Union Version and Sigao Bible: the translation process

The translation of the Scriptures was an activity that had characterised the Protestant missions in China since their very beginning. In 1807 the first Protestant missionary, Robert Morrison, arrived in Canton and already had the precise task of translating the Bible into Chinese.Footnote ² His version was published in 1823,Footnote ³ and was the first of many other complete or partial translations that were to be published by Protestant missionaries in China throughout the nineteenth century.Footnote ⁴ Every missionary group arriving in China was embarking to its own Bible translation, however, by the second half of the nineteenth century, it became evident that a common version was necessaryFootnote ⁵ and a first attempt at working on a common translation took place in a meeting in 1847. A committee was established and translation started. Nevertheless, in 1852 only the New Testament of the Delegates’ Version was published as some members resigned from the committee.Footnote ⁶ In 1890, a general missionary conference was held in Shanghai. Discussions on the project of translating a union version were reopened at the conference. The missionaries proposing the project all acknowledged the need to prepare a common version of the Bible in Chinese, but did not agree on which style of Chinese language to adopt. The years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century were in fact a very dynamic period in the evolution of the Chinese language and Chinese literature, and though literary Chinese (wenyan 文言) still had his dominant position in the Chinese literary production, Mandarin Chinese (guanhua 官話) would gradually obtain a primary role in Chinese literature.Footnote ⁷ The final resolution of the attendants of the conference was that of preparing three translations differing in Chinese language style. Thus three translating committees were elected and their members undertook the work. The three versions were to use: “High Wenli”, “Easy Wenli”,Footnote ⁸ and Mandarin. Furthermore, Zetzsche underlines that: “Two important points of conflict were also avoided in the decisions of the conference: the question of what basis text to accept, and the ‘Term Question’”.Footnote ⁹ For the source text, it was not clearly stated whether to follow the Textus Receptus and the English Authorized Version or the Greek texts on which the 1881 English Revised Version was based.Footnote ¹⁰ Concerning the Term Question, it was established that each publishing Bible Society could choose the terms to use in its own version.Footnote ¹¹ In the 1891 meeting in Shanghai, the principles of translation were defined. The three committees subsequently began their work.Footnote ¹²

After the publication of the three editions of the New Testament,Footnote ¹³ the two wenli committees joined and prepared only one literary version of the Old Testament, so that, in 1919 only two Union Versions were published: the Mandarin and the Wenli Union Version.Footnote ¹⁴ The Mandarin edition would be the most successful and would soon become the reference text for Chinese Christians, though its importance could not be predicted at the time of the 1890 general conference.Footnote ¹⁵

The first Catholic missionaries had arrived in China by the end of the thirteenth century. They had preached the Gospel, baptised Chinese people and established local Christian communities, but had never undertaken the task of translating the Scripture into Chinese. Therefore, at the beginning of the twentieth century, there were several relevant texts in circulation but a Catholic edition of the Bible in Chinese was indeed lacking. The history of the Catholic translations of the Bible in Chinese is complex and will not be explored in detail here.Footnote ¹⁶ The absence of such work was linked to two important issues. They were the common use of the Latin language in Catholic texts and liturgy, together with the general restrictions regarding the translation of the Bible into modern languages and the position of Catholic authorities on the topic,Footnote ¹⁷ as well as the priority given by missionaries to other types of texts such as catechisms, collections of biblical stories, parables, episodes of the life of Jesus, which were considered to be more effective in transmitting the contents of the Christian doctrine to new believers. These two elements began to change and evolve by the end of the nineteenth century, and in 1887 the first Catholic translation of a biblical book in Chinese was published.Footnote ¹⁸

Gabriele Allegra was an Italian Franciscan Friar who decided to become a missionary in China with the precise intention of translating the Bible into Chinese. The Friar arrived in China in 1931 and would devote himself daily to the study of Chinese, Greek and Hebrew, biblical exegesis, the history of Christianity in China, and Chinese Bible translation.Footnote ¹⁹ Furthermore, Allegra soon came into contact with the activity of the Protestant missionaries in China and their relevant enterprises in the translation of the Scripture. At that time the standard reference text for Catholics was the Mandarin New Testament translated by the Jesuit Xiao Jingshan 蕭靜山 from the Latin Vulgate in 1922.Footnote ²⁰

