当代诠释学和宗教文本翻译

当代诠释学和宗教文本翻译^[1]

Allen Amrollah Hemmal

（北京大学西亚系，北京100871）

摘要：诠释学，最初是研究神话诠释和圣文翻译的学问，现在则是一个重要的哲学命题，探讨的对象不仅包括如何理解和诠释文献，还包括一切语言性或非语言性的社会、文化表述。本文吸纳了多个学术领域的见解，以便理解当代诠释学，特别是其与宗教文本翻译过程的关系。

关键词：翻译；宗教文本；诠释学

Contemporary Hermeneutics and the Translation of Religious Text

Allen Amrollah Hemmal

（Department of West Asian Languages，Peking University，Beijing，100871）

Abstract：Hermeneutics，originally dealing with the interpretation of myth and translation of sacred texts，is now an important topic in philosophy addressing how we understand and interpret not only literature but all social and cultural expressions，linguistic and non－linguistic.This presentation draws insights from various academic fields to help us understand contemporary hermeneutics，particularly in its relation to the process of translation of religious texts.

Keywords：translation；religious text；hermeneutics

1.Introduction

As translators，we don’t translate words and sentences；we translate the author’s intent.As such，we need to understand the author’s intent to the best of our ability.Understanding the author’s intent at times involves reading in between the lines.One needs to understand and interpret what is not always clear in the first reading of the text.In particular，translation of religious texts，as it is the case with translation of poetic literature，involves a degree of interpretation.This interpretation is inevitably influenced by the translator’s culture，personality，and life.The translator needs to be aware of this subjectivity to be able to make the translation work as objective as possible.I will address these issues in three parts：the understanding of text（hermeneutics），the translation of text，and the translation of religious text.

2.Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics has over the centuries developed and changed its meaning：Originally，hermeneutics addressed the theories of interpretation.Subsequently it focused on the study of oriental and classic cultures，especially Bible translation.Later on，hermeneutics became an important philosophical topic covering human sciences and activities and ontology.Historically，hermeneutics was considered a secondary field of study.Translation also was considered a secondary field of study until recent time.The fortune of these related fields has changed now.Contemporary hermeneutics is now an important philosophical subject about understanding in general，not only understanding written text.It encompasses all human sciences，embraces all human activities，and addresses what human beings are ontologically.It is a universal concept that underlies and pervades all human activities（Bernstein 1983）.

Contemporary hermeneutics can be defined as the art and theory of understanding and interpretation of both linguistic expressions（text）and non－linguistics expressions（art）.Modern hermeneutics took shape mainly by German philosophers.Two prominent German philosophers，Schleiermacher and Dilthey focused on symbolic communication.In the 20^th Century Heidegger and Gadamer addressed the topic of hermeneutics by focusing on human life and existence as the deepest condition for symbolic interaction.Contemporary Angelo American philosophers Rorty，McDowell，and Davidson，as well as Continental philosophers Habermas，and Derrida have paid particular attention to the subject of hermeneutics.

Gadamer’s work is of special importance and some key notions addressed by him will be reviewed here.Gadamer discussed the concept of“fusion of horizons”（Bernstein，1983），which is basically the blending and merger of different points of view.This example should clarify his point：Each person according to his or her physical location has a certain perspective of the horizon surrounding that person.No two people，can perceive exactly the same view of the horizon surrounding them.The boundaries of horizon will be different for each of them.To become aware of other people’s perspectives，one needs to put himself in those people’s positions and see the world as they see it.This needs special effort.Doing so one also becomes better aware of one’s own horizon and perspective.This merger of perspectives is called by Gadamer fusion of horizons.Learning about the other“forms of life”helps us understand ourselves better.Gadamer states“Only through others do we gain true knowledge of ourselves”（Wang，2007）.

