Long before the word “Trinity” was rendered into Chinese as sanwei yiti (三位一體), Christians in Tang China were already searching for language to express the mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their term was striking: sanshen yiti (三身一體)—“three bodies, one essence.”
Preserved in Jingjiao texts from the Tang dynasty, this phrase reveals more than an early Christian presence in China. It shows how the first known Christian communities in China engaged Chinese and Buddhist language in order to confess a faith rooted in the Nicene tradition.
Christianity in Tang China
The well-known Da Qin Jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei (大秦景教流行中國碑, “Stele Commemorating the Propagation of Great Qin Luminous Teaching in the Middle Kingdom”), discovered in Xi’an in the 1620s, records that the first Christian monk-missionary, Aluoben, arrived in Tang China (618–907) in 635. The stone stele was erected in 781 by the Christian community in Chang’an (today’s Xi’an) under the leadership of Bishop Jingjing, also known as Adam. Jingjiao (Luminous Teaching) was the name they gave to their religion. It was ecclesiastically associated with the East Syriac tradition that had long been embedded in the Persian Empire. The stele itself inscribes the 146 years of Christian presence in Tang China. More archaeological materials, including manuscripts, tomb epigraphs, and stone pillars, related to Jingjiao have been discovered in Dunhuang and Luoyang since the early 20th century. This is arguably the earliest documented form of Christianity in China.
The Nicene Background of Jingjiao Theology
For a long time, the East Syriac Church has been known as the “Nestorian Church,” associated with Nestorius, who was declared a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431 for advocating a “two sons” Christology. Scholars working with Syriac sources (e.g., Sebastian Brock) have found this traditional judgment problematic. As a result, the wrong Christological preconception distracts attention from many other significant theological themes. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity, explicitly proclaimed in Jingjiao texts, has received comparatively little attention. Jingjiao does not use the term “Trinity” (sanwei yiti 三位一體), a translation introduced by late Ming Jesuits, but rather “three bodies, one essence” (sanshen yiti 三身一體). This strongly suggests the Nicene foundation of Tang-era Christianity, as the Trinitarian doctrine is stated in the form of the Nicene Creed and its development was historically associated with the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381).
The formulation of the Nicene Creed was a complex historical process. After the Council of Nicaea in 325, Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293–373) clarified the Greek concept of homoousios in debates with his opponents, known as Arians, as it appeared in the Creed. Athanasius emphatically argued that the Son, Jesus Christ, is not a created being but possesses the divine nature. In this way, he affirmed that the Father and the Son share one ousia—one “essence” or “substance.”
Over time, the key terms of Trinitarian doctrine were formed: “one ousia, three hypostases” (“one essence, three persons”). Under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers, the originally synonymous terms ousia and hypostasis were gradually distinguished. Ousia pointed to the “one,” emphasizing the divine essence, while hypostasis pointed to the “three,” highlighting the individuality and distinguishing properties of each person.
This Nicene framework was also received by the Syriac churches. After decades of persecution, the Synod of Isaac washeld in 410 in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire. There, the Syriac tradition formally recognized the Nicene Creed as its “symbol of faith.” Later, the Synod of Acacius in 486 reaffirmed the doctrine of the Trinity.
Following the 410 synod, Trinitarian terminology gradually developed in Syriac. kyānā (“nature”) came to correspond to the Greek ousia, while qnomā (“self” or “concrete nature”) was used for hypostasis. Originally synonyms (as in Ephrem the Syrian), these two Syriac terms came to be distinguished, especially under the influence of Aristotelian philosophy: qnomā came to correspond to “first substance” (individuality), while kyānā was regarded as “secondary substance” (genus).
The Trinity in Jingjiao Texts and Worship
It should be noted that no Chinese translation of the Nicene Creed has been found among extant Jingjiao texts, although a Sogdian version dated to the 9th or 10th century has been discovered in northwestern China. Notwithstanding, the Trinitarian formula is particularly evident in the Xi’an stele inscription and the Dunhuang manuscript, which include the texts Sanwei mengdu zan (三威蒙度讃, “Hymn to the Three Mighty Ones and Salvation”) and Zunjing (尊經, “Scripture on Veneration”). These texts suggest that Trinitarian theology was not merely theoretical but embedded in the worship and devotional life of Tang-era Christians.
The Sanwei mengdu zan (三威蒙度讃, Hymn to the Three Mighty Ones and Salvation) has been recognized as the earliest Chinese translation of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo. In early Christian tradition, such doxologies were closely connected with Trinitarian worship. The text mentions Aluohe (阿羅訶, God), Mishihe (弥施訶, Messiah), and Jingfeng (淨風 literally, “Pure Wind,” or the Holy Spirit). The first two are transliterations from Syriac, while “Holy Spirit” is rendered as “Pure Wind.” Although the three are listed together, the term “Trinity” does not appear explicitly.
