers might wonder how the author’s selective discussion is justified and contextualized, in what sense those key concepts discussed in the article represent what The Shoo King is supposed to mean, and to what extent the sentences cited in the article exhaust the multilayered or multiplex meanings of those key concepts. In addition, some readers might wonder why some key terms related to rituals and ceremonies, which are also central to The Shoo King, are examined not so vigorously enough.
Response: Done.
Thanks to the reviewer’s valuable suggestion, I have supplemented and analyzed my work accordingly. The reason for selecting only a limited number of sentences from among the hundreds in The Shoo King is that this article adopts a typological approach, focusing on representative cases to illuminate Medhurst’s translation strategies. For concepts not analyzed, Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide a systematic summary of Medhurst’s translations of key terms related to human-centered thought, Heaven, and the divine, all of which fall within the representative categories outlined in these tables.
The reviewer’s comments made me realize that my explanation of the article’s internal logic was insufficient. In response, I have revised the introductory sections following Chapters 4, 5, and 6 to clarify the logical structure and the specific purpose of each chapter. Each section has been reorganized to clearly state its aim, with a concise summary provided at the end.
Revised:
p.5: 4 The Tension Between Anthropocentrism in The Shoo King and Theocentrism in Christianity
Although The Shoo King is fundamentally a historical and political chronicle, it conveys the ideal of achieving social harmony through individual moral cultivation by portraying the words and actions of historical figures, thereby presenting a concrete manifestation of anthropocentric thought in practice. In contrast, Christianity underscores the supremacy of divinity and the salvific role of faith. As a nineteenth-century translator with a Christian background, Medhurst was inevitably confronted with the ontological divergence between Confucian anthropocentrism and Christian theocentrism. Ren, the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, and people-centered governance represent three key aspects of Confucian anthropocentric thought. This section examines how these concepts are transformed in Medhurst’s translation to elucidate his strategies for negotiating the relationship between anthropocentrism and theocentrism.
p.5: 4.1 The Evolution of Ren
Ren occupies a central position within the anthropocentric ethical system presented in The Shoo King, as exemplified by the assertion that “The benevolent is a human being” (ren zhe ren ye人者仁也). Ren’s fundamental principle—“the benevolent loves others” (ren zhe ai ren 仁者愛人)—is primarily manifested in the ethical domains of ritual propriety (li 禮), filial piety (xiao 孝), and moral virtue (de 德). Characterized by an inward-to-outward resonance of emotion, ren is rooted in genuine blood ties and is concretely embodied in familial ethics such as paternal kindness, filial devotion, and fraternal affection. This core virtue gradually extends beyond the confines of the family, evolving into a normative framework for broader moral practice in society, encompassing values such as respect, empathy, and altruism. The Shoo King vividly demonstrates both the concrete realization and the ideal embodiment of Ren through the words and actions of historical figures such as the Duke of Zhou, King Wu, and Shun. Medhurst's interpretation of Ren reflects his understanding of the philosophical and ethical distinctions between Chinese and Western thought.
p.13: 5 The Translation of Religious Concepts Associated with Divine
In The Shoo King, the concepts of Heaven (tian 天), God (di 帝), and Spirits (shen 神) serve as carriers of the relationship between the divine and human realms...In light of this, an important question arises: How did Medhurst render the ideas related to the divine in his translation of The Shoo King?
p.17: 5.2 On the Translation of Concept Related “Spirit” and “Shangdi”: “Virtue-Oriented” Rather Than Ritual and Faith-Oriented
In The Shoo King, the terms “Shangdi” and “spirit” originally denoted religious concepts rooted in the Chinese classical tradition. Unlike Western Christian texts, which emphasize ritual performance and faith, The Shoo King prioritizes the moral character of those conducting sacrifices. This raises a critical question: how did Medhurst approach the translation of terms such as “Shangdi” and “spirit,” whether his rendering effectively conveys the religious text’s underlying emphasis on moral virtue.
Comment 2: On p. 3, the author says that “Medhurst based his translation on Cai Shen’s Shoo King” and asks “whether Medhurst’s translation faithfully adheres to the original text of Cai Shen” in order to prove that he did. But in the main body of the article, the author rarely mentions or explores to what extent and how specifically Medhurst adhered the original text of Cai Shen. Readers might wonder to what extent Medhurst followed the lead of Cai Shen.