After four years of intense study, in 1935, Allegra started the translation of the whole Bible in Chinese. The entire Old Testament translation was completed by 1944, and soon after, the Friar decided to establish a team to revise the text in order to publish it. Allegra chose five Chinese Franciscan Friars to collaborate with him and in 1945 founded the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Sinense (Sigao Shengjing xuehui 思高聖經學會), a biblical research and publishing centre.Footnote ²¹ In a private report, Allegra himself explained why he chose to establish a Studium rather than a translating commission:

In 1946, the first volume edited by the Studium containing the Psalms, was publishedFootnote ²³ and the eighth one was published in 1954,Footnote ²⁴ thus concluding the translation of the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament were translated and published in three volumes, respectively in 1957, 1959, and 1961. Allegra's individual translation of the Old Testament was later thoroughly revised by the Chinese Friars. Differently, the books of the New Testament were assigned to groups of two or three Friars to be translated.

After the publication of the eleven volumes of the first complete Catholic Bible in Chinese, the team of the Studium Biblicum revised the whole text together with introductions, notes and comments on each biblical book. During this revision phase, each member would work on one biblical book, which would be later discussed by all the other members to detect any ambiguous passages and to adopt a solution approved by all the translators. The long revision work led to the publication in 1968 of the first Catholic single-volume Bible, known as Sigao Shengjing 思高聖經.Footnote ²⁵ Allegra had made his wish clear in the above mentioned comment, thus the Studium continued its activity even after the 1968 volume and published revised versions of the biblical books, dictionaries, illustrated books, and commentaries. The Sigao Shengjing Xuehui is still active today in Hong Kong.Footnote ²⁶

The translation method of the Studium Biblicum team can be summed up in four key points.Footnote ²⁷ The first point concerns the source texts to use in the translation and includes the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Greek text referring mainly to the critical editions by Merk and Nestle for the New Testament. Furthermore, it was established that the LXX, the Vulgate, and translations in modern languages should also be consulted for any ambiguous passages. The second point regards the guoyu 國語 as the form of Chinese language to use in the target text. The third point includes the intent to reproduce the literary style of each biblical book in its original version in the Chinese translation also. The fourth point gives indications on the sources to use when writing introductions, notes and comments to the translated text. These include all the commentaries of the Church Fathers and other Catholic traditional authors, together with contemporary exegetical works. Moreover, when the Friars worked on the edition of the single-volume Bible, great attention was given to the paratext. The translation, in fact, was enriched by maps of the places mentioned in the text, biblical illustrations, chronological tables reporting biblical and Chinese history events, calendars with biblical festivities, and tables of weights, measures, and currency systems.

The Union Version and the Protestant missionary work: direct references in some documents on the Sigao Bible and Allegra's activity

The translation process of the Sigao Bible may be analyzed appertaining to the vast amount of material previously preserved in the archive Archivio Vice-Postulazione–Convento San Biagio dei Frati Minori in Acireale (CT).Footnote ²⁸ Five bookshelves take up papers on Allegra and his activity, together with other documents written by Allegra himself. The Archive contains handwritten and typewritten letters, reports, notebooks, diaries, and official documents, for the most part unpublished, together with published material, consisting of books and articles by Allegra and documents on his life and works. The translation method, the funding questions, the bibliographical references, the subsequent projects and many other issues are addressed therein. The writing languages include Chinese, English, Italian, and Latin, with some biblical notes in Greek or Hebrew. Unfortunately, the documents are not stored in the Archive according to a chronological or thematic criterion.Footnote ²⁹ Nevertheless, the analysis of selected documents revealed frequent reference to the missionary activity of the Protestants in China, their biblical work, their translation method, and their published versions. Some extracts of these documents will be reported herein and analyzed to set the background for a comparison process between the Union Version and the Sigao Bible.

When Allegra came to know that the Chinese Catholics did not have the Bible in their language, he decided to undertake the task of translating the Scripture into Chinese, and soon learnt of the extensive work the Protestants had carried out hitherto. In his autobiographical memoirs, Allegra describes his feelings on learning that the Protestants possessed, indeed, several translations of the Bible in Chinese while the Catholics still lacked a complete edition and wrote:

In 1931, during his voyage from Italy to China, the Friar bought a copy of the Delegates’ Version which would be the first volume of a Chinese Bible he consulted.Footnote ³¹ Upon his arrival in China, Allegra started his missionary activity, and became acquainted with the Protestant works and their translation of the Scripture. In a 1933 letter to one of his confreres he wrote:

In the autobiographical memoirs, when recalling his first visit to the above mentioned Hunan Bible Institute, he wrote:

