The person shown here is a basic user of this site. He or she may be contacted directly for language-related services.
|
Working languages: English to Chinese |
| Seaguest
Honest, Correct, Swift
NA Local time: 14:13 CST (GMT+8)
Native in: Chinese  | |
| Freelancer | | Translation | | Specializes in: | | Government / Politics | History | | Philosophy | Religion | | Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc. |
| Also works in: | | Poetry & Literature | Other | | Science (general) |
More Less | English to Chinese - Standard rate: 0.07 USD per word / 25 USD per hour
| | Questions answered: 1, Questions asked: 0 Easy / 16 PRO | Sample translations submitted: 3| English to Chinese: Why Are Most Translators Underpaid?(为什么多数译者薪酬不高？) | Source text - English
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.
Spence, Michael. 1973. "Job market signaling". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 87: 355-74.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Walsh, Carl E. 2002. Economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
| Translation - Chinese
作者：Andy Lung Jan Chan
翻译：Seaguest（冬云）
译文出处：http://www.accurapid.com/journal/32asymmetric.htm
一个普遍的现象是多数职业译者的收益不理想。许多人将此归结为对译者地位及其工作的认知程度较低。由于薪酬不高，许多优秀的译者转而另谋高就。这种想法听上去有道理，但大有商榷余地，因为它无法进行经验性检验。本文提出一种替代性的解释，该解释是描述性的，着重从信息经济学理论中推导出结论。该讨论与重在解释与预言的描述性翻译研究的范式相一致。然而除此之外，Chesterman（1993）指出翻译研究也应该指向评估，而我相信我的分析能够为改善职业译者的境况提供某些启发。
第一部分先简要介绍两个信息经济学的重要概念：信息不对称和信号；第二部分接着阐述为什么信息不对称可用来解释我们在译者市场上所观察到的低酬现象，并分析何以这种信息不对称问题会导致“优秀”译者的流失。在第三部分，我要建议如何应用有效的信号——诸如合格而可靠的认证体系——来解决译者市场中存在的信息不对称问题，由此提高有能力的职业译者的薪酬。
信息不对称及信号理论
在经济学术语中，一个信息不对称的市场是指市场中其中一方拥有比另一方更多的信息、由此导致市场价格低于“公平价格”的市场。Kerlof（1970）在他那篇开创性的论文“柠檬市场：质量不确定及市场机制”中，首次提出了信息不对称理论的原理。他奠定的理论应用广泛，涵盖从保险业和信贷市场直至劳务市场等诸多领域。由于在信息经济学方面的贡献，他于2001年被授予诺贝尔经济学奖。
在他的开创性论文中，Akerlof（1970）使用了二手车的例子来阐明信息不对称的问题。为了简明扼要地阐述问题，他假设在一个二手车市场上，只有两种类型的车：好车跟坏车（在美国，坏车被称作“柠檬”）。在买车之前，潜在的买主就已经形成一个可能性分布：可能性q代表着好的二手轿车，而可能性1-q代表不好的车。在拥有某辆特定的二手车一段时间后，车主会对其质量有更好的认识。这就极有可能形成一个新的可能性分布。这一估计要比起初的那个更准确。这就是一个明显的关于可获取信息不对称的例子：卖主要比买主对车的质量更在行。由于潜在的买主不可能分辨好车与坏车，卖主就可以把它们等价出售。