Response: Done.
The suggestion has significantly improved my paper. In response to the reviewer’s comments, the treatment of the differences between Cai Shen’s original text has been clarified, with substantial revisions concentrated in Chapter 6. Several revised examples are provided here.
（1）The summary section of Chapter 6 has been revised to pose several interconnected questions addressing the issue of fidelity to Cai Shen's annotated version. Since Cai Shen’s text is an annotated version of The Shoo King, it is more effective to study the differences from the perspectives of book history, paratexts, and the materiality of the book. The introduction now specifies that the analysis will proceed from four key perspectives.
p.21: 6. Exploring Medhurst’s Translational Position and Strategy from a Paratextual Perspective
Through the analysis above, it can be concluded that Medhurst's translation stands out in terms of its fidelity to core Confucian ideas, particularly when compared to the translations by Legge, Prémare, and Old. This raises an important question: How faithful is Medhurst's translation when compared to Cai Shen's annotated Shoo King? In addition, several sub-questions arise: What distinctive features of his paratexts, in comparison with the original, contributed to this high level of fidelity? What factors contributed to the relatively limited circulation of his translation despite its high fidelity? Why did he strive for such a faithful translation? To address these questions, this study conducts a systematic paratextual analysis of Medhurst's translation, focusing on the materiality of the book and its paratexts, such as the visual features, footnotes, prefaces, appendices, and illustrations.
（2）Following this approach, substantial revisions have been made to various sections of Chapter 6. For instance, the first section analyzes the translations of Medhurst and James Legge, highlighting that Medhurst’s character-based translation strategy stems from his background in printing. It also notes that both Medhurst and Legge based their translations on Cai Shen’s text, and proceeds to compare their emotional tone and sentence structure.
p.21: The strategy (character-by-character translation approach) reflects Medhurst's printing press background, where his daily engagement with Chinese type molds deepened his character-centric approach—a tendency not only evident in character-based translation strategy but also in his strong emphasis on the compilation of multiple dictionaries…
Both Medhurst and Legge based their translations on Cai Shen’s annotated edition. However, Medhurst adopts a character-by-character translation strategy that more effectively preserves the original syntax and cultural concepts with minimal adaptation…However, while this interspersion of Chinese and English ensures a high degree of fidelity to Cai Shen’s original text, it also results in clunky and disjointed readability for both Chinese and Western audiences, ultimately limiting the dissemination and reception of Medhurst's translation compared to Legge's.
（3）In the second section of Chapter 6, it is clarified that Medhurst both inherited and modified Cai Shen's work. Since Cai Shen’s edition is an annotated version, examining the annotations provides the most effective way to assess the differences between the two.
p.22: Since Cai Shen’s Shoo King is an annotated edition, comparing Medhurst’s annotations with those of Cai Shen provides the most effective way to assess how faithfully Medhurst’s translation aligns with—or diverges from—the original text.…Medhurst implemented Cai Shen’s principle of “conciseness and clarity,” (yao yan bu fan要言不煩), selectively abbreviating and rewriting certain elements. Compared to Cai Shen’s annotations on The Shoo King, Medhurst retained Chinese historical background information, explanations of distinctions between the “modern” (jin wen今文) and “an-cient” (gu wen古文) texts, and interpretations of difficult words. However, he omitted many of Cai Shen’s detailed glosses on variant characters, sentence structures, and indi-vidual word meanings, especially where the word served a merely grammatical function…Compared to Legge’s extensive annotation, Medhurst’s selective omission placed greater emphasis on historical context and ideological core of Cai Shen’s Shoo King, thereby avoiding over-interpretation and religious bias, and enabling Western readers to focus more on the cultural value and intellectual significance of the Chinese classic.