In relation to interpretation and translation，Gadamer points out to the importance of understanding the author’s horizon，or the way the author perceives the world.For that reason，he calls the text the author’s text.He invites the reader to find out how the author sees the world through careful contemplation on the text and its cultural and traditional context.This would make the translator to better become aware of and analyze his or her own horizon.He emphasizes the need for reader－text interaction，or the fusion of the text and the reader horizons.According to Gadamer，the interpreter of traditional text tries to apply the text to himself i.e.to his or her own tradition.He understands what this piece of tradition says and establishes the meaning of the text based on that（Bernstein，1983）.He must not disregard himself，his particular hermeneutical situation（horizon，prejudices，and assumptions）.He must relate the text to his own situation if he wants to understand it at all.He must become aware of his own particular hermeneutical situation.

Gadamer’s thought on hermeneutics encompasses philosophical notions of ontology and praxis（Dobrosavljev，2002）.He sees these three as the inseparable parts of a whole：hermeneutics or understanding，ontology，which is one’s state of being，and praxis，roughly speaking，one’s life practice or philosophy put into action and use（a concept that Marx and Arendt also focused on）.In other words，our understanding of the world defines who we are and what we do，and vice versa.

3.Translation

Considering how Gadamer perceives hermeneutics，the relationship between the topic of hermeneutics and translation becomes clear.Jacques Derrida emphatically makes this point，relating translation to the translator’s life and action：“Through translation，one lived experience is translated into another”（Derrida，1985）.It is in that sense that he makes this strong statement about the importance of translation：“To refuse translation is to refuse life”（137）.Derrida emphasizes the relationship between language and life：“Language can act on man’s will and induce him to act”（137）.So，he sees translation much more than finding the equivalent words and phrases in the target language.Translation involves understanding the text based on the translator’s life experience.It is not simply a mechanical decoding of the source text and coding it into the target language，according to the dictionary definition of words and grammar rules.In this regard，Derrida warns that“Translation［is］a term that has become greatly impoverished today”（136）.

Traditional philology considered translation more like a mechanical task.It relied on decoding based on conventions，universal rules of grammar，dictionary citations，and textual analysis and criticism.Modern philology and contemporary hermeneutics，on the other hand，pay attention to contextual relationships，particularity of the text，and transcending the translator’s own“language game”and cultural framings.Regardless of the universal rules of grammar and language，the particular meaning and interpretation for the specific instance of communication needs to be taken into account.One should consider the influence of the translator’s own culture and language，the translator’s weltanschauung，perspective and horizon on the interpretation of the meaning of the text.

In this respect，translation is a meta activity：“message about the message”，“language about language”，“word about word.”Not only about what a word means but why the word means what it means.What are the cultural，historical，and traditional factors which give such a meaning to the text.What are the other possibilities for interpreting the message which the translator might have ignored？

This necessitates a fusion of horizons of the text and the translator.A dialogical interaction between the text and translator takes place.The translator reads the text，understands it，and then examines the influences of his or her own cultural and biases on such understanding of the text.Becoming aware of these influences，the translator tries to understand the text better without such influences.This will improve the understanding of the text but will not be the final and best understanding of it.The translator needs to again examine the influence of his or her own culture and tradition on this revised understanding and try to revise and improve it again.In a cyclic manner，the translator goes back and forth between his or her own cultural context and the text’s cultural context.This recursive“hermeneutic circle”makes the translation work more objective and brings it closer to the intention of the author.Through this dialogical text－translator interaction，an increased awareness of the cultural context of the authorship of the text as well as the cultural context of the translator will be gained.The translator’s unconscious creative thoughts and inspirations，the translator’s emotional state and psyche，and the translator’s life practices and actions will all influence the context in which the text is read and understood.So，the translator，to the degree possible needs to compensate for such influences.

Awareness of these elements makes the process of translation a reflexive process and leads to a more accurate translation.As opposed to traditional philological assumptions that the translator can be transparent and avoid his or her own influences，according to the contemporary theories one should acknowledge the inevitability of such influences，recognize them and systematically analyze and minimize them.The recursive and repeated self－correction by the translator will lead to more accuracy and a higher level of fidelity to the text.The authenticity of the text will be preserved.The intention of the author will be more accurately reflected in the work of translation.

