As Christmas
approaches, I thought we might again discuss Christianity in
Tang China (618–907). In an earlier post (see here), we surveyed the basic history of this religion during the period in question, so I will direct readers to this earlier discussion if they are not already familiar with the topic. What I want to discuss in the current post is the references to the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi in Chinese sources from the Tang period. I believe these references can tell us something about how Christianity was first transmitted and what sort of direction it took over the course of its maturation in medieval China.
The
earliest reference to the Star of Bethlehem – and to Jesus himself – is found
in the Xuting Mishi suo jing 序聽迷詩所經 (T
2142), i.e., the Jesus-Messiah Scripture.
This curious text was apparently rediscovered in the twentieth-century and purchased
in China by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎. Although its authenticity
is not entirely accepted by all modern scholars, I tend to think the text
itself is authentic based on its content and vocabulary.
To give
some background to the text, the so-called “Nestorian Stele” erected in 781 explains
that in the year 635, a mission led by Aluoben 阿羅夲 from the country
of Daqin 大秦 (a
general term for the Levant) arrived in the Chinese capital Chang’an 長安. We
also know that in 638, the “Persian monk” (波斯僧)
Aluoben presented his scriptural teachings (經教) to the
court as tribute. These new teachings were considered beneficial, and thus the
court ordered the construction of a monastery in Chang’an, which marks the
beginning of formal Christian activity in China. The Jesus-Messiah Scripture as it presently exists is not fully extant,
although there is still ample content. This text describes the life of Jesus
including the Virgin birth, his baptism by John, his miracles, arrest,
crucifixion and resurrection, in addition to general Christian precepts for
daily life. It also
uses various foreign names and terms in Chinese apparently translated from Syriac
(Jehovah 序娑, Messiah 彌師訶, Mary 末艶, Jesus
移鼠, Jerusalem 烏梨師𣫍, Jordan 述難, John 若昏,
Pilatus 毘羅都思, Golgotha 訖句). The
author of this text continually insists upon the virtue of filial piety, as
well as including frequent respectful addresses to the Chinese Emperor, indicating a conscious adaptation to Chinese
values.
In
addition to these features, the Chinese grammar and vocabulary of this text are
highly irregular, even employing Buddhist vocabulary, leading to the impression
that it is probably a literal translation of something from another language, such
as Middle Persian, with further editing to adequately convey religious ideas in
Chinese. It might also not be a translation of a preexisting text, but rather
could be a translation of an oral testimony concerning the history and basic
doctrines of Christianity. It is quite evident that whoever translated was not a professional translator, but we should bear in mind that attempting to convey the ideas of a foreign religion into a new language for the first time would have been considerably difficult. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as scholars have
already done, that the text stems from Aluoben’s mission to China in the 630s.
If this is the case, then the first datable reference to the Star of Bethlehem
in Chinese is around 638. The relevant line reads as follows, which includes a close
translation of the Chinese:
此天尊在於天上，普署天地。當產移鼠迷師訶，所在世間，居見明果在於天地。辛星居知在於天上，星大如車輪。
This Divinely Honored One [i.e., God] is in Heaven, universally
presiding over Heaven and Earth. When Jesus the Messiah was born, being present in the world, there appeared brilliant fruits [signs?] in
Heaven and Earth. A new star was recognized in the sky above. The star was great
like a wagon-wheel.
Again,
the Chinese is awkward, but it is clear that this is referring to the Star of
Bethlehem, mentioned in the Book of Matthew (2:1–12), which signaled the birth of
the Messiah. Curiously, the text states Jesus was born “in the city of
Jerusalem in the park [=country] of Rome 拂林園烏梨師𣫍城中.” Here 烏梨師𣫍 is clearly from Syriac Urishlim, i.e., Jerusalem (see here for pronunciation of the Syriac). The character yuan 園 (park) is a scribal error of guo 國 (country).
Bethlehem is actually a separate settlement south of Jerusalem, so this is
anomalous. Fu lin 拂林 here would
have been pronounced at the time in Middle Chinese as pʰjuət ljəm (Schuessler IPA) or something approximating this, which
is the name “Rome” borrowed from an Iranian language, such as Sogdian frwn and brwn, or Middle Persian hrōm.
The
Christian community was formally established in China in the 630s, but it was generally
insignificant in terms of cultural and religious influence until the
late-eighth century. Their community would have been mostly comprised of
ethnically Iranian people as well as a few other foreigners who had traveled
from the Near East. It is noteworthy that the first datable reference to the seven-day
week in Chinese is also found in the text at hand: “On that day, they took the
Messiah and tied him to wood [i.e., a cross] for five hours. This was on the
sixth fasting day [Friday] 其日將彌師訶木上縛著五時是六日齋.” Nevertheless,
the custom of the seven-day week was still unknown to most Chinese until the
following century, when it was Buddhists who implemented its widespread use in
East Asia. This point illustrates that the early Chinese Christian community was limited in its influence.
This
community, however, later rose to more significant prominence in the late
eighth-century. The clergyman Li Su 李素 (743–817),
for instance, worked as a court astronomer in the capital. The mature Tang
Christian community also appears to have become increasingly Sinicized, which
is evident from the so-called Nestorian Stele that was erected in 781. The
stele describes Christ’s birth, Christian doctrine, a short history of the
faith in China from the arrival of the first mission in 635, a eulogy, and a
list of names of clergymen. We also see in the inscription the second known reference
to the star of Bethlehem:
神天宣慶，室女誕聖於大秦。景宿告祥，波斯覩耀以来貢。
The
angel proclaimed good tidings. The Virgin gave birth to the Sage in
Daqin [the Levant]. The luminous asterism indicated a portent. The Persian(s) witnessed the
brilliance and came to pay tribute.
