1 Introduction

Examining a word, a term, in a wider historical context in order to come to terms with its different shades of meaning in a diachronic development the traditional philological approach, admittedly developed in an Indo-European comparative linguistic environment, normally is a threefold one:

1. Etymology: looking for the oldest graspable “central” meaning of a word or term—the “true” (etymos) meaning projected from Plato’s Kratylos onwards.¹

2. Historical semantics: investigating the meaning of a word or term in concrete textual contexts—since in historical contexts we necessarily are restricted to texts.

3. Semantic field (“Wortfeld”): looking at the word or term in its wider semantic environment, comparing it with other words overlapping or related in terms of meaning.²

I have emphasized the Indo-European context because we quickly discover limits and differences of these approaches when we move out of the comfort zone of this language family most familiar in terms of structure to us, especially with regard to the first point, etymology.

While this first clearance on the basis of etymology still makes sense for semitic languages with their more or less clear phonetic root structure, languages like the ones belonging to the so-called Sinitic language family send us on rather thin ice, despite the attempts of historical linguists starting with Bernhard Karlgren to show a similar phenomenon in the oldest traceable stratum of the Chinese language.³ “Etymology” in the Chinese context is rather referring to the structural analysis of the written characters—what Bottéro and Harbsmeier have called “graphic etymology” contrasted with “semantic etymology”⁴—than to determining a “root” meaning of the phonetic aspect of the word.⁵ Despite these differences it is, in my opinion, still possible to say something about the meaning of a Chinese word at a particular point in history, provided the sources are accessible and available, before the strong and provable influence of a foreign language through political, cultural, or religious impact, as in the case of Buddhism in China.

The second aspect, historical semantics, raises the question of restricted access which we quite naturally have to the past in linguistic terms. Our knowledge about the semantic development of words or terms, in fact of whole semantic fields, is very much dependent on the sources available—so our knowledge is only as good as our sources. One has to stay aware of this restriction, since even in case of a relatively solid pool of information about the meaning of a word or semantic unit we cannot be sure about how much semantic “terrain” this word or unit did really cover. It could well be that certain important aspects of the semantics are just missing because of the nature of the sources or because of sources which are not longer extant.

The semantic field is another tricky ground since it is not only to be taken for granted that overlap and differentiation occur. Semantic compatibility of terms, even between cognate languages, is not graspable in a one-to-one correspondence. Just take the fact that German “Glaube” and respective words in other European languages correspond to two English terms, “belief” and “faith.” The difference between the two English words seems to be that belief is referring rather to the individual aspect of religion and its practice (I believe that …) while faith is more collective and is used for the entity of doctrines (Christian faith, …). We may keep this semantic distinction in mind when we discuss the terminology in other languages and religious cultures.

English has, as so often, preserved an Anglo-Saxon word (belief) and a Romano-Norman loanword (faith), the latter going back to Old French feid, feit, fait, etc., Latin fidēs, which only gets its almost exclusively religious meaning around the fifteenth century.⁶ In the European context things appear easier since the respective terms are semantically influenced and shaped by the Christian concepts underlying Greek πίστις, Latin fidēs (and other words of the Latin word field such as fiducia, confidentia, credulitas, religio, confessio). This is, for instance, demonstrable by the fact that all Germanic languages share the word with the prefix gi- (Goth. galaubeins,⁷ OHG gilouba, OSax gilôbo, AS gelēafa, MHG geloube, MLG gelove, gelof), all derived from a Proto-Germanic *luba, “praise, permission,”⁸ English belief—with prefix bi-—being a Middle-English innovation (beleafe).⁹ The non-Christian semantic focus is, however, still graspable and seems to be on “trust, guarantee, credibility, confidence, etc.”¹⁰

As a starting point for my paper which will mainly deal with the term xin 信 in non-autochthonous religious contexts, viz., Buddhist, Christian and Manichaean, from roughly the second through ninth centuries between the late Han and the Tang periods, I would like to start with the entry in the early second-century dictionary Shuowen jiezi 說文解字, compiled by Xu Shen 許慎, since it was produced at a time when Buddhism had not yet influenced Chinese traditional culture as, let us say, about half a century later.¹¹ Under the entry xin 信 one finds a quite lapidary explanation:

xin means ‘sincerity’ (cheng 誠); [derived] from ‘man’ (ren 人) [and] from ‘to speak’ (yan 言); an associative compound [character].¹²

Following the self-chosen method of semantic equations in the dictionary— “x means y”—in order to demarcate the semantic field of xin according to the Shuowen jiezi it seems to make sense to look out for examples which use xin as an explanans for other words/characters (“y”).

