This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
附属机构
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
English英语译成Chinese汉语: Orthodoxy as therapy （作为治疗方式的东正教）
原文文本 - English英语 If we wished to conventionally define Christianity, as Orthodoxy, we would say it is the experiencing of the presence of the Uncreated (=of God) throughout history, and the potential of creation (=mankind) becoming God “by Grace”.
Given the perpetual presence of God in Christ, in historical reality, Christianity offers mankind the possibility of theosis, just as Medical Science offers mankind the possibility of preserving or restoring his health through a specific therapeutic procedure and a specific way of life.
The writer is in a position to appreciate the coincidence between the medical and ecclesiastic poemantic sciences, because, as a diabetic and a Christian, he is aware that in both cases, he has to faithfully abide by the rules that have been set out, in order to attain both these two goals.
The unique and absolute goal of life in Christ is theosis, in other words, our union with God, so that man - through his participation in God’s uncreated energy – may become “by the Grace of God” that which God is by nature (=without beginning and without end). This is what “salvation” means, in Christianity. It is not the moral improvement of man, but a re-creation, a re-construction in Christ, of man and of society, through an existing and an existential relationship with Christ, Who is the incarnate manifestation of God in History. This is what the Apostle Paul’s words imply, in Corinthians II 5:17 : “If someone is in Christ, he is a new creation”. Whoever is united with Christ is a new creation.
That is why – Christianically – the incarnation of God-Logos - this redemptory “intrusion” of the Eternal and the Beyond-time God into Historical time – represents the commencement of a new world, of a (literally) “New Age”, which continues throughout the passing centuries, in the persons of authentic Christians: the Saints. The Church exists in this world, both as the “body of Christ” as well as “in Christ”, in order to offer salvation, through one’s embodiment in this regenerative procedure. This redemptory task of the Church is fulfilled by means of a specific therapeutic method, whereby throughout history, the Church essentially acts as a universal Infirmary. “Spiritual Infirmary” (spiritual hospital) is the characterization given to the Church by the blessed Chrysostom (†407).
Further along, we shall examine the answers given to the following questions:
What is the sickness that Christian Orthodoxy cures?
What is the therapeutic method it implements?
What is the identity of authentic Christianity, which radically separates it from all of its heretic deviations, and from every other form of religion?
1. The sickness of human nature is the fallen state of mankind, along with all of creation, which likewise suffers (“sighs and groans together” – Romans 8:22) together with mankind. This diagnosis applies to every single person (regardless whether they are Christian or not, or whether they believe or not), on account of the overall unity of mankind (ref. Acts 17:26). Christian Orthodoxy does not confine itself within the narrow boundaries of one religion - which cares only for its own followers – but, just like God, “wants all people to be saved and to arrive at the realization of the truth” (Timothy I, 2:4), since God is “the Saviour of all persons” (Timothy I, 4:10). Thus, the sickness that Christianity refers to pertains to all of mankind; Romans 5:12: “death has come upon all people, since all of them have sinned (=they have veered from their path towards theosis). Just as the fall (i.e. sickness) is a panhuman issue, so is salvation-therapy directly dependent on the inner functions of each person.
The natural (authentic) state of a person is (patristically) defined by the functioning inside him of three mnemonic systems; two of which are familiar and monitored by medical science, while the third is something handled by poemantic therapeutics. The first system is cellular memory (DNA), which determines everything inside a human organism. The second is the cerebral cellular memory, brain function, which regulates our association with our self and our environment. Both these systems are familiar to medical science, whose work it is to maintain their harmonious operation.
The experience of the Saints is familiar with one other mnemonic system: that of the heart, or ‘noetic’ memory, which functions inside the heart. In Orthodox tradition, the heart does not only have a natural operation, as a mere pump that circulates the blood. Furthermore, according to patristic teaching, neither the brain nor the central nervous system is the center of our self-awareness; again, it is the heart, because, beyond its natural function, it also has a supernatural function. Under certain circumstances, it becomes the place of our communion with God, or, His uncreated energy. This is of course perceived through the experience of the Saints, and not through any logical function or through an intellectual theologizing.
Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (†1809), in recapitulating the overall patristic tradition in his work “Hortative Manual”, calls the heart a natural and supernatural center, but also a paranormal center, whenever its supernatural faculty becomes idle on account of the heart being dominated by passions. The heart’s supernatural faculty is the ultimate prerequisite for perfection, for man’s fulfillment, in other words, his theosis, for a complete embodiment in the communion in Christ.
In its supernatural faculty, the heart becomes the space where the mind can be activated. In the Orthodox terminology codex, the mind (ΝΟΥΣ - appearing in the New Testament as ‘the spirit of man’ and ‘the eye of the soul’) is an energy of the soul, by means of which man can know God, and can reach the state of ‘seeing’ God. We must of course clarify that ‘knowledge’ of God does not imply knowledge of His incomprehensible and inapproachable divine essence. This distinction between ‘essence’ and ‘energy’ in God is the crucial difference between Orthodoxy and all other versions of Christianity. The energy of the mind inside the heart is called the ‘noetic faculty’ of the heart. We again stress that according to Orthodoxy, the Mind (ΝΟΥΣ) and Logic (ΛΟΓΙΚΗ) are not the same thing, because logic functions within the brain, whereas the mind functions within the heart.
The noetic faculty is manifested as the “incessant prayer” (ref. Thessalonians I, 5:17) of the Holy Spirit inside the heart (ref. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:26, Thessalonians I 5:19) and is named by our Holy Fathers as “the memory of God”. When man has in his heart the “memory of God”, in other words, when he hears in his heart “the voice” (Corinthians I 14:2, Galatians 4:6, etc.), he can sense God “dwelling” inside him (Romans 8:11). Saint Basil the Great in his 2nd epistle says that the memory of God remains incessant when it is not interrupted by mundane cares, and the mind “departs” towards God; in other words, when it is in communion with God. But this does not mean that the faithful who has been activated by this divine energy withdraws from the needs of everyday life, by remaining motionless or in some kind of ecstasy; it means that his Mind is liberated from these cares, which are items that preoccupy only his Logic. To use an example that we can relate to: A scientist, who has re-acquired his noetic faculty, will use his logic to tackle his problems, while his mind inside his heart will preserve the memory of God incessantly. The person who preserves all three mnemonic systems is the Saint. To Orthodoxy, he is a healthy (normal) person. This is why Orthodoxy’s therapy is linked to man’s course towards holiness.
The non-function or the below-par function of man’s noetic faculty is the essence of his fall. The much-debated “ancestral sin” was precisely man’s mishandling –from that very early moment of his historical presence- of the preservation of God’s memory (=his communion with God) inside his heart. This is the morbid state that all of the ancestral descendants participate in; because it was no moral or personal sin, but a sickness of man’s nature (“Our nature has become ill, of this sin”, observes Saint Cyril of Alexandria - †444), which is transmitted from person to person, exactly like the sickness that a tree transmits to all the other trees that originate from it.
