227
and phrasing typical of Ruist discourse in the late Qing period.
26. Although Legge held this position by 1848 and argued for it in his extensive study of 1852, The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits, he did make slight changes in the position later on in his Oxford years. Shàngdì was for Legge a high name for any monotheistic vision of God, but it was a composite term. Later in 1865 when he for the first time published a translation of the Book of Historical Documents (CC3), Legge shifted his position to claim that the single term, di (the second character in shangdi) carried the essential meaning of “God” in certain contexts. Shàngdi was only its "intensified form." For this he had to develop a further justification, which he published in two different settings. For further details of these arguments see James Legge, The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism, Part I: The Shu King. The Religious Portion of the Shih King, The Hsiao King (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), pp. xxiii-xxix, and A Letter to Professor F. Max Muller Chiefly on the Translation into English of the Chinese Terms Ti and Shang Ti in Reply to a Letter to him by 'Inquirer' in the Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal for May-June 1880 (London: Trübner & Co., 1880). The first text appears as the third volume in the Sacred Books of the East series edited by F. Max Müller in Oxford.
27. For the letter written by Legge and Chalmers on July 9, 1856, see the incoming letters for CWM/South China/Box 5/Jacket C/Folder 4. Later when meeting Legge in Hong Kong, Ch’ea said that "he wished to receive the ordinance [of baptism] because it was commanded, but it was not the baptism with water which regenerated the soul, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Being asked where he had learned that, [Ch’ea] said that it was in the New Testament, he could not tell the book and the Ch., but if he had a book he knew where to find it. A New Testament being given to him, he soon turned up to the third Ch. of the Gospel of John." See EMMC/MM (October 1856), p. 215.
28. Rambo describes "intellectual conversion" as the result of a person who "seeks knowledge about religious or spiritual issues via books, television, articles, lectures, and other media that do not involve significant social contact." Then the person "actively seeks out and explores alternatives." He adds, "Belief generally occurs prior to active participation in religious rituals and organizations" (Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion, pp. 14-15).
29. The letter describing Legge's encounter with the Daoist priest from Mount Luofu is dated February 22, 1854 (CWM/South China/Personal/Legge/Box 8), and confirmed in a later report to the London office by John Chalmers in his letter dated March 24, 1854 (CWM/South China/Box 5/Jacket E/Folder 3). EMMC/MM 21 (September 1857), p. 206. The original quotation is in the plural, describing both Ch'ea and a more recent convert named Kot A-Yuk. David Johnson also notes that in the late Qing period
there must have been a substantial number of individuals whose limited schooling had made it possible for them to grasp the meaning of many texts but not to write easily or well. Such persons had some access to the literary tradition and hence had transcended the confines of local oral culture, but were unable to use writing to order and record their thoughts. The distinction between those literates who could not write, or at
227
and phrasing typical of Ruist discourse in the late Qing period.
26. Although Legge held this position by 1848 and argued for it in his extensive study of 1852, The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits, he did make slight changes in the position later on in his Oxford years. shàngdì was for Legge a high name for any monotheistic vision of God, but it was a composite term. Later in 1865 when he for the first time published a translation of the Book of Historical Documents (CC3), Legge shifted his position to claim that the single term, di (the second character in shangdi) carried the essential meaning of “God” in certain contexts. Shàngdi was only its "intensified form." For this he had to develop a further justification, which he published in two different settings. For further details of these arguments see James Legge, The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism, Part I: The Shu King. The Religious Portion of the Shih King, The Hsiao King (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), pp. xxiii-xxix, and A Letter to Professor F. Max Muller Chiefly on the Translation into English of the Chinese Terms Ti and Shang Ti in Reply to a Letter to him by 'Inquirer' in the Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal for May-June 1880 (London: Trübner & Co., 1880). The first text appears as the third volume in the Sacred Books of the East series edited by F. Max Müller in Oxford.
27. For the letter written by Legge and Chalmers on July 9, 1856, see the incoming letters for CWM/South China/Box 5/Jacket C/Folder 4. Later when meeting Legge in Hong Kong, Ch'ea said that "he wished to receive the ordinance {of baptism] because it was commanded, but it was not the baptism with water which regenerated the soul, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Being asked where he had learned that, [Ch’ëa] said that it was in the New Testament, he could not tell the book and the Ch., but if he had a book he knew where to find it. A New Testament being given to him, he soon turned up to the third Ch. of the Gospel of John." See EMMC/MM (October 1856), p. 215.
28. Rambo describes "intellectual conversion" as the result of a person who "seeks knowledge about religious or spiritual issues via books, television, articles, lectures, and other media that do not involve significant social contact." Then the person "actively seeks out and explores alternatives." He adds, "Belief generally occurs prior to active participation in religious rituals and organizations" (Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion, pp. 14-15).
29. The letter describing Legge's encounter with the Daoist priest from Mount Luofu is dated February 22, 1854 (CWM/South China/Personal/Legge/Box 8), and confirmed in a later report to the London office by John Chalmers in his letter dated March 24, 1854 (CWM/South China/Box 5/Jacket E/Folder 3). EMMC/MM 21 (September 1857), p. 206. The original quotation is in the plural, describing both Ch'ea and a more recent convert named Kot A-Yuk. David Johnson also notes that in the late Qing period
+
there must have been a substantial number of individuals whose limited schooling had made it possible for them to grasp the meaning of many texts but not to write easily or well. Such persons had some access to the literary tradition and hence had transcended the confines of local oral culture, but were unable to use writing to order and record their thoughts. The distinction between those literates who could not write, or at
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.