（4）We highlight the differences between the preface section and Cai Shen’s edition, emphasizing Medhurst’s commitment to fidelity in his preface. Additionally, we revise the text related to the visual differences and features between Medhurst’s translation and Cai Shen’s original text.
p.23: Medhurst’s translation includes two prefaces: one authored by himself and the other a translation of Cai Shen’s preface. In his preface, Medhurst highly commends the achievements of ancient China in science and technology, expressing his aspiration that Chinese wisdom could benefit European society. He also summarizes the purpose and guiding principles of his translation, with particular emphasis on his commitment to fidelity…
p.24-25: 6.4 Illustration Strategy: Illustrations as a Tool for Faithful Interpretation
One of the most distinctive features that sets Medhurst’s apart from Cai Shen’s original annotated edition and other translators’ versions is his extensive and deliberate use of illustrations—nearly 30 in total—covering maps, musical instruments, astronomical devices, genealogical charts, and various ritual artifacts.
Comment 3: All Chinese characters should all be unified into traditional characters. Some of them are rendered in simplified characters (jiantizi)；A careful edit is needed. Some errors are found.
Response: Done. The authors are sorry for our careless mistakes. As suggested by the reviewer, the necessary corrections have been made in the revised manuscript.
(1) In response to the reviewers’ comments, I carefully re-examined the original text and made substantial revisions, which are detailed in the attached file. A few representative examples are listed below:
p.16: “吴天” was revised to “昊天”
p.10: Added the translation of “經 (jing)”
p.10: Revised to “權變為仁” and “皇祖有訓”
p.11: Revised to “予視天下愚夫愚婦，一能勝予” and “愚夫愚婦”
p.2: Revised to “遐邇貫珍”
p.9: Revised to “諸行無常” and “允執厥中”
p.12: Revised to “以禮制心” and “禮于六宗”
p.14: Revised to “天時、人時、农時”
p.18: Revised to “聖”
p.5 “仁者愛人” “禮”
p.2 the tense was revised to past tense: “Wu Yixiong (2000: 216–217) further observed that these conflicts...”
p.18 Italicized in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis
p.14 Corrected a missing bracket in “Heaven's perception and observation (may be ascertained...”
p.18 Adjusted example numbering; for instance, Example 13 was renumbered as Example 14
(2) In many places, the logical structure has been clarified and made more coherent.
p.1: the differences between his treatment of Confucian thought of James Legge, Joseph de Prémare, Walter Gorn Old, and to the differences between his interpretation and Cai Shen’s annotated edition of The Shoo King…his study finds that Medhurst adhered to the principle of textual fidelity, striving to minimize the interference of his religious stance with the original meaning of Confucian thought. His translation of terms varied according to the context, especially reflecting the shift in The Shoo King from the idea of "Heaven’s mandate is inviolable" to "Heaven is not trustworthy." Additionally, he enhanced the communication of the original text's meanings through paratextual elements such as illustrations and footnotes, while retaining Cai Shen's historical background interpretations and significantly reducing the philological commentary, presenting a “concise and focused” annotation approach.
Previous Version: the differences between his translation and those of James Legge, Joseph de Prémare, Walter Gorn Old, and Cai Shen’s Shoo King…the study demonstrates that Medhurst maintained rigorous textual fidelity, minimized religious bias, and enriched the translation with visual elements. The study also reveals that Medhurst preserved relevant historical information from Cai Shen’s Shoo King, while omitting many of Cai Shen’s philological commentaries on individual characters.
(3) Revised the abstract to better align with the overall logic of the article.
p.1: This study adopts a "History of the Book" approach to examine how Medhurst, as a Protestant missionary, translated key Confucian anthropocentric concepts, including “Ren” (仁), the Doctrine of Mind-Nature, people-centered governance, and religious ideas related to the divine.
Previous Version: This study adopts a "history of the book" approach to examine how Medhurst, as a Protestant missionary, translated key Confucian concepts, including “Ren” (仁), anthropocentrism, people-centered governance, and religious ideas related to the divine.
(4) Made improvements to several overly wordy paragraphs.
p.18: "Fragrance" serves as a medium through which humans express reverence toward the divine and stands as a central motif in many literary texts…In The Shoo King, virtue is regarded as the essential medium between humans and the divine, surpassing the significance of material rituals. Medhurst’s translation reflects this interpretation by skillfully transforming the image of “fragrance” from a literal scent into a symbol of moral excellence, through phrases such as “perfect government” and “re-splendent virtue.” His rendering communicates that it is the ruler’s virtue, not the physical offering, that resonates with the divine—a reading that stands in marked contrast to the faith- and ritual-centered framework of The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis.
