100 THE EEV. T. H. DARLOW^ ON THE CHARACTER 



frequently made an unofficial translation of the Latin Vulgate by 

 turning one or more of its verses into French. Surely it was 

 better for the people to have a translation of the Holy Scriptures 

 carefully made direct from the Hebrew and Greek by a number of the 

 most learned and pious men in a nation, than to hear such fragmentary 

 and unofficial translations as any chance parish priest might give. 



Mr. Martin, who had had some experience of the difficulty of 

 presenting Christian truth in the Chinese language, spoke of the 

 problem which had faced translators in finding the right term for 

 God, whether Shun = Spirit, or Shang-Ti = Supreme Euler. The 

 former term is indefinite, and the latter, although used in Chinese 

 Classics, has become obscured by the canonisation of a man in the 

 first century A.D., to whom was given the title " Shang-Ti.'' 

 Either term must be explained or " converted " before conveying 

 the required meaning. 



Many words in the language need deepening ; there is no word 

 for " love," the nearest being " like." Therefore, to express " love," 

 one of two words is added, " pain," or " dote," viz., " to painfully 

 like " or " to dotingly like." 



There is a lack of a word to express the Christian idea of sin, the 

 nearest equivalent being " to offend " ; to intensify this thought the 

 words for " vile " or " evil " are added. 



But experience puts new meaning into language, and during 

 recent revivals in China the old words for sin and love have taken 

 on deeper meanings to the Christians. 



The Nestorian Church in China is an example of a Church 

 without a Bible, which has perished, the sole memorial being the 

 Nestorian Tablet, erected in a.d. 781 at Sianfu, in Shensi Province. 



The Eev. J. Sharp expressed his gratitude to Mr. Darlow for his 

 admirable paper. He would not criticize any part of it, but add a 

 remark on one or two points. Mr. Darlow pointed out that the 

 Greek of the New Testament was the vernacular of daily life ; the 

 familiar language of home. In Eastern lands there was usually a 

 great difference between the literary language and the home language. 

 In India, for instance, the educated classes, and the pundits, wished 

 to have their translation of the Bible in the literary language ; but 

 they never used this themselves in their own homes, and the great 

 mass of the people, and the very members of their own households, 

 neither spoke it nor understood it. So the Bible Society was trying 