This is
in reference to the Book of Matthew (2:1–2):
1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in
the east, and are come to worship him. (King James Version)
There
are two things I would like to note here.
 |
| Magi bear gifts to an infant Jesus. 3rd Century Sarcophagus. Vatican Museum (Rome). Wikimedia Commons |
First,
in contrast to the stele that reads “Persian(s)” (Bosi 波斯), Matthew 2:1 in
Greek reads μάγοι, i.e., Magi, which was translated in the King James Version (completed
in 1611) as “wise men” (see here). The Peshitta,
the standard version of the Bible in Syriac, gives “Magoshi” (see English
translation at available at http://www.peshitta.org/).
The Magi, of course, hail from Persia, so the stele’s choice of vocabulary is
not entirely erroneous, although it is curious.
I suspect the author of the inscription, the famous translator Adam 景淨, decided to use a term which would have been immediately recognizable to Chinese readers, rather than using a transliteration of Magoshi or some other functional equivalent from the Buddhist or Daoist lexicons (Fashi 法師 “Dharma Master” or Daoshi 道士 “Daoist Lord” might have worked well in capturing the idea of a figure adept in rituals and religious lore).
I suspect the author of the inscription, the famous translator Adam 景淨, decided to use a term which would have been immediately recognizable to Chinese readers, rather than using a transliteration of Magoshi or some other functional equivalent from the Buddhist or Daoist lexicons (Fashi 法師 “Dharma Master” or Daoshi 道士 “Daoist Lord” might have worked well in capturing the idea of a figure adept in rituals and religious lore).
 |
| Depiction of a Persian (6th cent.) Zhigong tu 職貢圖 Wikimedia Commons |
The
problem here, however, is that the term they used has no such religious or
occult sense to it. In fact, Bosi 波斯 in this
period had a significantly different connotation: Persians were stereotyped as
wealthy merchants. The author Li Shangyin 李商隱 (813–858)
gives a list of things that are considered “unsuitable” or “unreasonable”
(meant to be humorous), the first of which is a “poor Persian” (窮波斯). He
also mentions “an ill physician” (病醫人) and “a teacher
illiterate and a butcher reciting sūtras” (先生不識字屠家念經). The
idea here is that such things ought not to happen, so it would be amusing if
they did. The stereotype about Persians being wealthy no doubt reflects their
status as merchants in Tang Chinese society.
The
point to take away here is that Adam’s choice of word to describe the Magi was,
in reality, a bit off. What does this indicate? It seems to suggest that Adam simply
understood the Magi as Persians who came to offer tribute to the Messiah
when he was born. Although this might be reading too much into the text on my part, there
is another part of the cited passage from the stele that caught my attention.
The
word in Biblical Greek for “star” in Matthew 2:2 is ἀστήρ (astér), which simply means “star” (see here). The corresponding Chinese term, which I translate as “luminous asterism” is jing xiu 景宿. The latter
character in any astronomical context normally refers to the twenty-eight
Chinese lunar stations (i.e., constellations through which the Moon transits)
or, especially in the Buddhist context, the twenty-seven or twenty-eight nakṣatras, which are also constellations
through which the Moon transits over the course of its monthly circuit (in China the
indigenous model was used as a functional equivalent when translating the
Indian terms).
In the year 781 when the stele was erected, Adam should have presumably understood that this character does not refer to a star in the singular. Although this variance might merely have been a stylistic decision, I have to wonder if there is more to this than just that.
It is
quite likely that the Chinese Christian community in the later part of the Tang
dynasty had become quite Sinicized. As the available evidence indicates, it
does not appear that their community translated the Bible in its entirety into
Chinese. Although we can probably safely guess that the clergy possessed the
Bible in Syriac, we might speculate that their clerics originally born in China
were not necessarily fully literate in Syriac.
We can
draw a parallel here with the Buddhist tradition and their approach to
Sanskrit. China in the eighth and ninth centuries had tens if not hundreds of
thousands of Buddhist monks, but very few of them could read and comprehend Sanskrit. Japan preserves
many Sanskrit documents written in siddhaṃ
script that were brought over from Tang China. These are often accompanied by
transliterations of the siddhaṃ lines
into Chinese characters, which shows that on the mainland some Buddhist monks
were, in fact, reading out loud Sanskrit texts.
The question remains, however, how much did they actually comprehend without reference to existing Chinese translations? East Asian Buddhism as a whole, despite the achievements of monks such as Xuanzang and Yijing who became fully literate in Sanskrit, never developed traditions of Sanskrit scholarship, and instead relied almost exclusively on Chinese translations.
The question remains, however, how much did they actually comprehend without reference to existing Chinese translations? East Asian Buddhism as a whole, despite the achievements of monks such as Xuanzang and Yijing who became fully literate in Sanskrit, never developed traditions of Sanskrit scholarship, and instead relied almost exclusively on Chinese translations.
Did
something similar occur with the Chinese Christian community? Although Adam was famous for his translations of Christian
literature into Chinese, how many of the native-born clerics – even those
of Sogdian backgrounds – were literate in Syriac?
It is unfortunate that only a handful of documents survive from Tang Christianity, otherwise we might be able to say more about this community. Hopefully in the future more documents from the Christian tradition will be rediscovered in China.
It is unfortunate that only a handful of documents survive from Tang Christianity, otherwise we might be able to say more about this community. Hopefully in the future more documents from the Christian tradition will be rediscovered in China.