The inactivating of the noetic faculty or the memory of God, and confusing it with the function of the brain (which happens to all of us), subjugates man to stress and to the environment, and to the quest for bliss through individualism and an anti-social stance. While ill because of his fallen state, man uses God and his fellow man to secure his personal security and happiness. Personal use of God is found in “religion” (=the attempt to elicit strength from the divine), which can degenerate into a self-deification of man (“I became a self-idol” says Saint Andrew of Crete, in his ‘Major Canon’). The use of fellow-man -and subsequently creation in general- is achieved by exploiting them in every possible way. This, therefore, is the sickness that man seeks to cure, by becoming fully incorporated in the “spiritual hospital” of the Church.
2. The purpose of the Church’s presence in the world –as a communion in Christ- is man’s cure; the restoration of his heart-centred communion with God; in other words, of his noetic faculty. According to the professor fr. John Romanides, “the patristic tradition is neither a social philosophy, nor a system of morals, or a religious dogmatism; it is a therapeutic method. In this context, it is very similar to Medicine and especially Psychiatry. The noetic energy of the soul that prays mentally and incessantly inside the heart is a natural ‘instrument’, which everyone possesses and is in need of therapy. Neither philosophy, nor any of the known positive or social sciences can cure this ‘instrument’. This is why the incurable cases are not even aware of this instrument’s existence.”
The need for man to be cured is a panhuman issue, related firstly to the restoration of every person to his natural state of existence, through the reactivation of the third mnemonic faculty. However, it also extends to man’s social presence. In order for man to be in communion with his fellow man as a brother, his self-interest (which in the long run acts as self-love) must be transformed into selflessness (ref. Corinthians I, 13:8) “love….does not ask for reciprocation..”). Selfless love exists: it is the love of the Triadic God (Romans 5:8, John I 4:7), which gives everything without seeking anything in exchange. That is why Christian Orthodoxy’s social ideal is not “common possessions”, but the “lack of possessions”, as a willed resignation from any sort of demand. Only then can justice be possible.
The therapeutic method that is offered by the Church is the spiritual life; the life in the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is experienced as an exercise (Ascesis) and a participation in the Uncreated Grace, through the Sacraments. Ascesis is the violation of our self-ruled and inanimate through sin nature, which is coursing headlong into a spiritual or eternal death, i.e. the eternal separation from the Grace of God. Ascesis aspires to victory over our passions, with the intention of conquering the inner subservience to those pestiferous focal points of man and participating in Christ’s Cross and His Resurrection.
The Christian, who is practicing such restraint under the guidance of his Therapist-Spiritual Father, becomes receptive to Grace, which he receives through his participation in the sacramental life of the ecclesiastic corpus. There cannot be any un-exercising Christian, just as there cannot be a cured person who does not follow the therapeutic advice that the doctor prescribed for him.
3. The above lead us to certain constants, which verify the identity of Christian Orthodoxy:
(a) The Church –as the body of Christ- functions as a therapy Centre-hospital. Otherwise, it would not be a Church, but a “Religion”. The Clergy are initially selected by the cured, in order to function as therapists. The therapeutic function of the Church is preserved today, mostly in Monasteries which, having survived secularism, continue the Church of the Apostolic times.
(b) The scientists of ecclesiastic therapy are the already cured persons. Those who have not had the experience of therapy cannot be therapists. That is the essential difference between the poemantic therapeutic science and medical science. The scientists of ecclesiastic therapy (Fathers and Mothers) bring forth other Therapists, just as the Professors of Medicine bring forth their successors.
(c) The Church’s confining itself to a simple forgiveness of sins so that a place in paradise may be secured constitutes alienation and is tantamount to medical science forgiving the patient, so that he might be healed after death! The Church cannot send someone to Paradise or to Hell. Besides, Paradise and Hell are not places, they are ways of existence. By healing mankind, the Church prepares the person so that he might eternally look upon Christ in His uncreated light as a view of Paradise, and not as a view of Hell, or as “an all-consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). And this of course concerns every single person, because ALL people shall look eternally upon Christ, as “the Judge” of the whole world.
(d) The validity of science is verified by the achievement of its goals (i.e., in Medicine, it is the curing of the patient). It is the way that authentic scientific medicine is distinguished from charlatanry. The criterion of poemantic therapy by the Church is also the achievement of spiritual healing, by opening the way towards theosis. Therapy is not transferred to the afterlife; it takes place during man’s lifetime, here, in this world (hinc et nunc). This can be seen in the undeteriorated relics of the Saints that have overcome biological deterioration, such as the relics of the Eptanisos Saints: Spiridon, Gerasimos, Dionysios and Theodora Augusta. Undeteriorated relics are, in our tradition, the indisputable evidence of theosis, or in other words the fulfilment of the Church’s ascetic therapy.
I would like to ask the Medical scientists of our country to pay special attention to the issue of the non-deterioration of holy relics, given that they haven’t been scientifically interfered with, but, in them is manifest the energy of Divine Grace; because it has been observed that, at the moment when the cellular system should begin to disintegrate, it automatically ceases to, and instead of emanating any malodour of decay, the body emanates a distinctive fragrance. I limit this comment to the medical symptoms, and will not venture into the aspect of miraculous phenomena as evidence of theosis, because that aspect belongs to another sphere of discussion.
(e) Lastly, the divine texts of the Church (Holy Bible, Synodic and Patristic texts) do not constitute coding systems of any Christian ideology; they bear a therapeutic character and function in the same way that university dissertations function in medical science. The same applies to the liturgical texts, as for example the Benedictions. The simple reading of a Benediction (prayer), without the combined effort of the faithful in the therapeutic procedure of the Church, would be no different to the instance where a patient resorts to the doctor for his excruciating pains, and, instead of an immediate intervention by the doctor, he is limited to being placed on an operating table, and being read the chapter that pertains to his specific ailment.
This, in a nutshell, is Orthodoxy. It doesn’t matter whether one accepts it or not. However, with regard to scientists, I have tried -as a colleague in science myself- to scientifically respond to the question: “What is Orthodoxy”.
Any other version of Christianity constitutes a counterfeiting and a perversion of it, even if it aspires to presenting itself as something Orthodox.
Bibliographical Notes
Fr. John S. Romanides, “Romans or neoroman Fathers of the Church”, Thessaloniki 1984.
Fr. John S. Romanides, “Religion is a neurobiological ailment, and Orthodoxy is its cure”, from the volume “Orthodoxy, Hellenism… Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion Publications, Volume B,, 1996, pages 66-67.
Fr. John S. Romanides, “Church Synods and Civilization”, from THEOLOGY, vol.63 (1992) pg.421-450 and in Greek vol.66 (1995) pg.646-680.
Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Orthodox Psychotherapy”, Edessa 1986.
Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Minor Introduction into Orthodox Spirituality”, Athens.
Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Existential Psychology and Orthodox Psychotherapy”, Levadia 1995.