这就可能出现一个问题，一些人会将其称为“Gresham法则即劣币驱逐良币”的翻版：绝大多数卖出的车都是“柠檬”而好车一辆也卖不出去。坏车之所以能排挤好车，是因为二者在售价上没有高低之分，好车的车主因而发现卖车不值得。
解决这一问题的可能方案是使用有效的信号。在这个例子中，有效的信号就是我们能用它区分好车与柠檬。这一信号理论由Spence（1973）在其关于劳务市场的研究中首先提出。他认为某种教育或学历就代表着向雇主发出的关于未来雇员能力的信号。在二手车市场的例子中，一位有声望的汽车交易大亨是比只在报纸上登广告的人更有效的信号，因为前者既然在展厅方面舍得花钱，自然更加值得信赖。
译者市场的信息不对称
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。
在一个翻译服务市场，服务的买主或客户在接到翻译作品之前，很难对译者的水平做出评估。因此，这一市场就存在信息不对称的问题。在实践中，客户会要求潜在的译者先翻译整个项目的一个小样本，但无法保证该样本能够合理可靠地代表整体。
由于翻译服务的买主受信息不对称的限制而无法区分优劣译者，他们就倾向于支付一个低于“公平”价格的现价。比如，假设好的译者是多少字10美元，而差的译者是5美元。由于客户对于译者的水平无法全面掌握，他们就只原意按照某种可能性分布来支付稿酬。假设获得某类译者的可能性是50％，也就是说，得优得劣的机会各占一半，那么客户就只愿意支付$10(1/2)+$5(1/2)=$7.5美元。（这种分布实际是有点保守的。我们经常听到对拙劣译作的抱怨，而难得称赞优秀的翻译作品。因此，客户预期碰上低劣译者的可能性要高于50％）
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。
有人或许以为，如果译者只为固定的客户服务，而他们了解其翻译作品持之以恒的高质量，就不会存在信息不对称的问题。但这不合常规。更普遍的情况是听到自由译者为了维持生计而不断地寻找新的客户。
因此，我们可以说Gresham法则在此同样适用。许多高水平的译者开起了自己的中介所，向自由译者转包任务。在这种情况下，他们把更多的时间和精力倾注于项目管理和市场营销而不是翻译工作。另一方面，一些译者可能获得更高的学术资格转而从事培训译者的工作。
译者市场的信号：认可与认证
2001年1月，跨文化研究组织（ISG）在洛维拉维吉利大学举办了一次网络研讨会，多数参与研讨会的人士都同意认可和认证的重要性（Dimitrova，2000）。许多人相信这将带来译者的专业化、收入的增加以及工作条件的改善。本文还要增加一条，那就是认可和认证如果得到合理而可靠的设计及实施，就可以充当区分优劣译者的信号。事实上，在美国（美国译者协合）和在英国（语言学家学会）已经致力于为认可/认证而开发各项系统。在中国，人事部在2003尝试为译者设计一个全国性的认可系统。
当然，设计一个有效的认可系统是说起来容易做起来难，而且相当多的作者反对这么一个系统。比如，Chriss指出在评估中的难点，以及要开发一个得到广泛承认和接受的系统以作为卓越品质的标记，需要耗费高昂的成本，就象ISO-9000认证在某些行业中所遇到的那样。他是宁可维持这种译者市场作为灰色市场（意即一个带有不对称信息的市场）的存在现状。而我的立场是，没有哪个认可系统能声称完美无缺的，也不可能是完全合理和可靠的。但正如其他标准测试一样（比如，语言测试中的TOEFL和IELTS考试），认证应该始终处于动态当中，并且不断变革以应对发展中的市场和社会需求。正如ISG网络研讨会所达致的结论：“为翻译/口译的认可/认证而制定的标准并不是普遍适用的，它在很大程度上取决于认可者以及认可所要达致的目的”因此，我们也可以说，对译者的认可和认证并不是一个解决信息不对称问题的完美方案，但无论如何它提供了一个供翻译服务的买主判断译者品质的信号。
结语
本文采用了信息不对称的概念对多数职业译者何以低酬的问题给出了一种描述性的解释，这种解释优于传统的、大可商榷的解释即对译者地位及其工作的认知程度低。作为部分解决这一问题的手段，我建议通过认可和认证的形式来发出有效的信号。当然，对于设计和实施一个合理、可靠且节约成本的认可系统还需要考虑许多问题，这都值得做进一步的研究。
译者注：
Accreditation：台湾翻译为“认证”，本文取大陆译法
certification：台湾翻译为“验证”，本文取大陆译法
| | English to Chinese: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction | Source text - English
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.