The problem of knowing the intention of the author is not an easy one to address.How can a translator convey the intention of the author without allowing his or her own biases and misunderstandings to interfere with the task.Is it possible at all to accurately know the intention of the author or one needs to impose one’s own understanding？Gadamer pronounces that“Every translation is an interpretation.”In other words it is impossible for the translator to fully avoid his or her personal interpretation.As hard as the translator tries to carefully read and understand the text，one question remains：Is always what the text says the same as what the author wanted to say.Socrates conducted an experiment.He showed to some well－known poets of his time their best poems and asked them to explain it.Strangely enough，he came to the conclusion that any bystanders could describe what the poets wanted to say better than the poets themselves（Zhang，1992）.Socrates was making the point that the infinite unutterable reality that the poet wanted to express could be better depicted by others.

There are two philosophical stands with regards to art and poetry.Kant believes art and poetry are purposive，and intentional，meaning that it is possible to know the intention of the author and the artist.Schelling，on the other hand，believes that art and poetry provide impressions of and unconscious infinity.Accordingly，the intention of the author and the artist can never be fully understood and known（Zhang，1992）.

Gadamer underscores the importance of trying to understand the intention of the author.He explains that the hermeneutical approach is“not the mastery of language but coming to a proper understanding about the subject matter.”In that respect he maintains that“translation is especially informative.”Translation is informative since it forces the translator to learn and understand the subject matter and the author’s specific perspective.He goes as far as saying that“Every translation that takes its task seriously is at once clearer than the original”（Gadamer，2013）.In other words，the translator needs to understand the intent of the author so well that he or she can explain it better and clearer than the source text.

Although Gadamer urges the translator to clearly understand the subject matter and the original intent of the author，he also emphasizes the inevitability of the interpretation on the side of the reader and translator.He points out that there can be no translation without‘highlighting”and all“highlighting”involve interpretation.The translator，in the process of translation，necessarily highlights some ideas and assigns less importance to the others.This is done in spite of the intention of the translator to preserve a high degree of fidelity to the text.The nature of understanding and comprehension is that some ideas and points gain priority over others.Specially for texts utilizing figurative language，it would be hard to reach a level that no interpretation of the text is involved.

But this is not about advocating the full subjectivity of translation task.Although we cannot avoid interpretation，we are able to recognize misunderstandings and misinterpretations.One’s interpretations do not need to be arbitrary.So translator’s struggle for accuracy is critical.

The debate on the subjectivity and objectivity of translation is especially important to the work of translating religious and sacred texts since the readers of religious text consider the text to be the source of Truth.The traditional philology assumed that translation can be transparent and objective.Modern philology and contemporary hermeneutics on the other hand go as far as designating the translator as the co－creator of the text，a claim which sounds like blasphemy for the translator of the religious text who considers the author of the text to be God，or at least a superior person.

This tension and struggle between the subjectivity of the translation on one hand，and full objectivity of the work on the other hand，seems to have only one solution，“reflexivity，”i.e.the self reflexivity of the translator.As Babcock（1980，11quoting Spiegelberg）states“The only cure for subjectivity is reflexivity，which is‘more and better subjectivity，more discriminating，and more self－critical subjectivity，which will show the very limits of subjectivity.”Reflexivity considers translation as an interaction between two cultures.It sees translation as a cultural phenomenon rather than a linguistic phenomenon（Gentzler，182，185，190）.Acknowledging the effect of the translator’s tradition and culture on the work of translation，the translator is urged to acknowledge the reflexivity of the process that is what the translator assumes and knows has an effect on his or her understanding of the text.The text is not a fixed input to the translation process with a fixed output on the side of the translator.The output or the understanding of the text by the translator is biased and influenced by the original assumptions and world view of the translator.Being aware of this，the translator needs to take special precautions to minimize the effect of his or her original understanding，which had been based on his or her cultural assumptions and tradition.