The concept of the Trinity is prominently introduced at the beginning of the Jingjiao Stele: sanyi miaoshen (三一妙身, “the triune marvelous body/person of the Trinity”), sanyi fenshen (三一分身, “the triune reduplication body/person”), sanyi jingfeng (三一淨風, “the triune Pure Wind”).
More explicit Trinitarian terminology appears in the Zunjing:
敬礼妙身皇父阿羅訶, 應身皇子弥施訶, 證身盧訶寕俱沙, 已上三身同㱕一體。
[Let us] adore the marvelous body/person (miaoshen 妙身) of the Sovereign Father Aluohe (God), the resonant body/person (yingshen 應身) of the Sovereign Son Mishihe (Messiah), and the corroborative body/person (zhengshen 證身) of Luhe ningjusha (Holy Spirit). The above three bodies (sanshen 三身) together consist in one substance (yiti 一體).
Here, three terms are used to describe the three “persons.” The text emphasizes both unity and plurality. The Chinese term ti (“essence”) corresponds to Greek ousia or Syriac kyānā, denoting the unified divine essence. The term shen (“body”) refers to the “persons,” which in Chinese can signify body, life, or individual self.
These Trinitarian texts are primarily liturgical. As in early Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted first in liturgical practice rather than abstract speculation. In this sense, “doctrine” should not be misunderstood as static or irrelevant; these texts show that the Trinity was embodied in practice and action.
Translating the Trinity through Buddhist Language
Both the Jingjiao Stele and the Zunjing adopt the term shen (“body”), clearly influenced by the Buddhist concept of trikāya. The Buddhist teaching of the three bodies, fully developed by the Yogācāra school by the 4th century, became a key interpretive framework in Tang Buddhism—Xuanzang (602–664) played a crucial role in transmitting these teachings to China. In Buddhist thought, the three bodies basically are:
- Dharmakāya (法身): the essential “body of dharma,” representing the Buddha’s true nature.
- Saṃbhogakāya (報身): the “enjoyment body,” through which the Buddha teaches bodhisattvas in pure lands.
- Nirmāṇakāya (化身/ 應身): the “emanation body,” appearing in the world to save beings (e.g., Śākyamuni).
Jingjiao translators engaged this framework carefully and strategically:
- The first body (妙身, “marvelous body/person”) corresponds to God the Father, as the ultimate source.
- The second body (應身, “resonant body/person”) corresponds to Christ. Although in Buddhism the “responsive body” is the third, Jingjiao repositioned it to emphasize Christ’s salvific incarnation.
- The third body (証身, “corroborative body/person”) refers to the Holy Spirit, though this term is rare in Buddhist texts.
The term miaoshen highlights the profound, subtle, and ineffable nature of the Father Aluohe within the Trinity. This depiction places the divine substance primarily in the Father. The term yingshen signifies that the Messiah, the second person of the Trinity, is the incarnate one who assumes a concrete, earthly existence within a specific time and place. It further conveys that the Messiah, in this form, “responds” to the demands for salvation arising from a world marked by suffering. At the same time, yingshen also expresses the relationship between Mishihe and Aluohe. Whereas miaoshen refers to the attributes of the first body, these qualities become visible through the second body, yingshen, within the saving work of the Christian Trinity. Without many parallel texts, zhengshen seems to signify that the Holy Spirit testifies or verifies the Messiah’s salvific scheme and continues to realize it. Yet this creative borrowing also carried theological risks. Because the language of “three bodies” came from Buddhist categories, it could blur the Christian distinction among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, making the three appear as modes or manifestations rather than distinct persons within the one divine life.
Translation as Risk and Renewal
It is important to note that translation should not be understood as a mechanical reproduction of the source text or language. In a sense, translation is a negotiation between the source and target languages, along with the historical and intellectual traditions they carry. Translation involves both continuity and rupture of thought. If we abandon the naïve assumption that translation is perfectly faithful to the original, we can instead observe within it processes of historical and intellectual development, as well as innovation.
Translation thus moves between languages and traditions, carrying meanings into new realms while also transforming the receiving context. It demonstrates both continuity (including doctrinal orthodoxy) and diversity. In this sense, translation is necessarily a risky endeavor: it challenges established traditions while expanding their boundaries, making possible the ongoing renewal of theological thought through encounters between different linguistic traditions.
The Jingjiao example reminds us that Christian translation has never been merely linguistic. It is theological, cultural, and spiritual work. For Chinese Christianity today, the question remains much the same: how can the church communicate faithfully while remaining attentive to the context into which it speaks, and how can it critically engage Chinese intellectual traditions without losing the shape of the faith it has received?
