“经文辨读”视角下先秦儒家的“天人合一”与理雅各《论语》译本中“天”的英译
|
摘要
翻译即是诠释。当今的诠释学已经从早期圣经诠释学中仅对《圣经》的"神言"进行阐释,发展为对普通文本中的"人言"进行领悟说明的、科学与哲学相结合的研究体系。而"经文辨读"作为宗教之间对话的重要方式,又将诠释学的研究中心由"人言"带回到了包含东方视角的"神言"。以"经文辨读"的角度,比较理雅各译本与其它《论语》英译本中对"天"的诠释,可以让我们更加理解先秦儒家对"天"的信仰。我们正处在复兴传统和回归经典的边缘,回归的方式并不是通过宗教复兴或图腾崇拜,而是通过经典作品中诗样的语言。
Translation is in essence interpretation. Different from the early stage of biblical Hermeneutics, contemporary Hermeneutics has turned from the understanding of the words of God in Bible to the understanding of the words of men. As a very efficient way of communicating between different religions, "Scripture Reasoning" brings the focus of Hermeneutics back to the study of God's words. By comparing Legge' s version of "Tian"in his The Analects with other different interpretations from the aspect of "scripture reasoning", we can have a better understanding of the Chinese traditional faith in "Tian" of the Pre-Qin Confucianism.We are on the verge of traditional renaissance and classical revitalization. The way of achieving this is not by religious restoration or totem worship, but by understanding the poetic words in the classics.
Translation is in essence interpretation. Different from the early stage of biblical Hermeneutics, contemporary Hermeneutics has turned from the understanding of the words of God in Bible to the understanding of the words of men. As a very efficient way of communicating between different religions, "Scripture Reasoning" brings the focus of Hermeneutics back to the study of God's words. By comparing Legge' s version of "Tian"in his The Analects with other different interpretations from the aspect of "scripture reasoning", we can have a better understanding of the Chinese traditional faith in "Tian" of the Pre-Qin Confucianism.We are on the verge of traditional renaissance and classical revitalization. The way of achieving this is not by religious restoration or totem worship, but by understanding the poetic words in the classics.
引文
[1] Coleridge, H. et al.(eds.). 1989. Oxford English Dictionary[C].Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[2]安乐哲.2009.温海明译.和而不同:中西哲学的会通[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[3]范胡泽.2012.杨慧译.保罗·利科哲学中的圣经叙事诠释科学与神学研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.
[4]辜鸿铭.2013.王京涛译.西播《论语》回译[M].上海:东方出版中心.
[5]辜鸿铭.2014.辜鸿铭讲论语[M].北京:金城出版社.
[6]金学勤.2009.《论语》英译之跨文化阐释[M].成都:四川大学出版社.
[7]李零.2007.郭店楚简校读记[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
[8]理雅各.2014.论语·大学·中庸[M].上海:三联书店.
[9]宁新昌.2004.境界形而上学及其限制——由先秦儒学谈起[M].济南:齐鲁出版社.
[10]单纯.2003.宗教哲学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[11]杨伯峻.2015.论语译注[M].上海:中华书局.
[12]杨慧林.2013.中国思想何以进入西方的概念系统[J].中国文化研究,(1):18-20.
[13]张华.2014.经文辩读与比较文学—巴黎2013年国际比较文学大会圆桌会议纪要[J].基督教文化学刊,(1):55.
[14]张立文周桂钿.2004.中国唯心论史[M].郑州:河南人民出版社.
[15]张政胡文潇.2015.论语中“天”的英译探析—兼论其对中国文化核心关键词英译的启示[J].中国翻译,(6):92-96.
[2]安乐哲.2009.温海明译.和而不同:中西哲学的会通[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[3]范胡泽.2012.杨慧译.保罗·利科哲学中的圣经叙事诠释科学与神学研究[M].中国人民大学出版社.
[4]辜鸿铭.2013.王京涛译.西播《论语》回译[M].上海:东方出版中心.
[5]辜鸿铭.2014.辜鸿铭讲论语[M].北京:金城出版社.
[6]金学勤.2009.《论语》英译之跨文化阐释[M].成都:四川大学出版社.
[7]李零.2007.郭店楚简校读记[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
[8]理雅各.2014.论语·大学·中庸[M].上海:三联书店.
[9]宁新昌.2004.境界形而上学及其限制——由先秦儒学谈起[M].济南:齐鲁出版社.
[10]单纯.2003.宗教哲学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[11]杨伯峻.2015.论语译注[M].上海:中华书局.
[12]杨慧林.2013.中国思想何以进入西方的概念系统[J].中国文化研究,(1):18-20.
[13]张华.2014.经文辩读与比较文学—巴黎2013年国际比较文学大会圆桌会议纪要[J].基督教文化学刊,(1):55.
[14]张立文周桂钿.2004.中国唯心论史[M].郑州:河南人民出版社.
[15]张政胡文潇.2015.论语中“天”的英译探析—兼论其对中国文化核心关键词英译的启示[J].中国翻译,(6):92-96.