To overcome this problem，active deconstruction of one’s own tradition and culture is needed.One should ask why does one understand this subject in this particular way，different than the way the others understand it.Based on this type of contemplation，the translator might need to make self－corrections to his or her own work.This is not a one－time consideration and comparison of the translator’s assumptions and culture with the alternative cultures and assumption.As one’s assumption about one’s own culture is examined and changed，one’s understanding of the text being translated is changed and this new understanding again needs to be deconstructed and modified based on further examination of the influences of the translator’s culture.This would be a recursive process，what，in one sense，the“hermeneutic cycle”refers to.

The result of such recursive and cyclic examination is very positive for the work of translation.It leads to the translator’s humility，a respect for another voice，and the translator’s openness to various possibilities of understanding of the text.The translator not only would not ignore the contextual elements but takes into consideration all contextual factors simultaneously.Paying special attention to the contextual factors leads to a lesser degree of subjectivity of translation.A higher degree of authenticity and more fidelity to the source text will be achieved.This is particularly important for the translation of the sacred text since the translator wants to especially minimize his or her interference with the original intent of the author.

4.Translation of Religious Text

Religious text is the most challenging text to translate since it essentially communicates the unutterable.Scared text communicates the ineffable，it makes the“Nameless”“Named”（as is the case for the word Tao）.To make this point，Wittgenstein wittily states that in the religious text“The unutterable will beunutterably－contained in what has been uttered”（Genova，2013）.

Understanding the unutterable，therefore，is the task of the translator.The word hermeneutics according the Heidegger is derived from the word Hermes.Hermes was the messenger of the ancient Greek gods.He communicated what gods wanted to convey to the human beings，translating and delivering what was not possible for mortals to understand.Hermes，himself a Greek god，understood what gods say and was able to communicate it to the ordinary human beings，in a way that they understand it（Palmer，1980）.

Understanding is often subjective.What one person understands of the same event or scene can be quite different than what another person understands.Wittgenstein’s duck and rabbit aspect blindness example shows how looking at the same image one can see a rabbit while the other person can see a duck.What one person sees is not always easily，at least at the first glance，observable by another person.

We see a reference to this concept in religious texts.Not every reader is able to understand what the sacred text wants to say.In the Bible we read：“They may indeed see but not perceive”（Mark 4：10：12Evans，91）.We see similar notion in the Koran：“Deaf，dumb，blind，so they have no sense”（Koran 2：171，Maulana）.A famous Christian mystical text，The Cloud of Unknowing，warns the owner of the text not to share it in anyway with someone who is not ready for it since“the book will mean nothing to him”（Wolters，1978）.Such warnings on the difficulty for at least some people to relate to and understand the sacred text makes one wonder what challenges the translators of such texts would face.

Derrida addresses the challenges of translating the sacred text.He notes that the sacred text explains what is unutterable.Particularly in the case of sacred text he points out that the meaning and the word cannot be disassociated.In other words when using a word in the target language，which naturally sounds different than the original word in the source language，you automatically lose something important.Considering these challenges，according to Derrida the sacred text says“Translate me，but don’t translate me.”He also says：“The only thing one can do when translating a sacred text is to read between the lines”（Derrida，1985）.By these Derrida does not mean that no one should try to translate the sacred text.He only underlines the difficulty of the task and the special training and care it needs.In fact due to these special challenges of the translation of the religious text，Derrida thinks“It is the ideal of all translation”（Derrida quoting form Benjamin）.