Previous Version: “Fragrance” serves as a means for humans to express reverence toward the divine, becoming an important theme shared across various civilizations.…In terms of translating the imagery of “spirit” and “fragrance,” Medhurst accurately conveys the core Confucian idea—that what truly moves the divine is the ruler’s virtue, not the physical fragrance of offerings. This translation contrasts sharply with the sacrificial concepts in Western religious traditions, where Christianity and other religions emphasize sacrifice and the “pleasing aroma” as symbols of reconciliation between humans and the divine, stressing faith and ritual, as well as the absolute authority of God.
p.24: One of the most distinctive features that sets Medhurst’s translation apart from Cai Shen’s original annotated edition and other translators’ versions is his extensive and deliberate use of illustrations—nearly 30 in total—covering maps, musical instruments, astronomical devices, genealogical charts, and various ritual artifacts…Another notable feature of the illustrations in Medhurst's translation is their gradient distribution, with a high concentration at the beginning of the volume and a gradual decline toward the end. This design may have been shaped by time constraints, or it may have been deliberately intended to guide readers to concentrate on the textual content in the later sections after establishing a cognitive framework in the early chapters…Additionally, Medhurst’s prefaces and appendices underscore his deep respect for ancient Chinese science, technology, and philosophy, as well as his commitment to fidelity to the text. Finally, a particularly notable feature is his extensive use of illustrations and charts, especially in the first half of the translation. This approach enhances the informational density and aesthetic appeal of the work in comparison to Cai Shen’s original an-notated edition and other translators' versions.
p.15: Both Old’s and Medhurst’s translations position “Heaven” and “the people” within an interactive relationship, but the core concepts underlying each differs significantly. Old, through the use of the phrase “is itself,” emphasizes the equivalence of popular will and the will of Heaven. However, this interpretation fails to convey the deep reverence for "Heaven" held by the people during the slave society period, and does not reflect the his-torical context in the first half of The Shoo King, where Heaven was regarded as supreme over humanity. As a result, the English full translation of him does not capture the transi-tion from the blind veneration of Heaven during the slave society to the Zhou dynasty’s notion of human agency surpassing the heavenly mandate.
In contrast, Medhurst employs expressions such as “may be ascertained from” to propose a specific logical framework: the will of Heaven is not unknowable or entirely transcendent, but can be observed, tested, and interpreted through the will of the people. In Medhurst’s interpretation, while the will of the people may serve as a manifestation or re-flection of the will of Heaven, the two should not be regarded as equivalent in authority. This logic not only departs from the Christian conception of Heaven as a mystical oracu-lar authority, but also reflects the reverential attitude toward Heaven prevalent in slave society, thereby offering a valuable reference point for understanding the gradual shift in the concept of Heaven’s authority in the later chapters of The Shoo King, where the notion of 'Heaven is untrustworthy' begins to emerge."
In summary, Old’s twentieth-century translation, influenced by Enlightenment thought, elevates the importance of popular will but fails to faithfully reflect the original ideological context of reverence for Heaven characteristic of the slave society period. In contrast, Medhurst’s rendering remains more aligned with the original intent of The Shoo King, acknowledging the transcendent authority of Heaven in the early chapters and preserving the text’s internal evolution in conceptions of Heaven from the slave society to the Zhou dynasty.
(5) Revise the title of 6.4 to make it more coherent.
6.4 Illustration Strategy: Illustrations as a Tool for Faithful Interpretation.
(6) Be considerate of general readers and articulate ideas with precision. The revision involved changing the original “Delegates’ Version” to “Delegates’ Version of the Bible” in order to better serve general readers and achieve more precise expression.
p.2: The translation of religious terminology in Medhurst’s works has long been a focal point of scholarly debate, particularly in discussions concerning the Delegates’ Version (1847–1854) of the Bible.
Previous Version: The translation of religious terminology in Medhurst’s works has long been a focal point of scholarly debate, especially about the Delegates’ Version.”
Revised: I nonetheless dedicated significant time and effort to enhancing the manuscript. Revisions were made extensively in logical structure, syntactic clarity, and case-related details to ensure the work meets a high standard of academic quality. The remaining revisions have been highlighted in the original text.