?997 Probe Ministries.
| Translation - Chinese
作者：Patrick Zukeran
翻译：Seaguest（冬云）
前言
历史上最为意义重大的事件就是耶稣基督的复活。它最为强有力地证明了耶稣乃是神子。这一事件让男人们和女人们满有信心地对永生抱着盼望，那盼望不仅使在我们在展望未来时充满喜乐，亦使我们有确然的理由活于当下。
然而，一代代学者中总会有人企图否认关于复活的记述。学校里的历史书都对复活做着另类的解释，在某些时候，甚至对这一独一无二的事件提都不提。
在本文中，我们将把目光投注于有关复活的证据当中，看看这一事件究竟是历史事实还是一种虚构。但我们必须先确立这么一个事实：即耶稣基督是一个历史人物而不是一个传说。有一些高度准确的历史文献能够确证耶稣的存在。首先，让我们看一下四部福音书本身。作者马太、马可、路加和约翰非常具体地记录了围绕耶稣生平的事件，而考古学已然验证了新约的准确性。诸如官员的名字、地理位置、金融流通、事件发生时间等数以百计的事实一一得到证实。William Ramsay爵士是19世纪最伟大的地理学家之一，他因研究中所发现的无可辩驳的证据而对新约的准确性心悦诚服，由此完全改变了他原来对基督教抱有的敌对态度。
文本证据断然证明，福音书均在事件目击者在世期间写成并流传。由于提到了如此众多的具体姓名和地方，见证人可以轻而易举地使这些作品不为人信。如果各项事实不准确，新约就永远不会生存下来。这些事实表明，四部福音书在历史上是可靠的，并证明耶稣是一位历史人物。要了解关于圣经准确性的更多信息，请参阅名为?#22307;经的权威?#30340;论文。
另外一个支持耶稣确有其人的文献是约瑟夫的著作，他是一位对基督教隐隐带有敌意的犹太历史学家。他写了《犹太古史》，那是为与耶稣同时代的罗马人写的一本关于犹太人历史的书。他写道：?#29616;在要谈到耶稣，那是一位智者，如果称他为人不算离经叛道的话。?#32422;瑟夫进而叙述了有关耶稣生平和死亡的其他具体细节，这些细节均与新约相吻合。罗马历史学家苏埃托尼乌斯、塔西图和小普林尼在提到耶稣时均将其视作历史上的真人。
怀疑主义者经常挑战基督徒，要他们从科学上证明复活。我们必须明白，科学方法是通过反复观察对象或事件来确认事实的。因此，这一方法只限于可重复的事件或可观察的对象。历史事件不可重复。例如，我们能重复观察我们太阳系的创生吗？很明显答案是?#19981;?#65292;但这并不意味着太阳系的创生未曾发生。
要证明诸如复活之类的历史事件，我们必须着眼于历史证据。迄今为止在我们的讨论中，我们已经证明，新约信仰历史上的耶稣确实是合情合理的，而且科学方法也不可用于证明一桩历史事件。在本文的余下部分，我们将审查与复活有关的历史事实，看看这些证据都揭示了什么。
检查证据
在调查复活问题时，我们必须认真研讨三项事实：空坟墓、使徒们的转变以及由耶路撒冷发源的复活传道。
让我们首先检查一下空坟墓问题。耶稣是以色列的一位名人，许多人都知道他被埋在什么地方。事实上马太记录了耶稣坟墓的确切位置。他写道：?#26469;自亚利马太的约瑟夫取了尸体，用干净细麻布裹好，安放在自己的新坟墓里?#65288;马太福音，27：59）。马可声称约瑟夫是位?#23562;贵的议士?#65288;马可福音，15：43）。
对于作者来说，如果要捏造一位声望显赫、有名有姓的人物并且指出坟墓位置，那对自身是极其不利的。因为目击者可以轻而易举地让作者的不实之辞大白于天下。
犹太人和罗马的原始资料都证实了空坟墓的存在。马太福音第28章第12、13节特别提到祭司长捏造了使徒们偷窃尸体的故事。反对复活的人必须要考虑这一问题：如果坟墓不是空的，使徒们的布道会连一天都支撑不下去。为了消灭基督教，犹太当局所需要做的就是搬出耶稣的尸体。
与空坟墓相伴而来的事实就是耶稣的尸体从未被发现。写于公元一世纪或二世纪的历史记录没有一个攻击空坟墓的真实性，或宣称发现了尸体。前加利福尼亚律师协会会长Tom Anderson说道：
让我们假设，有关他向好几百人显现的文字记载是虚假的。我想提一个问题，对于这样一件为人广为宣扬的事实，你不觉得某位历史学家、某位目击证人、某位反对者记录下他曾见过基督的尸体是合情合理的吗？当需要证词来反对复活时，历史的沉默是震聋发聩的。