Also by the author, the following studies:
Fr. G. Metallinos, “An Orthodox View of Society”, Athens 1986.
Fr. G. Metallinos, “Theological witness of ecclesiastic worship”, Athens 1996. (N. B.: In these books one can find more bibliography)
Notes – Clarifications
1. The Uncreated = Something that has not been manufactured. This applies only to the Triadic God. The Created = Creation in general, with man at its apex. God is not a “universal” power, as designated by New Age terminology (“everything is one, everyone is God!”), because, as the Creator of all, He transcends the entire universe, given that in essence He is “Something” entirely different (Das ganz Andere). There is no analogous association between the created and the Uncreated. That is why the Uncreated makes Himself know, through His self-revelation.
2. A significant Christian text of the 2nd century, “The Poemen (Shepherd) of Hermas”, says that in order for us to become members of the Body of Christ, we must be “squared” stones (=suitable for building) and not rounded ones!
3. According to fr. John Romanides, to whom we essentially owe the return to the “Philokalian” (=therapeutic-ascetic) view of our Faith, and in fact at an academic level; “Religion” implies every kind of “associating” of the uncreated and the created, as is done in idolatry. The “religious” person projects his “predudices” (=thoughts, meanings) into the divine realm, thus “manufacturing” his own God (this can also occur in the non-Patristic facet of “Orthodoxy”). The aim is “atonement”, “placation” of the “divine” and finally, the “utilizing” of God to one’s own advantage (the magic formula: do ut des). In our tradition however, our God does not need to be “placated”, because “He first loved us” (John I’ 4:19) Our God acts as “Love” (John I, 4:16) and selfless love at that. He gives us everything, and never asks for anything in return from His creations. This is why selflessness is the essence of Christian love, which goes far beyond the notion of a transaction.
4. This is expressed by the familiar and oft-repeated liturgical chant: “Ourselves and each other, and our entire life, let us appose unto Christ our Lord”.
Proper incorporation is normally found in Monasteries, wherever they function in the orthodox tradition of course. That is why Monasteries (for example those of the Holy Mountain) continue to be the model “parishes” of this “world”.
• 约翰•罗曼尼德斯神父：《罗马书或教会的新罗马之父们》，Thessaloniki 1984.
• 约翰•罗曼尼德斯神父：《宗教是一种神经生物疾病，而东正教是治愈该病之法》， from the volume “Orthodoxy, Hellenism… Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion Publications, Volume B,, 1996, pages 66-67.
• 约翰•罗曼尼德斯神父：《教会会议与文明》， from THEOLOGY, vol.63 (1992) pg.421-450 and in Greek vol.66 (1995) pg.646-680.
• Hierotheos Vlachos神父 (现为Nafpaktos都主教)： 《东正教的精神疗法》， Edessa 1986.
• Hierotheos Vlachos神父 (现为Nafpaktos都主教)：《东正教侍奉入门》， Athens.
• Hierotheos Vlachos神父 (现为Nafpaktos都主教)： 《经验的心理学和东正教的精神疗法》, Levadia 1995.
按作者尚有下列研究论文：
• G. Metallinos神父： 《从东正教的视角看社会》， Athens 1986.
• G. Metallinos神父： 《教会崇拜的神学见证》， Athens 1996. (N. B.: In these books one can find more bibliography)
注释：
1. 非受造的＝非人造的自有之物。这只适用于三位一体的上帝。受造的＝一般的造物，人位居所有造物的顶端。 上帝不是一种由新世纪术语学所定义的“宇宙性”的力量（所谓“一切是一，人人皆上帝！”），因为上帝作为万物的创造者，他超越了整个宇宙，他在本质上完全不同(Das ganz Andere)。 在受造的与非受造的之间不存在什么可比拟的联系。这即是非受造的上帝通过他的自我彰显而使自身成为可知的原因。
English英语译成Chinese汉语: 末世异象（摘译自《Understanding the Bible》）
原文文本 - English英语 Continuing the Eschatological Hope
Although Revelation was not the last New Testament book written, its position at the end of the canon is thematically appropriate. The first Christians believed that their generation would witness the end of the present wicked age and the beginning of God’s direct rule over the earth. Revelation expresses that apocalyptic hope more powerfully than any other Christian writing. Anticipating a “new heaven and a new earth” (21:1), it envisions the glorious completion of God’s creative work begun in the first book of the Bible. From the Christian perspective, it provides the omega (the final letter of the Greek alphabet) to the alpha (the first letter) of Genesis.
Revelation’s climactic placement is also fitting because it reintroduces Jesus as a major character. Its portrayal of an all-powerful heavenly Jesus provides a counterweight to the Gospels’ portrait of the human Jesus’ earthly career. In Revelation, Jesus is no longer Mark’s suffering servant or John’s embodiment of divine Wisdom. Revelation’s Jesus is the Messiah of popular expectation, a conquering warrior-king who slays his enemies and proves beyond all doubt his right to universal rule. In striking contrast to the Gospel portraits, the Jesus of Revelation comes, not to forgive sinners and instruct them in a higher righteousness, but to inflict a wrathful punishment upon his opponents (19:11–21).
Revelation’s depiction of Jesus’ character and function, qualitatively different from that presented in the Gospels, derives partly from the author’s rigorously apocalyptic view of human history. Like the authors of Jude and 2 Peter, the writer of Revelation perceives a sharp contrast between the present world, which he regards as hopelessly corrupt, and God’s planned future world, a realm of ideal purity. In the author’s opinion, the righteous new order can be realized only through God’s direct intervention in human affairs, an event that requires Jesus to act as God’s Judge and Destroyer of the world as we know it. Revelation’s emphasis on violence and destruction, with its correspondingly harsher picture of Jesus’ cosmic role, has led many commentators to question the book’s theological or ethical validity. Many churches did not accept it as part of the biblical canon until after the fourth century ce, and Martin Luther frankly doubted the authenticity of its Christology.
The Apocalyptic Tradition
Although the Gospels and Paul’s letters contain strongly apocalyptic passages, Revelation is the only New Testament document composed entirely in the form of a literary apocalypse. Combining visions of the unseen world with previews of future history—all rendered in highly symbolic language—it belongs to a tradition that began with Enoch and Daniel in the early second century bce and continued well into the second century ce. The apocryphal book of 2 Esdras, which was probably composed at almost the same time, is cast in the same visionary form and uses some of the same cryptic images. Revelation is unique in the New Testament, but it can best be understood by studying it in the context of the literary tradition to which it belongs. Although deliberately mystifying, the powerful symbols it employs—the dragon, serpent, beast, and Celestial Woman—represent the conventional vocabulary of apocalyptic discourse. For a discussion of the traditional characteristics of apocalyptic writing, see Chapter 7.
