Neither Xi (洗) Nor Jin (浸),But Fu (袚): Zhang Yijing’s (张亦镜) Translation of Baptism,Viewed from the Perspective of Identity

Background

True Light was the publication of the Baptist Churches in China (jinxin hui, 浸信会) in the first half of the twentieth century. At that time, its editor was a man called Zhang Yijing (张亦镜). ¹ In 1923, a Chinese Christian reader of True Light named Yan Xiaozhi (严小植) wrote to the editor with a question about baptism. It was a question about the translation of the term “baptism” into the Chinese language, but behind it lay a long history of interpretation about the true meaning of Christian baptism. For this paper it raises deeper questions of how the identity of the new Christian community was developing. The reader’s question was deceptively simple, concerning two words—xi (洗) and jin (浸)—used to translate the name “John the Baptist.” Yan asked, “in the Bible why is shixi yuehan (施洗约翰) used and not shijin yuehan (施浸约翰)?” (Zhang, 1923). ²

“Baptize” usually has Chinese equivalents shixi (施洗) and shijin (施浸). The verb shi (施) means to put into force (shixing, 施行) or apply (shijia, 施加). Xi (洗) means to wash away (xiqu, 洗去) or clear out (chuqu, ³ 除去) while jin (浸) means to immerse (jinpao, 浸泡), soak (jintou, 浸透) or permeate (shenru, 渗入). “Baptism” has the two translations xili (洗礼) and jinli (浸礼), but most Baptist churches use the translation jin xin hui (浸信会) for their denomination instead of xi xin hui (洗信会). ⁴

Baptism was translated zhan (蘸, to dip in) in the Chinese Bible of 1811 by John Marshman, a Baptist missionary from the United Kingdom. Morrison’s 1814 version adopted xi (洗) for baptism, which became popular later. Josiah Goddard, an American Baptist missionary, used jin (浸) in his version of 1868.

Zhang answered Yan by saying that “John the Baptist” actually was rendered shijin yuehan (施浸约翰) in Bibles translated and used by the Baptist Churches, and may have been referring to Goddard’s version (高德译本).

Zhang explained his view of the original form of baptism by referring to Jesus’ baptism in the River Jordan and that of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. The whole bodies of both Jesus and the eunuch were pushed into the water, from which they then emerged. For Zhang, Acts 8:38 clearly showed that Philip went down into the water with the eunuch; he viewed the sprinkling of water on the forehead as a heteromorphosis of baptism. Zhang said that at the sight of βάπτισμα, the Greek word for baptism, Greek-speaking people would immediately gain a sense of pushing a person’s whole body into the water, so the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church did not change the rite. However, the Latin translation achieved equivalence in sound, but the meaning was lost, which happened in Western countries as well. As a result, a change happened to the rite. People could either follow the Bible by keeping the original form or practice a heteromorphosis of baptism. Zhang lamented the divergence because he believed that there should be one baptism as stated in Ephesians 4:5.

Next, Zhang reviewed how xi (洗) was chosen by Catholic missionaries in the Ming dynasty, which fitted their mode of baptism better, and how Protestant missionaries in the mid-Qing dynasty kept this translation. However, some churches which insisted on baptism by immersion believed that xi (洗) was not a good choice; although it did suggest the pushing of the whole body into water, they reasoned that going into and coming up from the water at baptism were unlike the actions of xishou (washing hands) or xiyi (washing clothes). Moreover, the use of xi (洗) would not help to distinguish churches that practiced baptism by immersion from those which sprinkled water on the forehead. This is why jin (浸) was chosen and a version of the New Testament also translated “John the Baptist” as shijin yuehan (施浸约翰). Nonetheless, Zhang himself wished that all denominations could have stuck to one Chinese translation, avoiding different terms for baptism.