第二，我们知道使徒们生命的改变。在福音书中记载，当耶稣受审时，使徒们出于恐惧都离弃了他。然而，11位门徒中有10位因坚信基督从死里复活而殉道。他们宁愿为他们传达的信息而死，如何解释他们的转变？肯定有令人信服的事件发生才能解释这种转变。
第三，使徒们是在耶路撒冷开始宣传复活的，这就显得意味深长，因为这里是耶稣被钉十字架的地方，是对传教最为敌视的城市。更有甚者，所有的证据都在那儿，谁想调查都可以。一般情况下，传说都是扎根于国外或者在事件发生几个世纪之后。由于难以检验事实，所以很难对此类传说提出疑问。但在这个事例中，传道就发生在事件刚刚过去不久。每一件可能的事实都可能受到过彻底的调查。
任何研究复活的人都必须在一定程度上解释这三个事实。
五个普遍的解释
多少年以来，人们用五种解释来反对复活。我们将审查这些解释，看看它们是否成立。
走错了坟墓的理解
这第一种解释的支持者声称，根据福音书的记载，妇女们是在早上天还没亮时访问坟墓的。考虑到她们的感情以及天黑的缘故，他们没找对坟墓。由于在看到坟墓是空的时过于欣喜，她们转身跑去告诉门徒们说耶稣已经复活。门徒们于是跑进耶路撒冷去宣告复活。
这种解释有几处主要的漏洞。首先，门徒们居然没有去纠正妇女们的错误极其令人怀疑，而《约翰福音》的细节描述证明他们确曾这样做过。第二，不仅基督的追随者知道坟墓的位置，他的反对者也都知道。福音书写得很清楚，耶稣的尸体就埋在亚利马太的约瑟夫的坟墓里，他是犹太议会的一名议员。如果门徒们传教时，尸体还在坟墓里，当局只要去到正确的坟墓里取出尸体并且在街上游行就可以一劳永逸地终结基督徒的信仰。记住，对复活的布道开始于耶路撒冷，离耶稣上十字架的地方以及墓地不过15分钟的路程。这些因素使得关于走错了坟墓的论点根本站不住脚。
幻觉理论
第二种理论认为，基督的复活只是门徒们在脑子里幻化出来的而已。William McNeil博士在他的《一种世界史》中清楚描绘了这一理论。他说：
罗马在耶路撒冷的当局逮捕了耶稣并把他送上十字架厖但此后不久，沮丧的门徒们聚集在楼上的一个房间里，突然，他们又感觉到他们导师那温暖人心的形象。这似乎是个绝对令人信服的证据，耶稣在十字架上的死亡并不是事情的终点，而是起点厖门徒们群情激奋，并试图向所有愿意听讲的人解释曾经发生了什么事。
基于几个原因，这一论断是不真实的。心理学家同意，要发生这种类型的幻觉，必须具备几个条件。然而，复活的情形并不符合幻觉产生的条件。这里有几个原因。第一，幻觉通常发生于富于想象力和神经敏感的人当中。然而耶稣是对着各各不同的人显现。第二，幻觉是主观的和个别的，没有谁与别人拥有同样的经历。而在复活这一事例中，500多人（哥林多前书 15章）做出同样的见证。第三，幻觉只发生于特定的时间和地方，并且与事件有关。复活显现发生于许多不同的环境中，而且是在不同的时间里。最后，产生这种幻觉的人有意想要相信事件的发生，而诸如多马和雅各（耶稣的异父兄弟）都对复活的消息抱有敌意。
如果一些人坚持幻觉立场，他们还是必须说清楚空坟墓是怎么回事。如果门徒们在传道时只是空想出复活一幕，当局所需要做的就只是抬出尸体，打破门徒们的幻梦。这些事实表明这两种理论极不可靠。
昏厥理论
第三种理论认为耶稣从未死于十字架上，他只是昏了过去，并被人误认为死了。三天后他醒过来，走出坟墓，并且在相信他已从死中复活的门徒面前显现。这一理论是在19世纪早期被人发明出来的，但是今天它已因为几个原因而被彻底摒弃。
首先，从身体状况上讲，耶稣能够捱过十字架的折磨而幸存下来是不可能的；其次，钉耶稣的士兵都是执行这种死刑的好手，而且他们还采取几种预防措施以确认他实际上已经死了。他们用矛刺进他的身体，当时血和水分别流出来，这意味着血细胞已经与血浆分离，只有当血液停止循环时才会发生这种事情。当要打断犯人的腿骨时（为了加速死亡过程），他们小心地检查了耶稣的身体，发现他已经死了。
从十字架上被放下来后，耶稣被包裹上重达八十磅的香料和防腐剂。要相信此后三天不吃不喝的耶稣还能醒过来是不合理的。更难以置信的是耶稣能够推开重达两吨、放在墓门口的石头、制服守卫的士兵、然后走上几英里去以马忤斯。即使耶稣能够做到这些，他在门徒面前死去活来的架势和急需治疗的状况也决不会激发门徒们视他如神明般的崇拜。
19世纪，一位反对基督教的人士大卫稦?#26045;特劳斯给了这一理论以绝望的一击。虽然他不相信复活，但他说这种理论乖僻荒诞。他说：