Origins and Structure of Revelation
Authorship and Date Although one tradition states that Revelation is the work of John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, and that he is the same person who wrote John’s Gospel, this assertion was questioned even in the early church. The author identifies himself only as “John,” God’s “servant” (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), does not claim apostolic authority, never mentions having known the historical Jesus, and portrays Jesus’ character as radically different from that shown in the Gospels. To him, the apostles belong to an earlier generation and have already become the twelve “cornerstones” of the heavenly Temple (21:14).
Eusebius suggests that another John, known as “the Elder,” who lived at Ephesus about 100 ce, may have been the author. A few critics accept this view, although the majority believe that we can know little about the writer except for his name and his assertion that he had been exiled to Patmos, a tiny Aegean island off the western coast of Asia Minor (western Turkey). From the contents of his work, scholars can infer something of John’s background. He is intimately familiar with internal conditions in the seven churches addressed (Chs. 2 and 3), even though he seems to belong to none of them. To some commentators, this indicates that John of Patmos was an itinerant Christian prophet who traveled among widely scattered churches. Although he held no congregational office, his recognized stature as a mystic and visionary gave him considerable influence in the communities to which he directed his apocalypse (Figure 14.5).
Because he writes Greek as if it were a second language, phrasing idiosyncratically in a Semitic style, most scholars believe that John was a native of Palestine or at least had spent much time there. A few critics suggest that he had some connection with the Johannine community, because, like the author of John’s Gospel, he refers to Christ as Logos (Word), Lamb, Witness, Shepherd, Judge, and Temple. Both Revelation and the Gospel express a duality of spirit and matter, good and evil, God and the devil. Both regard Christ as present in the church’s liturgy and view his death as a saving victory. Important differences range from the quality of the Greek—excellent in the Gospel and awkward in the apocalypse—to the writers’ respective theologies. Whereas the Gospel presents God’s love as his primary motive in dealing with humanity ( John 3:15 –16), Revelation mentions divine love only once. The Johannine Jesus’ preeminent command to love is pervasively absent from Revelation.
Writing about 180 ce, the churchman Irenaeus stated that Revelation was composed late in the reign of Domitian, who was emperor from 81 to 96 ce. Internal references to government hostilities toward Christians (1:9; 2:10, 13; 6:9–11; 14:12; 16:6; 21:4), policies then associated with Domitian’s administration, support Irenaeus’ assessment. Most scholars date the work about 95 or 96 ce.
The Emperor Cult Domitian was the son of Vespasian and the younger brother of Titus, the general who had successfully crushed the Jewish revolt against Rome and destroyed the Jerusalem Temple. After Titus’ brief reign (79–81 ce), Domitian inherited the imperial throne, accepting divine honors offered him and allowing himself to be worshiped as a god in various parts of the empire (Figure 14.6). We have no real evidence that Domitian personally enforced a universal observance of the emperor cult, but in some areas—especially in Asia Minor—governors and other local officials demanded public participation in the cult as evidence of citizens’ loyalty and patriotism. During this period, persecution for Christians’ refusal to honor the national leader seems to have been local and sporadic. Despite the lack of a concentrated official assault on the faith, however, John clearly feels a growing tension between church and state, a sense of impending conflict that makes him regard Rome as a new Babylon, destroyer of God’s people.
English英语译成Chinese汉语: Why Are Most Translators Underpaid?(为什么多数译者薪酬不高？)
原文文本 - English英语
A descriptive explanation using asymmetric information and a suggested solution from signaling theory
by Andy Lung Jan Chan
Open University of Hong Kong and Ph.D. Program in Translation and Intercultural Studies, Universitat Rovira i Virgili
t is a common observation that most professional translators are not paid well. Most attribute this to the low perceived status of translators and their work. Because of the low pay, many good translators have left the profession for other jobs. This line of thought sounds reasonable but it is also highly evaluative which makes empirical testing impossible. This paper offers an alternative explanation which is descriptive in nature and draws heavily from the theories of information economics. This discussion is in line with the paradigm of descriptive translation studies which emphasizes explanation and prediction. However, in addition to this, Chesterman (1993) points out that translation studies should also cater to evaluation, and I believe that my analysis might offer some insights for improving the situation of professional translators.
Section 1 starts by giving a brief discussion of two important concepts in information economics: asymmetric information and signaling. Section 2 then illustrates how asymmetric information can be used to explain the low pay which we observe in the translators' market. This section also analyzes why this problem of asymmetric information may lead to an outflow of "good" translators. In Section 3, I suggest how effective signals, such as a valid and reliable certification system, can be used to solve the problem of asymmetric information in the translators' market and hence improve the pay of capable professional translators.
Asymmetric information and signaling theory
In economics jargon, a market with asymmetric information refers to one in which one side of the market has more information than the other side and this results in a market price lower than the "fair" price (Kingma 2001). The fundamentals of asymmetric information theory were first put forward by Akerlof (1970) in his seminal paper "The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism". The theory he laid down has a wide application ranging from the insurance and credit market to the labor market. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his contribution to the field of information economics.
In his original paper, Akerlof (1970) uses the example of second-hand cars to illustrate the problem of asymmetric information. For simplicity's sake and for the purpose of illustration, he assumes that in the market of used cars, there are only two types of cars: good cars and bad cars (bad cars are called "lemons" in the US). Before buying a used car, the potential buyer forms a probability distribution: a probability q that a car is a good second-hand car and a probability of 1-q that it is a lemon. After owning a specific used car for some time, the owner can form a better idea of its quality. It is highly likely that a new probability distribution is to be formed. This estimate is more accurate than the original one. This is clearly a case of an asymmetry in available information: the sellers have more knowledge about the quality of a car than the buyers. Since it is impossible for a potential buyer to tell the difference between a good used car and a bad one, sellers may sell both of them at the same price.
This might lead to a problem which some people may call a version of Gresham's Law: Most traded cars will be "lemons" and good cars may not be traded at all. The original version is "Bad money drives out good money". Bad cars drive out good cars because both of them are sold at the same price, and the owners of good cars therefore do not find it worthwhile to sell their cars.
One possible way to tackle this problem is to use an effective signal. In this case, a signal is effective if we can use it to differentiate between good used cars and lemons. This concept of signaling was first used by Spence (1973) in his studies of the job market. He maintains that an education or degree can act as a signal to employers about the ability of a potential employee. In the example of the second-hand car market, a reputable large car dealer may be a more effective signal than someone who advertises in the newspaper because the former has spent a great deal of money on their showroom and is more likely to be dependable.
Asymmetric information in the translators' market
Most would agree that professional translators (or certainly the majority of translators) do not receive good pay. However, most seem to be unable to provide an empirical and testable hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. Many attribute this plight to the low perceived status of translators and their work. For example, Schreiber writes that "Most people still look upon us [professional translators] as, at best, semi-professionals, at worst non-professionals" (quoted in Liu 2001: 51). Therefore, most suggested solutions to this problem involve raising the status of translators. Robinson (2003) points out that "[translators should] work to educate clients and the general public about the importance of translation, so that money managers will be more willing to pay premium fees for translation" (28). The following discussion attempts to provide an alternative explanation using the theory of asymmetric information.