As one of the next entries under the “head graph” (radical) yan we are confronted with a semantic hermeneutical circle:

“Sincerity” (cheng) means “trust” (xin), [derived] from “to speak” (yan) [with] the phonetic element cheng 成.¹³

There is clearly a legal aspect to the term xin:

Tally (fu 符): means “trust” (xin). In the [administrative] system of the Han [it] consists of a [piece of] bamboo, six inches long, divided [into pieces that] fit each other; [derived] from bamboo (zhu 竹) with the phonetic [element] fu 付.¹⁴

Tally as proof of official status (qi 棨), a pass, means “trust” (xin). [Derived] from “wood” (mu 木) with the abridged phonetic [element] qi 啟.¹⁵

Permission (yun 允) means “trust” (xin). [Derived] from “child” (er 儿) with the phonetic element 㠯.¹⁶

“Sincere” (xun 恂) means “trustful heart” (xinxin 信心). [Derived] from “heart” (xin 心) with the phonetic element xun 旬.¹⁷

“To inspire confidence” (fu 孚) means “to groom (luan 卵) confidence.” [Derived] from “claw” (zhao 爪) and from “seed” (zi 子). Another meaning is “trust” (xin).¹⁸

We have to keep in mind, of course, that the Shuowen jiezi “provides only meanings that are relevant to the explanation of the graphs used to write words,”¹⁹ but I would say that even this is enough to get an idea what the character xin meant towards the end of the Eastern Han period. Here it is striking that the basic concept seems to be compatible with the Western words used for Christian “belief, faith,” which refer to mutual trust, reliability, sincerity, originally without the later notion of “surrender in faith” or “unconditioned faith in a Supreme (Transcendent, Almighty …) Being.”

2 Buddhism

Translation processes—and this is what the transfer of Buddhism from India to China was about in the first centuries—create a quite different dynamics in the development of languages. Beside the possible phonetic and syntactic influences of the original language on the target language it is particularly in the context of semantics where the impact is most clearly traceable. New ideas and concepts from different cultural or religious contexts have to be expressed in a language that may not even have comparative terms, and the creation of a new corpus of expressions, of a new vocabulary in principle goes into two directions: the taking over of the word from the original language into the target language in its phonetic or approximate phonetic shape as a loanword, or the attempt at finding an equivalent term or creating a new word by semantically affinitive or similar elements of the target language. Buddhism is the first major foreign import in Chinese cultural history and its impact on all spheres of culture of society was massive, language not being an exception.²⁰

Loanwords like the very basic and probably oldest terms like fo 佛/*but,²¹ “Buddha,” or seng 僧/*səŋ, “monk, saṅgha,” had the disadvantage of being completely foreign to the Chinese but at the same time the advantage of being semantically without connotation in the language so that they could transmit the new meaning without interference of any inherited meaning.

Matters were more difficult with inherited Chinese words and terms that had already been used in the religious, cultural, or philosophical discourse for centuries. When Indian Buddhist texts were translated or doctrinal aspects of the new religion were presented, explained, or discussed in texts it was unavoidable to use this inherited Chinese terminology and vocabulary— and unavoidable was semantic change occurring during this process. The most extreme examples of applying semantically and conceptually highly loaded words like Dao 道 for quite new and different ideas like “enlightenment,” Skt. bodhi, or “full extinction,” Skt. parinirvāṇa, even struck the Chinese themselves as being a special translational device, and they called this geyi 格義, “matching concepts.”²²

In the cases where we have access to the parallel Indic text it becomes clear that, as in a lot of other case, xin was used to translate a variety of Indic Buddhist terms: śraddhā, “belief, trust,” adhimukti, “strong inclination, attachment,” prasāda, “tranquility, faith,” adhyāśaya, “mental disposition, inclination, will,” saṃpratyaya, “trust, reliance,”²³ etc.

In the majority of the cases xin and derivated binomes seem to translate śraddhā or adhimukti.²⁴ In Sanskrit the word śraddhā and its Indo-Aryan cognates like Pāli saddhā is a so-called root-noun compound, consisting of śrad-, a defective noun linked to an Indo-European root for “heart” (*śrad-), and √dhā, “to put, to set” (transferable into a verb śrad-dadhāti),²⁵ therefore meaning something like “to put someone’s mind on sth./so., to have trust in sth./so.” Again, we have the concept of trust in the other meaning of śraddhā, “sacrificial generosity,” which obviously depends on the principle “do ut des” and finds its later expression in the so-called brahminical śrāddha sacrifices.