一个重伤得半死，被人偷运出坟墓，虚弱得撑不起来，需要医药、包扎、护理，最后仍陷于苦难中的人，决不能使他的门徒觉得他是死亡和坟墓的征服者、是生命之王，而这一印象却是他们未来使命的基石。
尸体被盗理论
第四种理论认为犹太人和罗马当局盗走尸体或将它转移到安全地点。这种可能性实在难以置信。如果他们有尸体，为什么还要指控门徒盗走尸体呢（马太福音， 28：11-15）？在使徒行传里，犹太当局怒火中烧，极力阻止基督教的传播。门徒们怎么会在明知这一骗局将会导致成百上千相信他们的朋友死于非命的情况下，还要去欺骗他们的同胞相信一位虚假的弥赛亚呢？如果当局真的知道尸体在什么地方，他们就会将其曝光，从而消灭这给他们招来麻烦和困窘的信仰。然而，在门徒传道期间，当局从未用取出尸体这一手来否定复活。所以尸体被盗一说几无价值。
士兵熟睡理论
迄今为止我们研究了复活的证据。我们审察了四种否定这一奇迹的理论。小心谨慎的分析揭示了，这些理论都不足以否认复活。第五种也是最流行的一种理论自从复活之日起就存在了，并且至今仍为许多反对基督教的人所信奉。《马太福音》28：12-13清楚表明了这种观点：?#31085;司长和长老聚集商议，就拿许多银钱给兵丁说：?#20320;们要这样说，夜间我们睡觉的时候，他的门徒来把他偷去了。挃
许多人诧异，马太为什么记录这个，而且又没有否定它。可能的原因就是这种解释过于荒诞，他觉得没必要再说什么了。
基于几种原因，这种解释是不可能成立的。首先，如果士兵们在睡觉，他们怎么知道是门徒盗走了尸体呢？其次，对于门徒而言，要悄悄地越过士兵、然后完全悄无声息地移动一块斜放着的重达两吨的石块，这从物理角度讲是不可能的，卫兵肯定会听到动静。
第三，坟墓封着罗马帝国的封印。任何移动石块的人都会破坏封印，这是死罪。以当时门徒的沮丧和怯懦，很难使人相信他们会突然变得如此勇敢，以至于敢于挑战一队士兵、偷盗尸体、然后撒谎说人已复活，而且甘愿为他们捏造出的信息而受苦甚至丧命。
第四，罗马士兵在承担这项重要任务时不可能熟睡，因为如此懈怠会受到刑罚。门徒就需要战胜他们才能盗走尸体，这是一幕无法想象的情节。
最后，《约翰福音》记载，耶稣的尸衣与?#32822;稣的头巾一起放在那里，头巾没有和细麻布尸衣放在一处，是另在一处卷着?#65288;20：6 7）。而门徒们是没有足够的时间来避开警卫、推开石头、解开尸体、用自带的东西重新包裹尸体、然后将头巾整齐地叠话在亚麻布旁边。在偷袭中，人们总是急冲冲地卸下衣物，然后怀着被发现的恐惧逃离。
总结：屹立不朽的论断
这五个理论都不能充分地说明空坟、使徒的变化以及基督教在受难之城的诞生。我们必须认真对待的结论只能是耶稣从坟墓中复活。这一论断无可动摇。
首先，如果耶稣从死里复活，他关于自己所说的话就是真实的。他宣称：?#22797;活在我，生命在我；信我的人，虽然死了，也必复活。?#65288;约翰福音 11：25）。他又说：?#25105;就是道路、真理、生命；若不借着我，没有人能到父那里去?#65288;约翰福音 14：6）。永恒的生命只能通过耶稣基督才能寻到。任何与这一启示相矛盾的宗教信仰必然是虚假的。每个宗教领袖都已归入坟墓。他们的墓葬已经成为祭拜的场所。而耶稣的墓地则无人知晓，因为它是空的；他的尸体不在那儿。也就没有必要去崇奉一座空坟。
其次，保罗在哥林多前书第14章54节中写道：?#27515;已被得胜吞灭?#12290;肉体的死并非终结；与主同在的永恒生命正等待着所有信靠他的人，因为耶稣已经战胜了死亡。
译文出处：http://www.probe.org/content/view/841/77 | | English to Chinese: The Federalist Papers | Source text - English
Written by Kerby Anderson
Introduction
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. | Translation - Chinese
导言
《联邦党人文集》收集了詹姆斯·麦迪逊、亚历山大·汉密尔顿和约翰·杰伊三人在1787年10月到1788年5月间撰写的85篇论文。 他们当时写这些文章是为了说服纽约州批准美国联邦宪法.