These passages show how the attitude of Allegra towards the presence and the activity of Protestant missionaries in China was open and positive, notwithstanding his eagerness to create a version of the Chinese Bible which was to report all the Catholic features and theological positions.Footnote ³⁵ Appreciating the missionary and biblical works accomplished by the Protestants in China and exhorting his confreres to avoid a hostile approach towards them, Allegra once wrote:

This open attitude towards the work of Protestant missionaries would be later confirmed by his collaboration in organising the Biblical Exposition in Hong Kong, and in the following design to work on the project of an ecumenical translation. In an article published in 1965, Allegra explained that some members of the Biblical Societies in Hong Kong had taken the lead in organising an exhibition on the Bible inviting the Studium Biblicum to participate. The Friars of the Studium welcomed the proposal and this collaboration was also supported by their superiors and the Catholic representatives in Hong Kong. The team enthusiastically worked on the project and the Biblical Exposition was finally held from 20 to 22 April, 1965, gathering an unexpectedly high number of visitors.Footnote ³⁷ The project of an ecumenical translation was discussed in a first meeting in 1970 in Tainan (Taiwan). The consultations of the appointed committee continued up to the 90s, when the Gospels of Luke and John were published (1997). Notwithstanding these achievements, the project was later abandoned.Footnote ³⁸

A direct reference to the Union Version is found in a handwritten document stored in the Acireale Archive:

This paper, dated 1935, is important as it represents the last private document written by Allegra before the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament. It is interesting to underline the reference to the Protestant Delegates’ and Union versions, together with the detailed translation project. Following the examination of these document extracts on the Sigao Bible alluding to the Union Version and other Protestant missionary activities, the next phase of this analysis is that of comparing the two published Bibles, to outline similarities and differences between the two versions.

Comparing the Union Version and the Sigao Bible

In this section some passages from the Gospel according to John will be analyzed and compared in the Chinese translation of the Union Version and the Sigao Bible. The two versions consulted are, respectively: Jiuxinyue quanshu 新舊約全書 (Complete Old and New Testament),Footnote ⁴⁰ and Fuyin 福音 (The Gospels).Footnote ⁴¹ As for the Sigao Bible, the first edition of the Gospels published in 1957 was chosen for analysis, since it was the first book of the New Testament published by the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum.Footnote ⁴² The Greek reference text is the 1993 edition of The Greek New Testament.Footnote ⁴³ The English text used in the translated passages is from the New Revised Standard Version.Footnote ⁴⁴ The analysis was conducted on the whole Gospel according to John.

To begin with, the name itself of “John” the Evangelist is translated in two different ways in the two versions: the UV reads Yuehan 约翰, and the SB has Ruowang 若望. These transliterations both conform to the traditionally acquired terms to indicate the Evangelist John in the two Christian groups. Furthermore, Allegra and his team followed the Catholic tradition of distinguishing the transliteration of the same Greek name Ioannes Ἰωάννης which refers to two different characters. John the Evangelist is translated as Ruowang, while John the Baptist is transliterated as Ruohan 若翰. When the Greek Ioannes indicates other characters, as the father of Peter and Andrew, it is translated as Ruowang.Footnote ⁴⁵

The first relevant difference between the two texts concerns the well-known translation issue of words such as “God” and “Holy Spirit.” In line with the long-standing Catholic tradition, Allegra and his team chose the established and accepted Chinese words Tianzhu 天主 and Shengshen 聖神, respectively for “God” (Greek: theos θɛός) and “Holy Spirit” (Greek: pneuma hagion πνɛῦμα ἅγιον). On the other hand, the choice of the translation for these terms had presented a more difficult venture for the translators of the Union Version as those were the words involved in the above mentioned Term Question. The consulted version reads Shangdi 上帝 for “God” and Shengling 聖靈 for “Holy Spirit.”