Since xin in Buddhist texts is too broad a topic to be discussed at full length, and is treated in another chapter in the present volume, I only briefly want to discuss a rather short text, acclaimed however by Chinese tradition to be the oldest translated Buddhist text in China, the “Sūtra of Forty-two Sections” (Sishierzhang jing 四十二章經, T.784), attributed by Chinese Buddhist hagiographical tradition to the first two Indian monks in China, Kāśyapa Mātaṅga/Jiaye Moteng 迦葉摩騰 and Dharmarata/Zhu Falan 竺法蘭, but which probably is a later compilation. In this text xin occurs six times, and the contexts all suggest the meaning “(to have) trust (in).” As a quintessence of the ten evils of the body, mouth and mind “not having trust in the three Venerables (Jewels) and considering heretic views as truth”²⁶ (bu xin sanzun, yi xie wei zhen 不信三尊，以邪為真) is given (T.784.722b.8f.). This trust has to be developed through practice (723a.18f.):

[If one] practices daily and constantly focuses on the Dao, [then] practices the Dao [one] finally will develop the root of trust and the merit from it will be immeasurable.²⁷

That xin in the text does not refer to an unconditioned faith becomes clear in the following passage (723b.16ff.):

The Buddha told the śramaṇas: “Be careful to not trust your mind; the mind cannot be trusted in the end. Be careful to not cling to the cumulation of form (rūpaskandha), because the clinging to the cumulation of form [leads] to unfortunate rebirth. Only after you have reached the Way of an arhat you can trust your mind.”²⁸

Here it is absolutely clear that xin cannot mean “to believe” but only “to trust”: one cannot possibly believe—in the strict sense of the word—in one’s own mind. A passage which obviously “embraces” the concepts of “trust” and “belief” for the term xin is (723c.25ff.):

The Buddha said: “Now, it is difficult for men to leave the Way of the Three Evils and to become a human; [even] when one has become a human, it is difficult for a man to leave women; if one has become a man, it is difficult to perfect the six senses; [even] when the six senses are perfected, it is difficult to be born in the central region; [even] when one is born in the central region, it is difficult to be worthy of receiving the Way of the Buddha; [even] when has received the Way of the Buddha, it is difficult to be a gentleman worthy of having the Way, it is difficult to be born in the family of a bodhisattva; [even] when one is born in a family of a bodhisattva and has trust in the venerable, it is difficult to be worthy of [being born] in the age of a Buddha.”²⁹

3 Christianity

One might assume that the most ancient Christian texts preserved in the Chinese language promise to provide the closest proximity to the terms “belief” or “faith.” Here I will discuss the term xin and its occurrence in these sources in a little bit more details, although the result of such a discussion may not be as helpful as one may expect.

The oldest traces of a Christian community in China go back to the Tang period.³⁰ These first Christians came to China from Iranian territory, Persians and Sogdians, and belonged to the “Church of the East,” sometimes and wrongly called “Nestorian”; their church language was Syriac, a Semitic language close to Classical Arabic. This is clearly evidenced by a section of the most famous document of this religion, the stele of Xi’an, written in this language in the Estrangelo script, which does, however, not contain any direct reference to “faith.”³¹ The adherents of the religion themselves called their religion in Chinese “Radiant Teaching” (Jingjiao 景教).³²

The Syriac word for faith or belief would be haimanuta ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ.³³ The word is an abstract term derived from Syriac hēmin (Heb. āman), “to consider sth./so. to be true, to trust,”³⁴ and again shows the semantic overlap with words for faith in other languages discussed earlier. Interestingly, none of the preserved Chinese Christian texts contains a loanword for this or a similar Syriac term for faith or belief.

One caveat should be given at the beginning: since none of the Chinese Christian texts from the Tang dynasty is a direct translation of a text of the Church of the East whose liturgical language was Syriac it is a vain endeavour to look for direct parallels and check what Syriac word or term would have been translated by Chinese xin.³⁵ The situation is complicated by the fact that the language of the documents is highly influenced by Buddhist and Daoist terminology and ideas. This is not very surprising since Christianity arrived, according to its own sources, in China in the year 635 in form of the arrival of a Persian Christian monk called Aluoben 阿羅本,³⁶ at a time when both other religions were influential and striving for recognition through the Tang court. Generally speaking, the term xin and binomes containing it are quite rare in the documents.