In fact, Zhang thought that even jin (浸) could not fully convey the original sense of “baptism.” Furthermore, jin (浸) did not sound refined enough to him, and so when the China Continuation Committee ⁵ (中华续行委办会) called for a unified term in around 1913, Zhang voted for neither xi (洗) nor jin (浸). Instead, he created a new Chinese character bo () ⁶ by adding a radical shui (氵) (meaning “water”) to the character fu (袚). Zhang argued that fu (袚) itself meant cleansing of filth by immersion into water, which was close to the biblical idea of baptism, and that the water radical (氵) would immediately enable people to recognize bo () as an activity carried out with water. In addition, the pronunciation would change from fu to bo and the new character would sound like the first syllable of “βάπτισμα” (“baptism” in Greek). Xie Honglai ⁷ (谢洪赉), who was responsible for this unification of Christian terms in the China Continuation Committee (中华续行委办会), thought highly of this new character and listed four reasons supporting its creation in a letter to all denominations (Zhang, 1920).

The first reason was that fu (袚) meant “purifying with water” according to The Book of Odes (诗经), an ancient classic of Confucianism. According to The Rites of Zhou (周礼), another Confucian text, and The History of the Jin Dynasty (晋书), in ancient times all people, officials and the masses, would go to a river or lake for a purification rite on a certain day each year. This practice was very popular in the Han (202 BC–AD 220) and Jin (AD 226–420) dynasties. The second reason was that according to books written in the Han dynasty the word fu (袚) implied the “replacing [of] the old with the new.” The History of Nations ⁸ uses 袚心 (fuxin) for the replacement of an old heart with a new one. Xie’s third reason was that according to the Han dynasty The Origin of Chinese Characters (说文解字), fu (袚) was a sacrificial rite for getting rid of evil. The character also implied worshipping a god because the radical yi (衤) conveys such a meaning and was thus very appropriate for a religious rite. Fourthly, since all characters with the radical ba (犮) could be pronounced as pu, bo or qie, this new combination of shui (氵) and fu (袚) could be pronounced similarly to the first syllable of the Greek word for baptism. Thus, it was an ideal choice.

Two important issues arose in response to his proposal. First, there were more opposing opinions than approving voices among the different denominations. ⁹ In Xie’s letter to Zhang, he lamented that the disagreements concerning baptism were so great that his new creation bo () could not be adopted to translate “baptism.” Secondly, Xie told Zhang about Wang Tianmu (王天木), a Christian in Jiangxi province, who translated baptism simply as fu (袚). Zhang was pleased that someone else shared his understanding of fu (袚), though this was only part of his creation bo ().

Six or seven years later, Zhang made a discovery about the character fu (袚), concluding from his research in the archives ¹⁰ of the Tang dynasty that the Nestorians (who existed in China AD 635–845) used it to denote baptism. He assumed that the Chinese believers, many of whom were erudite scholars according to the Nestorian Stele, must have realized that fu (袚) could represent the meaning of the original Greek more accurately than jin (浸) or xi (洗) (Zhang, 1920).

Zhang was very excited that Chinese Christians 1400 years earlier had used the character fu (袚) and became convinced that this was the best word for “baptism.” Thus Zhang gave up his creation bo () and followed Wang Tianmu’s (王天木) use of fu (袚) in the hope that the old Nestorian usage might be one day restored. What follows is a deeper analysis of this decision.

The Insufficiency of Translation Strategies as an Explanation for Zhang’s Word Choice

We can see that Zhang’s philosophy of translation can be described in terms of modern translation theories, although he of course would have known nothing about these. He basically viewed “βάπτισμα” as meaning the “cleansing of filth by going into and coming up out of the water,” but was also concerned about equivalence in sound, meaning and readers’ responses. When he chose a Chinese word with the precise contextual meaning of “βάπτισμα,” he adopted a semantic translation approach similar to that described by Peter Newmark (2001: 39) or a formal equivalence like that of Eugene Nida (1982: 24), seen in the fact that he rejected xi (洗) and jin (浸) because they did not express the original meaning as accurately as he wished. His attempt to produce an association with water by creating a character with the water radical, somehow similar to the Greek “βάπτισμα,” represents a communicative translation like that of Newmark (2001: 39) or a dynamic equivalence (also known as functional equivalence) like that of Nida (1982: 24). These translation strategies are helpful to us in understanding Zhang’s choices. However, they alone do not explain the conclusions he reached or the choices he made. The following evidence supports this assertion.