In the Gospel of John, the Greek theos is found more than eighty times. Only twice (10:34, 35) is its form in the plural, when Jesus quotes a verse of a Psalm (82:6) and repeats it. Both the Chinese translations analyzed read: shen 神. In the other occurrences, the translation is unvarying in both versions, using Tianzhu and Shangdi. Some occurrences, however, reveal the different source texts used for the translations. In 1:18 the UV reads: conglai meiyou ren kanjian Shangdi. Zhiyou zai Fuhuai li de dushengzi jiang ta biaoming chulai 從來沒有人看見上帝. 只有在父懷裏的獨生子將他表明出來 on the basis of the Textus Receptus (and also the English Revised and Authorized Version),Footnote ⁴⁶ while the SB has: conglai meiyou ren jianguo Tianzhu, zhiyou na zai Fu huai li, shen wei Tianzhu de dusengzhe, ta gei women xiangshu le 從來沒有人見過天主，只有那在父懷裏，身為天主的獨生者，他給我們詳述了 according to the Greek texts edited by Nestle or Merk.Footnote ⁴⁷ A similar case is found in 13:32 with the UV translating: Shangdi yao yin ziji rongyao renzi, bingqie yao kuai kuai de rongyao ta 上帝要因自己榮耀人子，並且要快快地榮耀他 clearly recalling the 1881 Revised Version “and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him” and the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text, and differently from the Textus Receptus and other Greek versions. The SB translation reads: Tianzhu jiran zai renzi shen shang dedao le guangrong, Tianzhu ye yao zai ziji nei shi renzi dedao guangrong, bingqie lishi jiu yao guangrong ta 天主既然在人子身上得到了光榮，天主也要在自己內使人子得到光榮，並且立時就要光榮他 following the Greek found in Merk and others.Footnote ⁴⁸ In 16:27, the difference is found between wo shi cong Fu chulai de 我是從父出來的 (UV) and wo chu zi Tianzhu 我出自天主 (SB) translating, respectively, patros πατρὸς and “Father” from the Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English Revised Version, and theou Θɛοῦ in the other Greek versions. Another case is in the translation of theon Θɛὸν in 17:3, where the SB has Tianzhu, and the UV reads shen instead of the expected Shangdi. The reason for this choice is not clear.

In the Gospel of John, the cluster pneuma hagion is found three times in the Greek text: 1:33; 14:26; 20:22. In all three occurrences, the translation is Shengling in the UV and Shengshen in the SB. It is interesting to note an addition in 20:22 in both texts to translate the Greek verb enephysesen ἐνɛφύσησɛν. The UV has the verb chui 吹 and the SB reads xu 噓, meaning “to blow, to breathe” however, both the versions add yi kou qi 一口氣. Other Catholic versions also have yi kou qi after the verb, which is always translated with the Chinese chui, thus leaving the SB the only version reading xu.Footnote ⁴⁹ The Chinese verb chui in the SB is used to translate the Greek verb pnei πνɛῖ in 3:8, keeping the meaning of “to blow”. In 1:33, both the Chinese versions in analysis use the respective translation for “Holy Spirit” twice, where the Greek texts contain pneuma Πνɛῦμα and pneumati hagio Πνɛύματι Ἁγίῳ. The addition of sheng in the first circumstance is probably intended to avoid misunderstandings. The other occurrences of the adjective “holy” in the Gospel of John are: 6:69 and 17:11. The first case refers to the Greek ho hagios thou Theou ὁ Ἅγιος τοῦ Θɛοῦ “the Holy One of God” and both the UV and SB use Shengzhe 聖者 to translate hagios. In the verse 17:11, the word is an adjective for “Father” and is translated in both the analyzed versions as Shengfu 聖父.

The Greek word for “spirit” is more frequent in the examined text and has different meanings. Both the Chinese translations, in many occasions, add the adjective sheng to the respective word chosen for “Spirit”, namely ling in the UV and shen in the SB. This is found in: 1:32; 3:5, 8, 34; 7:39 in both versions, and also in 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 only in the UV. When the adjective is not added, the SB reads shen and the UV ling, namely in verses: 3:6, 6; 4:24; 6:63, 63.Footnote ⁵⁰ In two cases, where the Greek pneuma does not refer to the “Spirit”, both the UV and SB translate it identically. In 3:8, the term indicates the “wind”, and the translation is feng 風. In the 1957 Gospel edition of the Studium Biblicum, an endnote to this verse explains the translation, drawing attention to the words feng and Shengshen. In the original Greek text they are the same and, according to many of the traditional interpretations, the first referred to the “wind” as a concrete manifestation of the Holy Spirit of God.Footnote ⁵¹ In 19:30 the term pneuma indicates the spirit/soul of Jesus at the very moment of his death. The Chinese translation in both cases is linghun 靈魂.

