The English-language Analects and Teaching Chinese Studies：Some Reflections on Lesser-known Twentieth Century Translations

The education system in our country，and no doubt to a greater or lesser degree in others，is failing to cope with the peaceful rise of China to resume the place of global importance that it once held in the somewhat narrower world of times past.The problem is not with the teaching of the Chinese language，but with finding the forms of education that manage to convey exactly what sort of a nation China is.Other nations can and sometimes still do orient themselves towards some past heritage，and fancy themselves the new Rome，or the new Byzantium，or the potential builders of the New Jerusalem.But these fancies are not here，at least，embodied in the educational system.Yet the new China is still in terms of rightful heritage quite simply the old China，and the education system anywhere Chinese has the right，or perhaps even the obligation，to convey that truth，with the result that anyone identifying themselves as Chinese senses some connection with a continuous heritage stretching back far into the past.This remains true even if participation in the global community continues to be a priority for all Chinese intellectuals.Even if they do not choose to draw upon their heritage at all（which does not seem to be exactly the case），the potential remains as a marker of difference from those who look to other heritages.

This is certainly very difficult for most English speakers to grasp.Our language may take us back to Shakespeare—though even his language defeats many schoolchildren today—but not much further，while our school history curriculum，at any rate in England，has given up even on its traditional task of covering the last millennium as a coherent unit，and if this trend is reversed，as seems possible，that still gives a much foreshortened view of history by Chinese standards.The idea of an ancient heritage at some far away point in the past is easy enough to convey，but thinking over a longer continuous span，‘from Plato to NATO’，is something that seems far too challenging for schools and is usually deferred to the university level，if students are asked to engage with it at all.Besides，the only area where a truly ancient heritage remains meaningful—and then only to some—is probably in the sphere of religion，where the Judaeo-Christian tradition foregrounds texts as ancient as those that are available in Chinese.Hence there are possibilities of communication，and my friend，Professor Yao，has done much himself to explore the comparative approach to Chinese and early Judaeo-Christian thought.^{Wisdom in Early Confucian and Israelite Traditions（Aldershot：Ashgate，2006），which would be a fine example of the sort of work that is possible in this field.}

'>[1]To the historian，however，the dissimilarities remain important，and very difficult to convey.For example，unless we happen to possess a good command of Hebrew and New Testament Greek，the Bible is always going to be something we approach in translation，within the short span of the history of modern English.By contrast，while it takes as much scholarship to read the Analects well，anyone Chinese will be able to find many phrases in the original that have remained part of the spoken language today.