Firstly, it is hard to explain Zhang’s rejection of xi (洗) by translation strategies alone. Zhang’s point was that churches insisting on full immersion baptism thought that being baptized was not like xishou (washing hands) or xiyi (washing clothes) and therefore created the character bo ()—later developed into fu (袚)—because the latter meant “cleansing of filth by putting into water.” Yet the character xi (洗) also means washing away (xiqu, 洗去) or clearing out (chuqu, 除去) by water, and xishou (washing hands) and xiyi (washing clothes) usually involves submerging into water. Those being baptized are different from clothes and hands being washed, but xi (washing) can also be applied to people, as in xiyu (taking a bath, 洗浴) which requires staying in water for some time. Xi (洗) and fu (袚) have similar meanings and thus the rejection of xi (洗) was not simply a matter of semantic translation or formal equivalence. There must be other reasons.

Another possible explanation for Zhang’s opposition to xi (洗) was that he preferred a more homophonic translation. This is pursuit of formal equivalence. As described earlier, Zhang originally thought “袚” was pronounced “fu” so added the water radical to enable it to be rendered bo, achieving a homophonic translation. After hearing from Xie Honglai that “袚” itself could be pronounced as “bo,” Zhang had no problem using the original fu (袚) instead. This shows that it is not valid to suggest that his main problem with xi (洗) was that it sounded nothing like “baptism” because another radical could have been added to xi (洗) to give it the sound bo.

Secondly, it is hard to understand why Zhang gave up bo (), a demonstration of his originality and creativity, to follow Wang’s fu (袚). We might assume this change resulted from humility and the realization that fu (袚) was as good as his creation bo (). Yet we must notice that Zhang did not change his position from bo () to fu (袚) immediately after learning of Wang Tianmu’s choice of fu (袚). ¹¹ Even though Zhang realized that fu (袚) could be pronounced bo and even though the two are semantically similar, bo () still has the advantage that its radical shui (氵) provides an immediate association with water. Moreover, Zhang knew that, just like his own bo (), fu (袚) was not chosen as the unified term for baptism by the China Continuation Committee (中华续行委办会) in 1913 either. He had no apparent reason to follow the rejected word fu (袚). Still, he chose fu (袚) without any struggle over the loss of the water radical. Communicative translation or dynamic equivalence itself alone cannot provide a satisfying answer to this question.

So Zhang Yijing’s rejection of xi (洗) and jin (浸), his creation of the new character bo () and his later change to fu (袚) went beyond the domain of pure translation strategies and have revealed something deeper about his approach to translation. Viewing Zhang’s approach from the perspective of identity might provide a fuller explanation of the choices he was making.

Analysis from the Perspective of Identity

Before employing this psychological concept to examine Zhang’s approach to translation, it is necessary to give a short introduction.

Erikson (1968: 17) defines identity as “a sense of personal sameness and historical continuity;” it refers to “a subjective experience of a person’s core aspects, to the social recognition of these same core aspects, and to the interaction of personal and social contextual processes.” Based on this, Côté (2001: 4) analyzes the sense of identity at different levels: ego, personal, and social identity. Building on Erikson’s identity development theories, Marcia (1966) notices two key issues: (1) exploration of options in the occupational and ideological realms (e.g. choice of career and personal values, respectively) and (2) a person’s subsequent commitment to a choice of occupation and set of values to live by and remain faithful to (what Erikson called “fidelity”). Kunnen and Bosma (2003) emphasize the importance of commitments to one’s identity, claiming that they provide self-definition and recognition by others. Commitments are links between persons and contexts and from the central elements in the process of identity development. Firm commitments in important domains of life are actually identity choices, and for an individual represent the things he or she cares about or values most. They have social significance and provide an individual with a definition of the self (Bourne, 1978: 227, cited in Kunnen and Bosma, 2003: 250).