In Chapter 4, in verses 23–24, the Greek pneuma is found three times, when Jesus gives the Samaritan woman an explanation on a new way to worship the Father, “in spirit and truth”. When pneuma is used to describe God (4:24): Pneuma ho Theos Πνɛῦμα ὁ Θɛός, currently translated in English as “God is Spirit”, two different translations are found. The UV has Shangdi shi ge ling 上帝是個靈 and the SB reads Tianzhu shi shen 天主是神. The addition of the classifier ge 個 in the Protestant version has no correspondence in the Greek text, nevertheless, it clearly recalls the English Revised and the English Authorized Version which both read: “God is a Spirit”. Furthermore, the UV edition reports huo wu ge zi 或無個字 in lower case immediately after the sentence, most likely in consideration of the Greek text. The cluster “in spirit and truth” is in verses 23 and 24 and is expressed in Greek as: en pneumatic kai aletheia ἐν πνɛύματι καὶ αληθɛίᾳ. The UV in both verses has yong xinling he chengshi 用心靈和誠實 while the SB reads yi xinshen yi zhenli 以心神以真理. In the endnote explaining this verse in the Catholic version, it is noted that: “Xinshen 心神: in the source text shen indicates the Holy Spirit of God”.Footnote ⁵² The same xinshen is found in the SB in Verses 11:33 and 13:21, translating pneumati. In the first case it is followed by ganshang 感傷 translating the Greek enebrimesato to pneumati ἐνɛβριμήσατο τῷ πνɛύματι to describe Jesus’ feelings when he saw Mary and other Jews weeping for the death of Lazarus. In the second case, xinshen, followed by fanluan 煩亂, translates etarachthe to pneumati ἐταράχθη τῷ πνɛύματι describing Jesus’ feelings when announcing Jude's betrayal. The UV in these two verses reads, respectively, xinli bei tan 心裏悲歎 (11:33), and xinli youchou 心裏憂愁 (13:21). The verb embrimaomai ἐμβριμάομαι of verse 11:33 is also found in 11:38, where it is once more translated as xinli bei tan 心裏悲歎 in the UV, while the SB reads: xinzhong ganshang 心中感傷. The verb tarasso ταράσσω found in 13:21 is more frequent in the Gospel analyzed and can also indicate the stirring of the water (5:4, 7). In all the other occurrences, the UV translates it with youchou 憂愁 (11:33), adding again xinli 心裏 when psyche ψυχή (12:27) “soul” or kardia καρδία (14:1, 27) “heart” are found instead of pneuma. The SB uses nanguo 難過 in 11:33 and the same xinshen fanluan 心神煩亂 found in 13:21 12:27, translating psyche (12:27) in the same way as pneuma (13:21). In 14:1 and 27 of the SB xin fanluan 心煩亂 is found, leaving only xin 心 to translate the Greek kardia.

Among the Protestant denominations the issue of the best translation for the word “baptism/baptise”, in Greek: baptisma/baptize βάπτισμα/βαπτίζω, was also debated. The main disagreement was between the Baptists and the other denominations, as the former argued that the commonly used Chinese word xi 洗 did not transmit the image of “immersion”.Footnote ⁵³ The same term, however, was already rooted in the Chinese terminology used by the Chinese Christians, both Protestants and Catholics.Footnote ⁵⁴

In the Gospel of John the verb baptizo is found 13 times, and both the UV and the SB translate it consistently as shixi 施洗. Only one exceptionFootnote ⁵⁵ is found in 3:23 where the voice of the Greek verb is the middle/passive and the Chinese of the UV is shouxi 受洗 while that of the SB is lingxi 領洗. However, it is remarkable that the SB translation in the 1957 Gospel edition follows the translation of the Jesuit Xiao Jingshan, consistent in all the three editions consulted.Footnote ⁵⁶ This is confirmed by the fact that the middle/passive voice of the same form of baptize, when found in other Gospels is translated with shouxi.Footnote ⁵⁷ The single volume Bible published by the Studium Biblicum in 1968 already contained the modified translation shouxi.Footnote ⁵⁸