In a translation service market, it is difficult for service buyers or clients to assess the skills of a translator before they receive the translation. Therefore, the problem of asymmetric information exists in this market. In practice, clients can ask potential translators to first translate a small sample of the entire project, however, there is no guarantee that this sample will be a valid and reliable representative of the whole.
Since translation service buyers cannot distinguish between a good translator and a bad translator because of the asymmetric information problem, they tend to pay a going price that is below the "fair" level. For example, let us first assume good translators are worth $10 for a certain number of words and bad translators $5. As clients do not have complete information about the quality of translators, they are only willing to pay according to a certain probability distribution. Assuming a probability of 50% for both types of translators, i.e. half are good and half are bad, clients are only willing to pay $10(1/2)+$5(1/2)=$7.5. (This distribution is actually a bit conservative. We often hear complaints about poor translations, while good translations are seldom praised. Therefore, the probability that clients will expect a translator to be bad might be higher than 50%.)
One result is that most good translators will leave the market and only the poorer translators will stay. This phenomenon is sometimes termed "adverse selection" in the economics literature (see for example, Stiglitz and Walsh, 2002). In the illustration above, good translators should be paid $10 but they receive only $7.5 because of the asymmetric information problem. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that a few translators will stay in the market because they find the work fulfilling in terms of non-monetary rewards.
One might point out that the problem of asymmetric information does not exist if translators work for established clients who are aware of the consistent high quality of their translations. However, this is not often the case, and it is more common to hear that freelance translators need to constantly look for new clients in order to make ends meet.
Therefore, we may say that Gresham's Law and adverse selection also apply here. Many highly skilled translators set up their own agencies and farm jobs out to freelancers. In this case, they devote more time and effort to project management and marketing than translation work. On the other hand, some translators might acquire further academic qualifications and become translator trainers.
Signaling in the translators' market: Accreditation and certification
In an online symposium held in January 2000 by the Intercultural Studies Group (ISG) at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili, most discussants agreed on the importance of accreditation and certification (Dimitrova, 2000). Most of them believe that it would lead to the professionalization of translators, improving pay and working conditions. The author of this paper would add that accreditation or certification, if devised and implemented in a valid and reliable manner, could also act as an effective signal to differentiate good translators and bad ones. In fact, the United States (American Translators Association) and Britain (Institute of Linguists) have been working on developing systems for accreditation/certification. In China, an attempt was made by the Ministry of Personnel to devise a national accreditation system for translators in 2003.
Of course, designing an effective accreditation system is more easily said than done, and quite a number of authors have argued against such a system. For example, Chriss (nd) points out the difficulties in evaluation and the enormous costs involved in making the system "widely recognized and accepted as a sign of superior quality, as for instance ISO-9000 certification is within some industries". He prefers the status quo of the translators' market being a gray market (in the terminology we have used, this would mean a market with asymmetric information). My position is that no accreditation system can claim to be perfect, or perfectly valid and reliable, but as with other standardized tests (for example, TOEFL and IELTS in language testing), certification should always be dynamic and constantly changing to answer to evolving market and social demands. As concluded in the online symposium held by the ISG, "The criteria for accrediting/certifying translators/interpreters are not universally given, but to a large extent depend upon who does the accrediting and what its purpose is held to be". Therefore, we might say that accreditation and certification of translators is not a perfect solution to the problem of asymmetric information but nonetheless offers a signal that may offer buyers of translation services to determine the quality of translators.
Conclusion
This paper uses the concept of asymmetric information to provide a descriptive explanation of why most professional translators are underpaid. This is superior to the traditional, purely evaluative explanation that the perceived status of translators and their work is low. Effective signaling in the form of accreditation and certification is suggested as a means to partially solve this problem, although there are many issues to consider in the design and implementation of a valid, reliable and cost-effective accreditation system which may be worthy topics for further research.
References
Akerlof, George A. 1970. "The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism". Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (3): 488-500.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. "From 'Is' to 'Ought': Translation laws, norms and strategies". Target 5(1): 1-20.
Chriss, Roger. nd. "Accreditation and standards in the translation industry". http://www.translationdirectory.com/article40.htm (16 July 2004)
Dimittrova, Birgitta Englund. 2000. "Summary of discussion on 'Accreditation' in an on-line symposium 17-25 January 2000". URV, Tarragona, Spain: Innovation in Translator and Interpreter Training (ITIT). http://www.fut.es/~apym/symp/s-accreditation.html (16 July 2004)
Kingma, Bruce R. 2001. The Economics of Information. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Liu, Ching-chih. 2001. "The Hong Kong Translation Society: A concise history, 1971-1999". In Translation in Hong Kong: Past, Present and Future, S.-W. Chan (ed.) 37-72. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Robinson, Douglas. 2003. Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
多数人都同意职业译者（或确切地说是大多数译者）的收入不高。然而，他们似乎都不能提出一个经验性及可检验的假说来解释这种现象。许多人将这种困境归结为对译者地位及其工作的认知程度较低。例如，Schreiber写道：“许多人顶多也只将我们[职业译者]视为半专业人士，或更糟，将我们看成是非专业人士”(quoted in Liu 2001: 51)。因此，许多人认为解决办法应该是提高译者的地位。Robinson（2003）指出：“[译者应该]努力使客户和公众了解翻译的重要性，从而使管钱的人更愿意为翻译出钱”。以下的论述试图用信息不对称理论提供一种替代性的解释。
导致的一个结果就是优秀的译者会离开这个市场而只剩下较差的译者。这一现象在经济学文献里有时候被称作“逆向选择”（参见：Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Walsh, Carl E. 2002. Economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.）在上面的阐述中，优秀的译者应该拿到10美元却由于信息不对称问题只能得到7.5美元。当然，我们不排除某种可能性，即个别译者由于从工作中获到了不以金钱衡量的价值(work fulfilling)而留在这一市场。
English英语译成Chinese汉语: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction
原文文本 - English英语
Written by Patrick Zukeran
Introduction
The most significant event in history is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the strongest evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. This event gives men and women the sure hope of eternal life a hope that not only gives us joy as we look to the future but also provides us with powerful reasons to live today.
Throughout the centuries, however, there have been scholars who have attempted to deny the account of the Resurrection. Our schools are filled with history books which give alternative explanations for the Resurrection or in some cases, fail even to mention this unique event.
In this essay we will take a look at the evidence for the Resurrection and see if this event is historical fact or fiction. But, first, we must establish the fact that Jesus Christ was a historical figure and not a legend. There are several highly accurate historical documents that attest to Jesus. First, let's look at the four Gospels themselves. The authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded very specific facts of the events surrounding the life of Jesus, and archaeology has verified the accuracy of the New Testament. Hundreds of facts such as the names of officials, geographical sites, financial currencies, and times of events have been confirmed. Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest geographers of the 19th century, became firmly convinced of the accuracy of the New Testament as a result of the overwhelming evidence he discovered during his research. As a result, he completely reversed his antagonism against Christianity.