这些文章也许是有史以来最为著名的报纸专栏文章，而且今天已成为美国建国时期最为重要的文献之一。 它们不仅论证了宪法的合理性，而且探讨了一些与人民自治政府有关的最为重要的政治课题。
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。”
虽然所有的文章都是由三个人分别撰写（汉密尔顿写了52篇；麦迪逊写了28篇；杰伊写了5篇），但署名都是“普布利乌斯”。 纽约的政治领袖反对新政府，因为这个州在“邦联条款”下是一个独立自主的国家并且通过收取与其他州的贸易关税而繁荣富庶。 当事态变得很明显，纽约不会批准宪法时，亚历山大·汉密尔顿便请求詹姆斯·麦迪逊（他在场是因为大陆会议就设在纽约）和约翰·杰伊予以协助。 不幸的是，杰伊由于受伤而只写了五篇论文。
《联邦党人文集》之所以重要，原因是多方面的。 首先，作者是建国时期的杰出人物。 詹姆斯·麦迪逊被视为是宪法的建筑师，并在后来出任合众国总统。 亚历山大·汉密尔顿在乔治·华盛顿的内阁中任职，是确定美国经济政策的主动力。 约翰·杰伊成为美国最高法院的第一任首席大法官。 所有这三个人都出席了制宪会议并为同侪所推崇。
其次，《联邦党人文集》对宪法作了最为系统和最为全面的分析。 作者们不仅诠释了宪法的结构，而且针对当时的批评极力捍卫自己的主张，毕竟，他们是为了说服纽约批准宪法而写作的。
第三，《联邦党人文集》解释了立国之父们的初衷。 当最高法院法官试图理解缔造者的意图时，他们常常要诉诸于这些文献。《联邦党人文集》是宪法解释最为重要的诠释资源，也是我们领会宪法制定者们的想法和目的的重要媒介。
人性
《联邦党人文集》的作者关注平民政府与人性的关系。 他们十分清楚：人类具有牺牲长期利益以谋求一己短期利益的倾向。 他们也担心围绕这些眼前个人利益而形成的党争会最终摧毁公民政府的道德基础。
在《联邦党人文集》第51篇中，詹姆斯·麦迪逊认为政府必须立基于对人性的现实认识之上。
但政府本身除了是对人性的最大反映外，又是什么呢？ 如果人类是天使，政府就无存在的必要了。 如果是天使在统治人，对政府的内外控制也没有必要了。 所以在建构一个人治理人的政府过程中，最大的困难也在于此：你必须首先使政府能控制住被统治者；然后又要迫使它控制住自己。
《联邦党人文集》的作者们确实相信，人性中有积极的一面。 他们经常讨论理性、美德和道德。 但他们也认识到人性中还有负面的东西。 他们相信，对共和国的建构要求一种权力的平衡，既能发挥人类尊严和理性的作用，同时又要能抑制住人类的罪恶与堕落。
正如人类某种程度的堕落需要一定的审慎和不信任，人性中的其他品格也使人有理由对他人抱一定程度的尊重与信任。 与其他政体相比，共和国政府从更高的层次上预设了这些品格的存在。
但正如我们后面要更加详细讨论的，詹姆斯·麦迪逊从他对政府的研究中得出结论：这些品格会被党争所毁灭。 他相信宗派主义是由人类易于相互仇恨造成的（《联邦党人文集》第十篇），而人类的这种倾向“植根于人性之中”。 宪法学者证实，“人类堕落天性的观念影响了麦迪逊对法律和政府的认识。”由此他断定，政府必须建立在一个能够说明人性中这一罪恶面的、更为现实的观点之上。