To start with the most well-known Christian document from the Tang period, die Xi’an stele from the year 781, called “Stone Inscription of the Spread of the Radiant Teaching from Daqin to the Middle Kingdom” (Daqin jingjiao liuxing Zhongguo bei 大秦景教流行中國碑):³⁷ The term xin is only found once as part of a binome zhengxin 正信, but this occurrence is quite an interesting one:

[The mishihe / Messiah] fulfilled the “Old Law” which was propagated by the twenty-four saints to regulated the families and countries by the Great Way, [and he] instigated the wordless “New Teaching” of the “Pure Wind” of the Trinity, shaped goodness by the true faith.³⁸

In the parallel style of this passage the true faith (zhengxin 正信) of the New Testament (xinjiao 新教) is juxtaposed with the Great Way (or Great Scheme) (dayou 大猷) of the Old Testament (jiufa 舊法). This seems to be the only case where xin is used in the sense of a full-fledged belief-system.

Beside the Xi’an stele and a recently discovered inscribed stele in Luoyang the main sources for Christianity in China in the early period are the so-called Dunhuang manuscripts.³⁹ Eight manuscripts are known so far, two of them in Paris in the collection Pelliot, and seven in Japan with two of them missing but the others “rediscovered” recently as being part of the Takeda Foundation holdings in Osaka. Some of them have been charged with being fakes in the last two or three decades by mainly Chinese scholars, but I am working here on the basis of the assumption that the texts preserved and documented at least reflect Christian sources from the Tang period even though the manuscripts themselves may not necessarily be from that period.

In these documents the term xin and its derivational compounds are very unequally distributed. They are not found in the Daqin jingjiao dasheng tongzhen guifa zan 大秦景教大聖通真歸法讚 (Praise of Taking Refuge to the Law of the Pervading Truth of the Great Saint of the Radiant Teaching from Daqin). They also are absent in the so-called “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” (Sanwei mengdu jing 三威蒙度讚), “Praise of Receiving Salvation from the Three Mighties.” Instead, semantically related terms for “relying on, taking refuge to” are found twice: (meng)yizhi (蒙) 依止 and guiyang 歸仰.⁴⁰

Xin is not found in “Parable, Number two” (Yu di er 喻第二), and only once in the Yitian lun 一天論 (Treatise of the One God) in the context of heretics and non-believers, in a passage which very much looks Buddhist and not Christian:

Because of the misleading of the wicked devil the foolish people do not have the heart to venerate the One God. Because they believe in false and inverted views, [they] will first fall on the path of the three evil existences, among evil ghosts. Later they will be born as humans in the world, will be born among [people of] low origin [living in] borderlands.⁴¹

In the third text of the long scroll, the “Treatise of the World-Honored One [on] Giving” (Shizun bushi lun 世尊布施論), xin occurs twelve times. In one passage the term is clearly meant to mean “message,” which at least seems to indicate that the term was not exclusively reserved to a religious meaning:

The Messiah rose from death: as explained before, the women had come there and acted as it was the law. After three days the Jews⁴² [wanted] to inspect and went to the grave [and when they] came there [it] was broken [and they] clearly saw to [their] bewilderment that the Messiah was gone. Therefore [they] sent a message to the scholars (Phariseans). Just like in olden days in the world the woman had sent a false message to Adam whence came this Sin to the world …⁴³

But the text also combines xin in a specific way with xiang 向 in the obvious meaning of “having faith in …, entrusting [oneself] to … (e.g., the Messiah).”⁴⁴ There is also the idea that this faith does not need a lot of “investment” but trustful dedication: “[If one] directs oneself to the truth faith does not have to be big [as long one] does the work of faith.”⁴⁵

Xin occurs twice in the Zhixuan anle jing 志玄安樂經 (Scripture of the Devotion to the Profound Happiness):

[O] monk Simon! From the beginning the hearts of the living beings are [already] enmeshed in affliction. They hear that the “fruits of non-desire” are on the “Mountain of Happiness.” Although they direct their aspiration on cultivation, [their] spirit and belief (qingxin) is in doubt. Fortunately, their religious assistant acts like a trusted [person] by teaching in parables and [thereby] produces a stair [by which] all recognize the Way [and] wrong tracks are removed.⁴⁶