The textual evidence decisively shows that the Gospels were written and circulated during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events. Since there are so many specific names and places mentioned, eyewitnesses could have easily discredited the writings. The New Testament would have never survived had the facts been inaccurate. These facts indicate that the Gospels are historically reliable and show Jesus to be a historical figure. For more information on the accuracy of the Bible, see the essay from Probe entitled Authority of the Bible.
Another document that supports the historicity of Jesus is the work of Josephus, a potentially hostile Jewish historian. He recorded Antiquities, a history of the Jews, for the Romans during the lifetime of Jesus. He wrote, "Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man."(1) Josephus goes on to relate other specific details about Jesus' life and death that correspond with the New Testament. Roman historians such as Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger also refer to Jesus as a historically real individual.
Skeptics often challenge Christians to prove the Resurrection scientifically. We must understand, the scientific method is based on showing that something is fact by repeated observations of the object or event. Therefore, the method is limited to repeatable events or observable objects. Historical events cannot be repeated. For example, can we repeatedly observe the creation of our solar system? The obvious answer is no, but that does not mean the creation of the solar system did not happen.
In proving a historical event like the Resurrection, we must look at the historical evidence. Thus far in our discussion we have shown that belief in the historical Jesus of the New Testament is certainly reasonable and that the scientific method cannot be applied to proving a historical event. For the reminder of this essay, we will examine the historical facts concerning the Resurrection and see what the evidence reveals.
Examining the Evidence
Three facts must be reckoned with when investigating the Resurrection: the empty tomb, the transformation of the Apostles, and the preaching of the Resurrection originating in Jerusalem.
Let us first examine the case of the empty tomb. Jesus was a well- known figure in Israel. His burial site was known by many people. In fact Matthew records the exact location of Jesus' tomb. He states, "And Joseph of Arimathea took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb" (Matt. 27:59). Mark asserts that Joseph was "a prominent member of the Council" (Mark 15:43).
It would have been destructive for the writers to invent a man of such prominence, name him specifically, and designate the tomb site, since eyewitnesses would have easily discredited the author's fallacious claims.
Jewish and Roman sources both testify to an empty tomb. Matthew 28:12 13 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. Opponents of the Resurrection must account for this. If the tomb had not been empty, the preaching of the Apostles would not have lasted one day. All the Jewish authorities needed to do to put an end to Christianity was to produce the body of Jesus.
Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association states,
Let's assume that the written accounts of His appearances to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don't you think that it's reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ's body? . . . The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.(2)
Second, we have the changed lives of the Apostles. It is recorded in the Gospels that while Jesus was on trial, the Apostles deserted Him in fear. Yet 10 out of the 11 Apostles died as martyrs believing Christ rose from the dead. What accounts for their transformation into men willing to die for their message? It must have been a very compelling event to account for this.
Third, the Apostles began preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. This is significant since this is the very city in which Jesus was crucified. This was the most hostile city in which to preach. Furthermore, all the evidence was there for everyone to investigate. Legends take root in foreign lands or centuries after the event. Discrediting such legends is difficult since the facts are hard to verify. However, in this case the preaching occurs in the city of the event immediately after it occurred. Every possible fact could have been investigated thoroughly.
Anyone studying the Resurrection must somehow explain these three facts.
Five Common Explanations
Over the years five explanations have been used to argue against the Resurrection. We will examine these explanations to see whether they are valid.
The Wrong Tomb Theory
Proponents of this first argument state that according to the Gospel accounts, the women visited the grave early in the morning while it was dark. Due to their emotional condition and the darkness, they visited the wrong tomb. Overjoyed to see that it was empty, they rushed back to tell the disciples Jesus had risen. The disciples in turn ran into Jerusalem to proclaim the Resurrection.
There are several major flaws with this explanation. First, it is extremely doubtful that the Apostles would not have corrected the women's error. The Gospel of John gives a very detailed account of them doing just that. Second, the tomb site was known not only by the followers of Christ but also by their opponents. The Gospels make it clear the body was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish council. If the body still remained in the tomb while the Apostles began preaching, the authorities simply would have to go to the right tomb, produce the body, and march it down the streets. This would have ended the Christian faith once and for all. Remember, the preaching of the Resurrection began in Jerusalem, fifteen minutes away from the crucifixion site and the tomb. These factors make this theory extremely weak.
The Hallucination Theory
This second theory holds that the Resurrection of Christ just occurred in the minds' of the disciples. Dr. William McNeil articulates this position in his book, A World History. He writes,
The Roman authorities in Jerusalem arrested and crucified Jesus. . . . But soon afterwards the dispirited Apostles gathered in an upstairs room' and suddenly felt again the heartwarming presence of their master. This seemed absolutely convincing evidence that Jesus' death on the cross had not been the end but the beginning. . . . The Apostles bubbled over with excitement and tried to explain to all who would listen all that had happened.(3)
This position is unrealistic for several reasons. In order for hallucinations of this type to occur, psychiatrists agree that several conditions must exist. However, this situation was not conducive for hallucinations. Here are several reasons. Hallucinations generally occur to people who are imaginative and of a nervous make up. However, the appearances of Jesus occurred to a variety of people. Hallucinations are subjective and individual. No two people have the same experience. In this case, over five hundred people (Corinthians 15) have the same account. Hallucinations occur only at particular times and places and are associated with the events. The Resurrection appearances occur in many different environments and at different times. Finally, hallucinations of this nature occur to those who intensely want to believe. However, several such as Thomas and James, the half brother of Jesus were hostile to the news of the Resurrection.
If some continue to argue for this position, they still must account for the empty tomb. If the Apostles dreamed up the Resurrection at their preaching, all the authorities needed to do was produce the body and that would have ended the Apostles' dream. These facts make these two theories extremely unlikely.
The Swoon Theory
A third theory espouses that Jesus never died on the cross but merely passed out and was mistakenly considered dead. After three days He revived, exited the tomb, and appeared to His disciples who believed He had risen from the dead. This theory was developed in the early nineteenth century, but today it has been completely given up for several reasons.
First, it is a physical impossibility that Jesus could have survived the tortures of the crucifixion. Second, the soldiers who crucified Jesus were experts in executing this type of death penalty. Furthermore, they took several precautions to make sure He was actually dead. They thrust a spear in His side. When blood and water come out separately, this indicates the blood cells had begun to separate from the plasma which will only happen when the blood stops circulating. Upon deciding to break the legs of the criminals (in order to speed up the process of dying), they carefully examined the body of Jesus and found that He was already dead.
After being taken down from the cross, Jesus was covered with eighty pounds of spices and embalmed. It is unreasonable to believe that after three days with no food or water, Jesus would revive. Even harder to believe is that Jesus could roll a two-ton stone up an incline, overpower the guards, and then walk several miles to Emmaeus. Even if Jesus had done this, His appearing to the disciples half-dead and desperately in need of medical attention would not have prompted their worship of Him as God.