Understanding Zhang’s background is important for determining the role his commitments played in his translation activities. He was the first Christian in his family. From childhood, he received a Confucian education in his hometown and later became a Confucian teacher in a village in 1888. In 1892, three Chinese preachers from a Baptist church in Guangzhou helped him understand what Christianity advocates and he decided to become a Christian. In 1893, a Baptist pastor named Lu Zizhen (鲁子珍) baptized him.

We have observed that Zhang’s opposition to xi (洗) cannot be fully explained by semantic translation or formal equivalence. A plausible explanation is his respect for his predecessors in the denomination who preferred jin (浸) over xi (洗) because they insisted on a word which implied immersion. Furthermore, when Zhang articulated his rejection of xi (洗), he did not state his own opinions but quoted his predecessors. In order to protect them, Zhang did not say clearly that they belonged to Baptist Churches but just mentioned that some churches insisted on full immersion. However, he is quoted as saying:

By this choice of jin (浸), they could demonstrate their denomination’s stance on the rite of baptism. Therefore, there is a version of the New Testament in which shijin yuehan (施浸约翰) is used to translate John the Baptist. (Zhang, 1923)

Thus it is clear whom Zhang was talking about. Speaking of his denomination, Zhang said the Baptists were among those who had remained closest to the ideals of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century and thus practiced the original form of baptism. His strong commitment to his denomination shows us that being part of the Baptist Church, or his social identity as a member, was one hidden reason for his opposition to the word xi (洗). He wanted to maintain uniformity and consistency among his denomination.

There were two reasons for Zhang’s rejection of the Baptist standard term jin (浸), although he did not spell them out clearly. ¹² Firstly, jin (浸) does not have the meaning of “washing away filth” which for Zhang was part of the original meaning of baptism. Secondly, this word jin (浸) did not sound elegant and refined enough; immersing (jinpao, 浸泡), soaking (jintou, 浸透) and permeating (shenru, 渗入) all give the impression of staying in water for quite some time and might lead to a mental picture of something swollen or a person covered by sweat. For Zhang, the word used for baptism should be appropriate and able to convey its meaning such that people would not only feel more respectful toward Christianity but also have a deeper understanding of the cleansing from sin. This reveals both his concern with Chinese readers’ responses and commitment to Christianity.

Zhang was a conservative Christian and his strong commitment to Jesus could be seen in his words:

I would rather be ridiculed as stupid and naive all my life because I sing praises, read the Bible and pray than to be rejected by the Christ who made people holy. (Zhang, 1907)

Zhang also firmly insisted on the authority of the Bible. In 1918, he said:

The truth in the Bible is incontestable. All people were sinners. God sent Jesus to save them. He was born of a virgin. Whoever believed and received baptism had salvation and whoever rejected had condemnation. (Zhang, 1918)

It is worth remembering Zhang’s opinion that there should be only one baptism. In fact, his commitment to the faith and respect for the authority of the Bible made him unhappy to see different translations of “baptism” and wish for a unified term, as clearly expressed in his answer to Yan’s question about the translation of “John the Baptist.” He wished that no dispute had ever happened over the translation and that all the churches had used the same term, whether jin (浸) or xi (洗). In his mind, such disputes jeopardized the authority of the Bible.

Furthermore, the different denominations and churches in China all had their own strategies, which left the public with the impression that Christians were competing with each other instead of living in love and peace. Christianity in China suffered criticism because of this and that was why the China Continuation Committee (中华续行委办会) called for the unification of terms. Zhang was also concerned about this disunity. Because Christianity was facing criticism for lacking cooperation and causing divisions, he did not clearly say it had been Baptists who disagreed with the translation xi (洗) and adopted the alternative jin (浸). With his social group identity as a Baptist, he wanted to protect his denominational predecessors and take pride in this heritage. Yet, because of his commitment to Christianity in general, he also wished to defend the image of his faith in the face of criticism that Christians formed cliques, rejecting jin (浸) and offering his own translation.