If there are men and women who rely on what I say, strive to practice the supreme Law, ponder day and night [how] to stay away from all defilements, [how] to purify [themselves to realize their] true nature, [how] clarify [themselves to achieve] perfect knowledge. [When this] is known men finally will be redeemed. This is the benefit arising from knowing this scripture. If men trust and love (xin’ai), [if they] do not often divide [their] practice, they will be able not to worry about any division on the Way of Brightness, they will be able not to revert to any calamity on the Way of Darkness, will be able to attain happiness in other places, in different sites.⁴⁷

The relatively most frequent use of xin is found in the Daqin jingjiao xuanyuan zhiben jing 大秦景教宣元至本經 (Scripture of Expounding the Ultimate Origin of Origin of the Radiant Teaching from Daqin) also quoted in the fragmented Luoyang stele inscription. In this quite short text xin occurs seven times, among which the term xin shan 信善, “to believe in the good,” in the context of people who do not believe in the good (buxinshan zhi tu 不信善之徒) is found three times. Three more times it is found combined with Dao, “to have trust, to believe in the sacred Dao” (xin dao 信道 or xin shengdao 信聖道).

The Xuting Mishisuo jing 序聽迷詩所經—the title is difficult to understand and to render but is normally given, with Saeki, as “Scripture of Jesus Messiah,”⁴⁸—, a text which contains the most transliterational material, is a very idiosyncratic reading of the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ biography in which xin occurs eight times. In this text the meaning “to believe (in a faith)” is most evident and in its verbal use closest to the Xi’an stele (不信天尊教者 “those who do not believe in the teaching of the Heavenly Honored One”; 信此教 “believe in the teaching;” 不信經教 “not believe in the doctrine”). The text states that faith or the qualities of faith are bestowed on man by God’s power⁴⁹ by which they reach a good “karmic” position (shanyuan 善緣). One does not only believe in God or the Messiah, however, but also has trust (xin) in good action.⁵⁰

It should also be mentioned that in the epitaph of the recently discovered Luoyang epitaph⁵¹ xin is found in the clear, however not religiously connotated, meaning of “to trust, to rely on” in the description of the virtues of the deceased, a Sogdian Christian called Xian 獻, a cavalry commander in the Tang army: “Man is relying (xin) on [his] relatives.”⁵² When Xian’s religious activities are described he is not described as a believer but is said “to serve (shi) the ‘Brilliant Venerable’.”⁵³

4 Manichaeism

Without any specific expertise in the field of Manichaean studies I would still like, and be it only for the sake of completeness, to discuss some few examples from the Chinese Manichaean texts, the so-called “Hymn Scroll” (Xiabu zan 下部讚), the “Compendium of the Teachings of Mani the Buddha of Light” (Moni guangfo jiaofa yilüe 摩尼光佛教法儀略), and another untitled Dunhuang manuscript, which belong, like the Christian sources, to the Tang period.⁵⁴

Put in more general terms, despite some influence from Pure Land Buddhism in the description of paradisiac realms,⁵⁵ the texts do not reflect the strong emphasis on faith as the Buddhist belief system does. Due to the more cosmological nature of Mani’s teaching which aims at freeing the elements of pure light from polluted matter, belief (or trust) (xin and its compounds)⁵⁶ does not play a major role in doctrine and soteriology of the religion.

The “Hymn,” as is to be expected from a text praising the religion, uses xin in a meaning that comes closest to “belief” as the precondition for attaining spiritual achievements. The text speaks of the strength of one’s “foundation of trust (or belief)” (xinji 信基). But it does not seem to be belief which leads to a higher spiritual stage but intuitive understanding of (or awakening to: wu 悟) the supreme divine being (mingzun 明尊) which leads to acceptance of or the belief in his teaching.⁵⁷

In the Dunhuang manuscript the term chengxin 誠信, “honest trust, belief,” prevails (11 out of 19; once in the “Hymn”). It is the precondition of spiritual development, and its absence leads to confusion and spiritual decline. In the parable of the “tree of death” (sishu 死樹) the roots and branches of this tree are “non-trust, unbelief” (wuxin 無信), while the root of the “tree of thought” (xiangshu 相樹) is “honest trust” (chengxin), and its trunk is the “trust in the [right] view” (jianxin 見信).

