The Russian Orthodox Church first gained a foothold in China in 1685 and remained there continuously until 1957. It did not experience major setbacks during that period of time. In 1957, Archbishop Victor (Sviatin), head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing and the last archbishop of China, left China. The Autonomous Orthodox Church of China was established during the same year.
The basic activities of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing during its early years differed from those of the Protestant missions in China at that time. The main pastoral focus of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission was a small group called the Albazinians. These people were the descendants of Russian soliders captured by a Qing army in the late 17th century. The racial and cultural differences between the Albazinians and the Chinese grew smaller over time. As generations passed, interracial marriage weakened their sense of Russian identity, and their knowledge of the Russian language grew rusty. Therefore, by the middle of the 19th century, the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission launched an enormous effort to translate Orthodox materials. The translated materials were intended primarily for the use of this small Albazinian group in Beijing. There were only a few hundred of them at that time. After the 1860s, Russia established an official embassy in Beijing, and the Ecclesiastical Mission shed its diplomatic duties. This obviously resulted in faster progress in the translation work. The work flourished during the first ten years of the 20th century under the leadership of Metropolitan Innokenty (Figurovskii) of Beijing, the 18th head of the Mission. The work suddenly atrophied after the 1917 Revolution when hundreds of thousands of Russian refugees surged into China. The final chapter in this important effort occurred during the 1940s, the period during which the Orthodox Church intensified the process of “Sinification.” After the Orthodox Church was dissolved as an organization in the 1960s, we have no news about Chinese work in this field. We know only of the Priest Mikhail Li, a Shanghai Chinese who is continuing this work. He wishes to revise the old translations done by the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission and render them into contemporary, common Chinese.
As stated above, the Russian Mission left a considerable amount of translated Christian materials. Because of the complicated and tragic histories of China and Russia, the efforts of Russian missionaries were abandoned, and the fruits of their work vanished and were forgotten, both in China and in Russia. In Russia, interest in this work has revived. As a result, the Russians have discovered a large quantity of Chinese translations of Russian Orthodox materials from the late 19th century through the early 20th century in the collections of different libraries (mainly the Russian National Library, the Chinese Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Orthodox seminary libraries of Moscow and St. Petersburg). It has since become possible for contemporary Russian Sinologists not only to conduct historical research, but also to to conduct research on the methodologies of Chinese translation of Russian Orthodox materials. There is, in addition to academic interest, a very practical consideration: during the last few years, many Chinese have begun living in Russia, and there are many Chinese Orthodox believers that have kept their faith.
For this reason, the Orthodox Church will strive to republish these Chinese translations, with notes and necessary changes, of Orthodox materials. Under the current circumstances, any new translation work will have to reference the long-standing Chinese translation tradition of the Russian missionaries. But actually only a few fragments of Chinese translations have been found during the past few years. We surmise that those lost fragments will perhaps be found in libraries in mainland China, North America, and Australia. Therefore, we also hope to receive some help from foreign colleagues.
The entire set of Orthodox translations include the New Testament (two versions), the Book of Worship Service, the Breviary, the Horologion, Bright Week, Hymns of the Twelve Great Feasts, the Oktoech, the Prayer Book, and a set of catechical booklets. The majority of scholars, whether in Russia or elsewhere, do not have the opportunity to read these books. Therefore, we plan to reprint these books with the cooperation of foreign partners. We also hope to add extensive notes to the reprints. If possible, we also hope to add indices.
After these books are successfully reprinted, the Russian Church and the Autonomous Orthodox Church of China will need to continue editing old texts and to compile new ones. These tasks cannot be implemented until after strict preparatory work has been performed. One of these tasks is to compile a Russian-Chinese/Chinese-Russian dictionary of Eastern Orthodox terms. This project might make use of the fruits of both Russian missionary work and of scholars in the Protestant sects to lay an appropriate foundation for new translation projects. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences are now discussing whether the compilation of a dictionary might become joint cooperative project.
Following 2000, Chinese translation issues relating to Eastern Orthodox texts have been discussed in articles in the Chinese Evangelist (Kitajskij Blagovestnik, published from 1907-1950 and published again biannually beginning in 1999). While searching for appropriate modern terms in general use by Christian translators, Eastern Orthodox scholars need to strive to understand the profound terminological differences between early Eastern Orthodox translations and translations by the Western churches (Catholic and Protestant missionary societies). On the one hand, the dispute within the Western churches over whether to use “Shangdi” or “Tianzhu” as a translation of “God” is not at all a sensitive issue to the Russian Orthodox. They can use both these terms. On the other hand, the translation of “Jesus Christ” into “ Yīyīsūsī Hélìsītuōsī ” has become an identifying mark of Russian translations. The work of achieving terminological unity has yet to begin. Which of those terms which rarely appear in the writings of Western churches can be retained as necessary identifiers, and which must be discarded as absurd oddities? These terms will need to undergo a process of further sifting.
I. Partial List of Chinese Translations of Eastern Orthodox Materials (Texts That Have Been Discovered)