In the 19th century, David F. Strauss, an opponent of Christianity, put an end to any hope in this theory. Although he did not believe in the Resurrection, he concluded this to be a very outlandish theory. He stated,
It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life, an impression that would lay at the bottom of their future ministry.(4)
The Stolen Body Theory
This fourth argument holds that Jewish and Roman authorities stole the body or moved it for safekeeping. It is inconceivable to think this a possibility. If they had the body, why did they need to accuse the disciples of stealing it? (Matt. 28:11 15). In Acts 4, the Jewish authorities were angered and did everything they could to prevent the spread of Christianity. Why would the disciples deceive their own people into believing in a false Messiah when they knew that this deception would mean the deaths of hundreds of their believing friends? If they really knew where the body was, they could have exposed it and ended the faith that caused them so much trouble and embarrassment. Throughout the preaching of the Apostles, the authorities never attempted to refute the Resurrection by producing a body. This theory has little merit.
The Soldiers Fell Asleep Theory
Thus far we have been studying the evidence for the Resurrection. We examined four theories used in attempts to invalidate this miracle. Careful analysis revealed the theories were inadequate to refute the Resurrection. The fifth and most popular theory has existed since the day of the Resurrection and is still believed by many opponents of Christianity. Matthew 28:12 13 articulates this position.
When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money telling them, "You are to say, his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"
Many have wondered why Matthew records this and then does not refute it. Perhaps it is because this explanation was so preposterous, he did not see the need to do so.
This explanation remains an impossibility for several reasons. First, if the soldiers were sleeping, how did they know it was the disciples who stole the body? Second, it seems physically impossible for the disciples to sneak past the soldiers and then move a two-ton stone up an incline in absolute silence. Certainly the guards would have heard something.
Third, the tomb was secured with a Roman seal. Anyone who moved the stone would break the seal, an offense punishable by death. The depression and cowardice of the disciples makes it difficult to believe that they would suddenly become so brave as to face a detachment of soldiers, steal the body, and then lie about the Resurrection when the would ultimately face a life of suffering and death for their contrived message.
Fourth, Roman guards were not likely to fall asleep with such an important duty. There were penalties for doing so. The disciples would have needed to overpower them. A very unlikely scenario.
Finally, in the Gospel of John the grave clothes were found "lying there as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself separate from the linen" (20:6 7). There was not enough time for the disciples to sneak past the guards, roll away the stone, unwrap the body, rewrap it in their wrappings, and fold the head piece neatly next to the linen. In a robbery, the men would have flung the garments down in disorder and fled in fear of detection.
Conclusion: Monumental Implications
These five theories inadequately account for the empty tomb, the transformation of the Apostles, and the birth of Christianity in the city of the crucifixion. The conclusion we must seriously consider is that Jesus rose from the grave. The implications of this are monumental.
First, if Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said about Himself is true. He stated, "I am the Resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies" (John 11:25). He also stated, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no man comes to the father , but through me" (John 14:6). Eternal life is found through Jesus Christ alone. Any religious belief that contradicts this must be false. Every religious leader has been buried in a grave. Their tombs have become places of worship. The location of Jesus' tomb is unknown because it was empty; his body is not there. There was no need to enshrine an empty tomb.
Second, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:54, "Death has been swallowed up in victory." Physical death is not the end; eternal life with our Lord awaits all who trust in Him because Jesus has conquered death.
Notes
1. Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 33. (Early second Century).
2. Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernadino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1981), p. 66.
3. William McNeil, A World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 163.
4. David Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People , vol. 1, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), p. 412.
For Further Reading
Craig, William Lane. Apologetics: An Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Geisler, Norman. When Skeptics Ask. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Press, 1989.
Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists; The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications, 1995.
Little, Paul. Know Why You Believe. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bernadino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1979.
. The Resurrection Factor. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1981.
McNeill, William. A World History, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Montgomery, John, ed. Evidence for Faith. Dallas: Probe Books, 1991.
Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1958.
Strauss, David. The Life of Jesus for the People. Volume 1, Second Edition. London: Williams and Norgate, 1879.
The Federalist Papers are a collection of eighty-five essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay between October 1787 and May 1788. They were written at the time to convince New York State to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
They are perhaps the most famous newspaper columns ever written, and today constitute one of the most important documents of America¡¯s founding period. They provide the justification for the Constitution and address some of the most important political issues associated with popular self-government.
Clinton Rossiter says that ¡°The Federalist is the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely ever to be written, in the United States. . . . It would not be stretching the truth more than a few inches to say that The Federalist stands third only to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself among all the sacred writings of American political history.¡±Jacob Cooke agrees. He believes that ¡°The United States has produced three historic documents of major importance: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist.¡±
All the essays were signed ¡°Publius¡± even though they were written by three different authors (Hamilton wrote fifty-two, Madison wrote twenty-eight, and Jay wrote five). Political leaders in New York opposed the new government because the state had become an independent nation under the Articles of Confederation and was becoming rich through tariffs on trade with other states. When it became apparent that New York would not ratify the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton enlisted the aid of James Madison (who was available because the Continental Congress was sitting in New York) and John Jay. Unfortunately, Jay was injured and was only able to complete a few essays.
There are many reasons for the importance of The Federalist Papers. First, the authors were significant figures during the founding era. James Madison is considered the architect of the Constitution and later served as President of the United States. Alexander Hamilton served in George Washington¡¯s cabinet and was a major force in setting U.S. economic policy. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Each of these men was present at the constitutional convention and was respected by their peers.
Second, The Federalist Papers provide the most systematic and comprehensive analysis of the constitution. Not only do the authors explain the structure of the constitution, but they also defend their decisions against the critics of their day. They were, after all, writing to convince New York to ratify the constitution.
Third, The Federalist Papers explain the motives of the Founding Fathers. Often when Supreme Court justices are trying to discern the founder¡¯s intentions, they appeal to these writings. The Federalist Papers are the most important interpretative source of constitutional interpretation and give important insight into the framers¡¯ intent and purpose for the Constitution.
Human Nature
The writers of The Federalist Papers were concerned about the relationship between popular government and human nature. They were well aware that human beings have the propensity to pursue short-term self-interest often at the expense of long-term benefits. The writers were also concerned that factions that formed around these areas of immediate self-interest could ultimately destroy the moral foundations of civil government.
James Madison argued in Federalist Paper #51 that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature:
But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The writers of The Federalist Papers certainly believed that there was a positive aspect to human nature. They often talk about reason, virtue, and morality. But they also recognized there was a negative aspect to human nature. They believed that framing a republic required a balance of power that liberates human dignity and rationality and controls human sin and depravity.