A kind of definition of chengxin is given in combination with the virtue of compassion (lianmin 怜愍):

Included in this compassion there is also honest trust. This honest trust is the mother of all good, is just like a royal consort [who] can help the king, nurture everything, and is also like the power of fire [which] completely boils the ten thousand things and provides [them] with [their] flavours. [They] are also like sun and moon in many portraits [with their] unfolding light radiating everywhere [and] unfailingly increasing benefit. Compassion and honest trust achieve everything from all the merits [coming from them]. And also likewise compassion⁵⁸ and honest trust are the foundation of the radiant causes of the future and the past of the holy ones, looking through the wonderful gate; and also [as for] the great ocean of suffering in the three worlds treading the narrow path—among one hundred thousand beings there is rarely one person who can enter this path; and if someone enters it [he] will, relying on this Way, be born in a pure land, eradicate suffering, become liberated, will finally be without fear and eternally rejoice in peaceful purity.⁵⁹

Honest trust is one of the virtues advertised as essential to the Manichaean adept, and it is obviously reflected in the trustful mind or “serene trust” (xinxin 信心), and is the seventh of the twelve characteristics (xiang 相) or “radiances” (guangming 光明) of the Light Nous (huiming 惠明).⁶⁰ Someone who has a trustful mind, is a “believer” (diannawu, see below) and has to know—i.e., to adhere to—the five “signs” (jiyan 記驗) of the teacher, one of them being to have trust or belief (xin 信) or a trustful mind (xinxin 信心) in the meaning of the two principles (erzong yi 二宗義).⁶¹

The Chinese Manichaean texts, in that respect different from the Christian ones, also contain loanwords for belief or faith. These are transliterations of Parthian or Middle Persian words such as huyulifuduo 呼于里弗哆/ *xɔ-wuă-li’-put-ta for wāfarīft (w’wryft),⁶² “belief.” Linked to this semantic field are the transliterations diannawu 電那勿/*dεn^h-na’-mut, for Middle Persian dēnawār (dyn’wr),⁶³ or tinaba 提那跋/*dεj-na’-bat, for Parthian dēnāβar (dyn’br),⁶⁴ usually translated as “believer,” but derived from dyn/dēn, “religion,” with the literary meaning of “holder, bearer of the dēn.” The oldest term is tinaba which is found in Xuanzang’s description of Persia.⁶⁵ One could ask here why the translator(s) did not use Chinese xin or xinzhe. In the case of huyulifuduo it is clear why the transcription is used since the term is found in a hymn, a part of the “Hymn Scroll,” which is completely transliterated from Parthian. Diannawu occurs thirteen times in the Manichaean scroll from Dunhuang in a description of the twelve stages a Manichaean trainee, starting from the ranks of “teacher” (mushe 慕闍/*mɔ^h-dʑia, Parth. āmōžāg), “bishop” (fuduodan 拂多誕/* p^hut-ta-dan’, Parth. haptādān, literally, “seventy”) and above, has to master.

In the “Compendium” the lowest rank of the religious hierarchy, the “hearer,” or Parth. niyošāgān (Chin. nousha’an 耨沙喭/*nəw^h-şε:-ŋian^h), is translated as yiqie jingxin tingzhe 一切淨信聽者, the “hearer with completely pure faith”; it seems as if the lowest rank in Chinese had to be explained as having trust or faith in the other ranks and the teaching of Mani, while the higher ranks, from the electi—Chin. aluohuan 阿羅緩/*ʔa-la-wuan, Parth. ardāwān, translated as yiqie chunshanren 一切純善人, “completely pure and good man”—to the highest rank of mushe—translated into Chinese as chengfa jiaodaozhe 承法教道者, “heir of the Law and instructor of the Way”—were defined by their keeping of the rules and the required pure and ascetic lifestyle.

5 Conclusion

The basic semantic concept of words for belief or faith in most languages is surprisingly—or maybe not so surprisingly—uniform: it expresses mutual trust and truthfulness. The shift towards a more devotional connotation of belief and faith, weakening the idea of required mutuality, seems to be, in most cases, a semantic change linked to the more general development of the respective religions.

In the Chinese context such a development—a shift from a more general to a religious meaning—of the term xin seems to happen in a situation of religious and cultural contact and translation of terms and texts brought about by the arrival of Buddhism. The two “Persian” religions, Christianity and Manichaeism, encountered a changed religious landscape due to the influence of Buddhism, in which terms like xin already had expanded their connotative options (semantic range) and were integrated in the doctrinal system of the new religions. Christianity in particular seems to have “downplayed” the role of belief/faith in one god in the Chinese context, while in the Manichaean texts the concept of xin in the sense of “trust, belief” may have occupied a more prominent role than in other cultural environments to which the religion had spread.