The note as a paratextual element has played an important role in Bible translation. This article collects the translational notes from the New Testament in the Chinese Protestant Union Version Bible (CUV) and the Chinese Catholic Sigao Bible (SBV) to uncover the ideological leanings of translators as well as the types and functions of translational notes in these versions. With a quantitative and qualitative analysis of eight selected notes, the article shows that: (1) CUV followed the “without note or comment” principle for unbiased comments and thus employed more linguistic notes, but SBV followed the Catholic tradition in writing exegetical comments; (2) the notes help readers understand the reasons for textual variations and the problem of selectivity in translating; and (3) CUV translators took account of the Chinese literati’s taste, whereas SBV aimed to reach the common people. Further research is needed for a more in-depth interpretation.
CaoJian. 2006. “The Chinese Mandarin Bible: Exegesis and Bible Translating.”The Bible Translator57(3): 122–38.
2.
de GruttolaRaissa. 2015. “The First Catholic Bible in Chinese: Gabriele Allegra and His Translation.”International Journal of Area Studies10(1): 5–23.
3.
de GruttolaRaissa. 2017. “‘And the Word Became Chinese’: Gabriele Allegra and the Chinese Catholic Bible: History, Process, and Translation Analysis.” PhD dissertation, University of Venice.
4.
Gruttola deRaissa. 2018. “Translating the Bible into Chinese: Characteristics and Features of theSigao Shengjing.” Pages 13–34 in Between Texts, Beyond Words: Intertextuality and Translation. Edited by Nicoletta Pesaro. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
5.
ElliottJ. K.1984. “Old Latin Manuscripts in Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament.”Novum Testamentum26(3): 225–48.
6.
GenetteGérard. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by LewinJane E.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
H.1890. “The New Testament (Paper VI).”Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal21: 365–70. Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press.
8.
HongJoseph. 2002. “Revision of the Chinese Union Version Bible (CUV): Assessing the Challenges from an Historical Perspective.”The Bible Translator53(2): 238–48.
9.
MakGeorge Kam Wah. 2010. “‘Laissez-faire’ or Active Intervention? The Nature of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Patronage of the Translation of the Chinese Union Versions.”Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society20(2): 167–90.
10.
MakGeorge Kam Wah. 2015. “To Add or Not to Add? The British and Foreign Bible Society’s Defence of the ‘Without Note or Comment’ Principle in Late Qing China.”Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society57(2): 329–54.
11.
MakGeorge Kam Wah. 2017. Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China. Boston: Brill.
12.
MerkAugustinus, ed. 1992. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. 11th edition.Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
13.
MouleGeorge. 1891. “A Communication from Bishop Moule to the Editor of the ‘Recorder.’”Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal22: 6–9. Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press.
14.
NestleEberhard. 1923. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
15.
NewmarkPeter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall International.
16.
NiPeimin. 2017. “Preface.” Pages xi–xvii in Understanding the Analects of Confucius: A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations. New York: SUNY Press.
17.
NordChristiane. 2001. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
18.
NordChristiane. 2012. “Guiding the Reader’s Reception: Pericope Titles in the New Testament.” Pages 63–76 in Translation–Interpretation–Meaning. Edited by AejmelaeusAnneliPahtaPäivi. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium.
19.
OsbornNoel. 1982. “Basic Types of Footnotes for Old Testament Translations.”The Bible Translator33(4): 414–18.
20.
PaloposkiOuti. 2010. “The Translator’s Footprints.” Pages 86–107 in Translators’ Agency. Edited by KinnunenT.KoskinenK. Tampere Studies in Language, Translation and Culture, Series B4. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.
21.
SchereschewskyS. I. J.1874. 舊約全書Jiu yue quan shu. Beijing: Mei hua shu yuan.
22.
VriesLourens de. 2003. “Paratext and Skopos of Bible Translations.” Pages 176–93 in Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions: The Textual Markers of Contextualization. Edited by den HollanderAugustSchmidUlrichSmelikWillem. Leiden: Brill.
23.
VriesLourens de. 2008. “Translations of the Bible and Communities of Believers: A Historical and Functional Perspective on Translating the Bible.”Journal of Biblical Text Research23(10): 172–95.
24.
WestcottBrooke F.HortFenton J. A.1881. The New Testament in the Original Greek. With an introduction by Philip Schaff. New York: Harper & Brothers.
25.
YarchinWilliam. 2019. “Communicating Divine Ineffability through Paratext: How the Bible Means More than Its Words.”Journal of Religious & Theological Information18(1): 23–37.
26.
YiAn-Ting. 2018. “When Notes Start to Speak: An Investigation of Footnotes and Interlinear Notes in Contemporary Chinese Bible Versions.”The Bible Translator69(1): 56–78.