Of Xie Honglai’s (谢洪赉) four reasons for supporting bo (), the first three relate to the usage of fu (袚) in the Confucian classics. The example of “replacing the heart” (fuxin, 袚心) is particularly significant. Heart or xin (心) is a very important concept in Confucianism because it often denotes morality and conscience, which is the way of serving Heaven. Mencius said:

A man who gives full realization to his heart will understand his own nature, and a man who knows his own nature will know Heaven. The retention of his heart and the nurturing of his nature are the means by which he serves Heaven. Whether he is going to die young or to live to a ripe old age makes no difference to his steadfastness of purpose. It is through awaiting whatever is to befall him with a perfected character that he stands firm on his proper Destiny. (Mencius 孟子, Jin xin shang 尽心上)

To achieve the Confucian ideals of “manifesting virtues, then helping others to manifest virtues and finally reaching the supreme goodness or perfection (明明德, 亲民, 止于至善),” one has to “rectify his heart” or zhengxin (正心) which was one of the eight necessary means. ¹³ It is evident that the significance of fu (袚) was very prominent in Chinese culture because it had once been used to describe the way to the supreme goodness, the highest Confucian ideal.

Xie Honglai (谢洪赉) died in 1916. Zhang’s 1920 quotation of Xie’s approval reveals that both were proud of the Chinese cultural heritage reflected in the characters fu (袚) and bo (). Zhang’s commitment to his culture can also be seen elsewhere. For example, he interpreted “heaven” in the Bible through the Confucian ideal of reaching “the supreme goodness (zhishan, 至善).” He also viewed Chinese ancient sages as equal with the ancient Jews, claiming that their knowledge of God was as deep as the ancient Jews, and believed that they had gone to heaven (Zhang, 1922).

However, the fact that Zhang gave up his creation bo () and insisted on fu (袚) was not motivated by his commitment to his culture or cultural identity because bo () includes fu (袚). It is important to remember that Zhang did not change his choice until he found that the Tang Nestorians used 袚 (fu) for baptism. The significance of this finding for Zhang can be appreciated when one considers Chinese attitudes toward Buddhism and Christianity at the time. Buddhism arrived in China around AD 67 and was then indigenized (Wu and Zheng, 1995) and accepted as part of Chinese culture such that no one would have thought conversion to Buddhism strange; being Buddhist as a cultural or a religious identity had become part of the identity of the Chinese. But Christianity in China before 1949 was and is still viewed by some people as a cultural aggression and a tool of the imperialists. ¹⁴ There used to be sayings like “one more Christian, one less Chinese” and “Christian schools are factories for producing foreigners’ slaves” (Li CF, 1924a). Almost all Chinese Christians in mainland China have felt the agony of the identity split between being Christian and being Chinese. In his research, Zhang Yijing demonstrated that not only had the Nestorians existed in China a long time ago, unknown to most Chinese of the time, but also had tried to indigenize by translating baptism as fu (袚), which he believed would remind people of the long history of the gospel in China and hopefully make Christianity as welcome as Buddhism. Hence, fu (袚) signifies a union of the two identities, Christian and Chinese. We can fully understand why Zhang gave up his own creation and followed Wang Tianmu, insisting that there was no better choice than fu (袚).

Conclusion

From the analysis of Zhang’s translation of “baptism” we have seen how his social identity as a Baptist, his religious identity as a follower of Jesus, his cultural identity as a Confucian and his national identity as a Chinese influenced him. This leads to the conclusion that, while it is important to take translation strategies into consideration, these alone cannot fully explain Zhang’s translation choices. It is important to include the perspective of identity to help understand his reasoning in a deeper way.