A relevant term found in the Gospel of John is the Greek logos λόγος. It literally means “word” however, in the Prologue of the Gospel (1:1-18), this word assumes Christological connotations indicating God and the Incarnation of Jesus. The theological and doctrinal reasons and implications of the choice of the word logos will be not discussed here, suffice to say that the word was widely used in Greek philosophy,Footnote ⁵⁹ and that its first biblical translation in Latin was accomplished by Saint Jerome who chose the word Verbum. In the four occurrences of the Prologue,Footnote ⁶⁰ the UV translates logos with dao 道 and the SB uses shengyan 聖言.Footnote ⁶¹ The Catholic shengyan adds the adjective “holy” to a word commonly used in Chinese in order to give it a precise meaning.Footnote ⁶² The SB avoided the term used by the Jesuit Xiao, namely the transliteration Wu'erpeng 物爾朋. It was based on the Latin Verbum and could have easily disrupted the fluency of the text.Footnote ⁶³ The Protestant version consulted, as many other previous versions, reads dao, despite the likelihood of confusion due to the numerous connections to its meaning in other Chinese religions and beliefs. Remarkably, in other occurrences of the Greek logos in the Gospel of John, the SB uses hua 話.Footnote ⁶⁴ The UV, instead, has hua except for 13 occurrences, where, as in Chapter 1, dao is used.Footnote ⁶⁵ The common feature of these verses is that the word logos is always uttered by Jesus in a direct discourse. It refers to “the word of him” (God's), or “your word” (when Jesus is talking to the Father),Footnote ⁶⁶ or to “my word” (of Jesus himself when he refers to his teachings),Footnote ⁶⁷ thus recalling the identity between Jesus (himself the Word of God), God's word and the word of Jesus.

A noteworthy translation choice found in the SB concerns the words Christos Χριστός and Messias Μɛσσίας. These are strictly connected, with Christos as the Greek literal meaning of the Hebrew Masiah, duly transliterated as Messias, and denoting “the anointed one”. In the Gospel of John, this link is clearly expressed in two verses, which also contain the only two occurrences of the Greek Messias. In 1:41 and 4:25, in fact, the text reads: ton Messian (ho estin methermeneuomenon Christos) τὸν Μɛσσίαν (ὅ ἐστιν μɛθɛρμηνɛυόμɛνον Χριστός) (1:41), and Messias, ho legomenos Christos Μɛσσίας, ὁ λɛγόμɛνος Χριστός (4:25). Furthermore, in the Gospel analyzed, two occurrences of Christos (1:17 and 17:3) are juxtaposed to the name Yesu, while all the other occurrences are preceded by the article ho ὁ intending to illustrate the meaning of the word (the Christ as “the anointed”) rather than the name itself (“Christ”). The translation strategy of the SB sees both Moxiya 默西亞 and Jidu 基督 in 1:41 and 4:25 and Jidu following Yesu 耶穌 in 1:17 and 17:3. However, all the other occurrences of the Greek Christos, consistently preceded by the article,Footnote ⁶⁸ are translated as Moxiya, to retrieve the original meaning of the word. The UV does not differentiate the translation of Christos with or without the article, so that in every occurrence Jidu is found. The transliteration for the two occurrences of Messias is Misaiya 彌賽亞 which clearly evokes the English pronunciation of the word.Footnote ⁶⁹

In the field of Chinese Bible translation, the transliteration of the proper names was a complex question to resolve. Furthermore, Protestants and Catholics often dealt with it in very different ways. Here the issue will not be explored in detail, however, some examples are worthy of mention and show the intent of the translators of the Studium Biblicum to uniform their texts with a certain accepted Chinese Christian terminology. Allegra and his translators team, on the one hand, would not change the transliteration of some traditionally acquired names already well-known to Chinese Catholics, but, on the other hand, intended to use a terminology which would be clear to non-believers also, as some terms were being used in the Chinese language even if not referring to the Bible.Footnote ⁷⁰ Therefore, from the analysis of proper names in the Gospel of John, it is found that the Greek terms for “Jerusalem”, “Jews”, “Judea”, “Hebrew”, and “Rome” were translated as: Yelusaleng 耶路撒冷; Youtairen 猶太人; Youtai 猶太; Xibolaiyu 希伯來語; Luoma 羅馬. These were the same transliterations found in the UV and are commonly used in the Chinese language today, differing in the translation by Xiao Jingshan.Footnote ⁷¹ A more significant change was observed in some transliterations occurring from the 1957 Gospel edition to the 1968 Sigao single-volume Bible. This was the case for Yuedan 約但 and Yiselie 以色列 which acquired these forms only in the 1968 edition, reaching uniformity with the UV and the common language.Footnote ⁷² This choice in the revision process would eventually comply with the wish expressed by Allegra in one of his writings:

The analysis of the translation of some proper names in the 1968 Gospel of John confirms the commitment of the translators of the Studium to improve their version, providing also other examples which did not achieve the expected uniformity in terminology but most certainly enhanced the fluency of the text.