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
As we will discuss in more detail later, James Madison concluded from his study of governments that they were destroyed by factions. He believed this factionalism was due to ¡°the propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities¡± (Federalist Paper #10) which he believed were ¡°sown in the nature of man.¡± Constitutional scholars have concluded that ¡°the fallen nature of man influenced Madison¡¯s view of law and government.¡± He therefore concluded that government must be based upon a more realistic view which also accounts for this sinful side of human nature.
A Christian view of government is based upon a balanced view of human nature. It recognizes both human dignity (we are created in God's image) and human depravity (we are sinful individuals). Because both grace and sin operate in government, we should neither be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. We should view governmental affairs with a deep sense of biblical realism.
Factions and the Republic
The writers of The Federalist Papers were concerned about the previous history of republics. Alexander Hamilton writes that ¡°the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy¡± can only evoke ¡°horror and disgust¡± since they rocked back and forth from ¡°the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.¡±
James Madison focused on the problem of factions. ¡°By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of the citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.¡±
Madison believed there were only two ways to cure the problem of factions: remove the causes or control the effects. He quickly dismisses the first since it would either destroy liberty or require everyone to have ¡°the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.¡±
He further acknowledges that ¡°causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.¡± So he rejects the idea of changing human nature. And he also rejects the idea that a political leader will be able to deal with the problem of factions: ¡°It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.¡±
Madison believed the solution could be found in the extended republic that the framers created. While a small republic might be shattered by factions, the larger number of representatives that would be chosen would ¡°guard against the cabals of a few.¡±
Also, since ¡°each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.¡± Also, the voters are ¡°more likely to center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.¡±
Madison also believed that this extended republic would minimize the possibility of one faction pushing forward it agenda to the exclusion of others. This was due to the ¡°greater number of citizens and extent of territory.¡± A smaller society would most likely have fewer distinct parties. But if you extend the sphere, you increase the variety and interests of the parties. And it is less likely any one faction could dominate the political arena.
Madison realized the futility of trying to remove passions or human sinfulness, and instead designed a system that minimized the influence of factions and still provided the greatest amount of liberty for its citizens.
Separation of Powers
The writers of The Federalist Papers were concerned with the potential abuse of power, and set forth their rationale for separating the powers of the various branches of government. James Madison summarizes their fear of the centralization of political power in a famous quote in Federalist Paper #47.
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Madison quickly dismisses the idea that constitutional provisions alone will prevent an abuse of political power. He argues that mere ¡°parchment barriers¡± are not adequate ¡°against the encroaching spirit of power.¡±
He also believed that the legislature posed the greatest threat to the separation of powers. ¡°The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.¡±The framers therefore divided Congress into a bicameral legislature and hoped that the Senate would play a role in checking the passions of popular majorities (Federalist Paper #63).
His solution was to give each branch separate but rival powers. This prevented the possibility of concentrating power into the hands of a few. Each branch had certain checks over the other branches so there was a distribution and balance of power.
The effect of this system was to allow ambition and power to control itself. Each branch is given power, and as ambitious men and women seek to extend their sphere of influence, they provide a check on the other branch.
Madison said, ¡°Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.¡± This policy of supplying ¡°opposite and rival interests¡± has been known as the concept of countervailing ambitions.
In addition to this, the people were given certain means of redress. Elections and an amendment process have kept power from being concentrated in the hands of governmental officials. Each of these checks was motivated by a healthy fear of human nature. The founders believed in human responsibility and human dignity, but they did not trust human nature too much. Their solution was to separate powers and invest each branch with rival powers.
Limited Government
The writers of The Federalist Papers realized the futility of trying to remove passions and ambition from the population. They instead divided power and allowed ¡°ambition to counteract ambition.¡± By separating various institutional power structures, they limited the expansion of power.
This not only included a horizontal distribution of powers (separation of powers), but also a vertical distribution of powers (federalism). The federal government was delegated certain powers while the rest of the powers were reserved to the states and the people.
James Madison rightly called this new government a republic which he defined as ¡°a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.¡±
He also argued that ¡°the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.¡±
Governmental power was limited by the Constitution and its interpretation was delegated to the judicial branch. As Alexander Hamilton explained, the Constitution was to be the supreme law of the land.
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Although Hamilton referred to the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches of government, some of the critics of the Constitution warned that the Supreme Court ¡°would be exalted above all power in the government, and subject to no control.¡±Unfortunately, that assessment certain has proved correct over the last few decades.
The Federalist Papers provide an overview of the political theory that undergirds the U.S. Constitution and provide important insight into the intentions of the framers in constructing a new government. As we have also seen, it shows us where the current governmental structure strays from the original intent of the framers.
The framers fashioned a government that was based upon a realistic view of human nature. The success of this government in large part is due to separating power structures because of their desire to limit the impact of human sinfulness.
Clinton Rossiter说：“《联邦党人文集》是美国有史以来在政治科学领域最重要的著作，可能永远都是最重要的著作. . . 说《联邦党人文集》是美国政治史上是除了独立宣言和宪法而外最为神圣的作品，虽不中亦不远。” Jacob Cooke赞同这一观点。他相信“美国产生了三部具有重大影响力的历史文献：独立宣言、宪法和联邦党人文集。”
English英语译成Chinese汉语: Test Translation on International Politics
原文文本 - English英语 The Human Rights Council has shown signs of shedding some of the problems that plagued its predecessor. Over the past five years, the Council has proven itself prepared to eject members who abuse the rights of their citizens, and the Universal Periodic Review process has become a core part of the Council’s business, building shared expectations among states. This work has also helped disseminate human rights norms across the world. The establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights provides an indication of this.
The creating of the entity UN Women in 2010 marked a potentially significant step forward for the promotion and protection of women’s human rights. Their programmes, which are dedicated to the elimination of violence against women and focus on the protection of women during armed conflict, are especially relevant in this regard. The Secretary-General’s appointment of Margot Wallström as Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict has also strengthened the Organization’s capacity to protect women, notwithstanding criticism of her response to cases of mass rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2010.
Criticism of the Secretary-General’s own performance in relation to human rights tended to focus on his perceived failure to denounce violations, especially in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and China. Such criticism runs counter to recent academic research which has shown that isolating states is a relatively ineffective way of responding to chronic human rights problems. And, for the record, the Secretary-General has repeatedly voiced concern about human rights in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. The dispute, though, is more about tactics than substance. Each individual case is different, and what might work in one place might not in another. Sometimes the Secretary-General has taken considerable political risks to protect human rights, most notably in the case of Côte d’Ivoire, in early 2011. Such tactics are not likely to work often.
Chrisitan,
holder of multiple master's degree on politics and theology.
experienced freelancer
editor and proofreader in a translating group at present.
focused on social science and humanities
works including books, articles, poems, subtitles, etc.
Language Pair: English to Chinese
Translation Fields: history, politics, Public Administration, International Relation, Pedagogy, literature, News Report, and religion (Christiantity and Islam).
Samples of my translation:
http://dongyun1129.blog.sohu.com/;
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/articlelist_1403096682_2_1.html
专长