We can now review the characteristics of the sacred text which makes its translation particularly challenging and what the translator can do to overcome such challenges.Sacred texts invite interpretation since they chose figurative and metaphoric language.Parables，stories，allegories and symbolic references are abundant in mystical and religious texts.As such，they invite interpretation by the reader.However，interpretation is unique to each reader.The symbolic character of religious texts makes them particularly open to various interpretations and understanding.In that sense they surpass constraints of a fixed context，history，and time.Throughout ages and in various geographical locations people of different cultures may read and relate to a sacred text.Therefore，these texts engage different readers in different conversations.Not only these texts engage people of various backgrounds and cultures，due to the figurative nature of these texts，the same reader obtains a new understanding of them at different stages of life，under different conditions.Proper translation should allow for such varied responses to，and interactions with the text.

5.Summary and Conclusion

A hermeneutic translation of religious text takes into consideration the ways the text interacts with the reader.For instance，if the text has left a point vague and open to interpretation by the reader，the translator needs to avoid making the message clear by imposing his or her own interpretation on it.The translation needs to emulate the original text in its vagueness and its openness to various interpretations.

Contextual elements should be taken into consideration by the translator.Prior text，that is the literature and cultural environment at the time the text was authored comprises one set of important contextual elements that the translator needs to understand.Another set of contextual elements to be considered is the context in which the text is read and understood.The translator’s personal life，mind and culture and the translator’behavior and attitude will have an effect on the understanding of the text by the translator.Taking into consideration all these contextual elements，the translator needs to get engaged in the correction and modification of the translation in order to offer the most objective translation that is possible.Recursively，the translator needs to engage in a hermeneutic cycles of self－correction in order to achieve the highest degree of accuracy possible.The accuracy of translation and authenticity of the work of translation is particularly important in the case of the translation of sacred and religious texts since many readers take these translations as their guide for salvation and proper conduct in life.

References

［1］Babcock，B.A.1980.Reflexivity：definition and discrimination［J］.Semiotica（30）：1－14.

［2］Bernstein，R.1983.Beyond Objectivism and Relativism：Science，Hermeneutics and Praxis［M］.Philadelphia：University of Pennsylvania Press.

［3］Clack，B.R.1999.An introduction to Wittgenstein’s philosophy of religion［M］.Edinburgh：Edinburgh University Press.

［4］Derrida，J.McDonald C.（Editor），Kamuf，P.（Translator），Ronell A.（Translator）.1985.The Ear of the Other：Otobiography，Transference，Translation：Texts and Discussions with Jacques Derrida［M］.Nebraska：University of Nebraska Press.

［5］Dobrosavljev，D.2002，“Gadamer’s Hermeneutics as Practical Philosophy”［J］.FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series：Philosophy，Sociology and Psychology.Vol.2，（9）：605－618.

［6］Evans，C.A.1989.To See and Not Perceive，Isaiah6.9－10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation［M］.Sheffeild：Sheffeild Academic Press.

［7］Gadamer，H.G.2013.Truth and Method［M］.New York：Bloomsbury Academic.

［8］Genova，J.1995.Wittgenstein：A Way of Seeing［M］.New York：Routledge Chapman ＆ Hall.

［9］Gentzler.2001.Contemporary translation theories［M］.Clevedon：Cromwell Press Ltd.

［10］Maulana M.A.2011.The Religion of Islam［M］.Dublin，Ohio：Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Lahore，Inc.

［11］Palmer，R.E.1980.“The Liminality of Hermes and the Meaning of Hermeneutics”［J］.Proceedings of the Heraclitean Society：A Quarterly Report on Philosophy and Criticism of the Arts and Sciences.Vol.5：4－11.

［12］Wang，X.2007.Incommensurability and Cross－Language Communication［M］.Asgate：Asgate Publishing Limited.

［13］Wolters，C.1978.The cloud of unknowing and other works［M］.New York：Penguin Books.

［14］Zhang，L.1992.The Tao and the Logos：Literary Hermeneutics，East and West（Post－Contemporary Interventions）［M］.Durham：Duke University Press.

【注释】

[1]Allen Amrollah Hemmat，Tehran，Male，Visiting Professor，Peking University/PhD.，academic interestes：Communication/Hermeneutics，Intercultural Communication，Translation Studies.