而基督教对于政府的观点就是立基于对人性的平衡认识之上。 它既看到了人的尊严（我们是按照神的形象而被造），也看到人的堕落（我们都是有罪的个体）。 正是由于爱与罪都在政府中施加影响，所以我们既不应太过乐观，也不可太过悲观。 我们应该以《圣经》那样深刻的现实主义意识来看待政府事务。
党争与共和国
《联邦党人文集》的作者们十分注意以前共和国的历史。 亚历山大·汉密尔顿写道：“希腊和意大利的小型共和国的历史”只能唤起“人们的恐惧和厌恶”，因为它们在暴政与无政府状态两个极端之间动荡不定。”
詹姆斯·麦迪逊着力阐述了党争问题。 “按我的理解，党争就是一些公民，不论是全体公民中的多数或少数，团结在一起，被某种共同情感或利益所趋势，反对其他公民的权利，或者反对社会的永久的和集体的利益。”
麦迪逊相信，只有两种途径可以医治党争的问题： 或者消除党争的起因，或者控制它的结果。 他很快就否决了第一种方案，因为这一方案或者会毁灭自由，或者要求每个人都得有“同样的意见、同样的情感和同样的利益。”
他进一步承认：“党争的起因植根于人性之中。” 因此他拒绝那种要改变人性的观念。 他也拒绝了另一种观念：即认为政治领袖将有能力应付党争问题。 “说开明的政治家将有能力调节这些冲突的利益并使它们都顺服于公共利益是徒劳无益的。开明的政治家并不能总处于掌舵的位置。”
麦迪逊相信，在立宪者所创立的大共和国中能找到解决方案。 虽然小型共和国会由于党争而崩溃，但选出的更多数量的代表会“抵制小团体的阴谋。”
而且，由于“每个代表都将从更多的公民中选出，品质败坏的候选人就很难借助过多举行选举的邪恶手法取得成功。” 选民也会“更有可能聚集在那些魅力出众、影响广泛和声望卓著的人士周围。”
麦迪逊同样相信，在这一领土辽阔的共和国里，某个宗派按照自己的计划排斥其他派别的可能性将会降至最低。 这是由于“公民人数更多、领土更加广阔。” 较小的社会最有可能形成由较少人数组成的泾渭分明的团体。 但如果使范围扩大，就会增加团体的多样性和利益。 也就使任何宗派都不大可能独领政治舞台。
麦迪逊理解到，试图去消除人类罪性中的情感因素是徒劳的，因而代之以设计一个将党争影响降至最低并为公民提供最大自由的系统。
权力分立原则
《联邦党人文集》的作者们也担心滥用权力的可能性，并且提出了在不同政府分支之间分离权力的基本原则。 詹姆斯·麦迪逊在《联邦党人文集》第47篇中引用一段著名的文字来概括他们对于政治权力集中的担忧。
“的确，没有任何政治上的真理比这个反对意见所依据的有更大的真正价值，或者更加明显地带有自由保卫者的权威色彩了。立法、行政和司法权置于同一人手中，不论是一个人、少数人或许多人，不论是世袭的、自己任命的或选举的，均可公正地断定是虐政。”
但麦迪逊迅速摒弃了那种认为仅凭宪法规定就能防止滥用权力现象的观点。 他指出，仅仅是书面上的保障并不足以“抵御权力的侵犯性”。
他也相信，立法机关成为了权力分立的最大威胁。 “立法部分四处扩张它的活动范围，并且将所有的权力都卷入到激烈冲突的漩涡中心。”立宪者们因此将国会划分为两院制，希望参议院能够在抵制大众多数的情感冲动方面发挥作用。（《联邦党人文集》第63篇）
他的解决办法就是授予每一个部分分离但对抗的权力。 这就防止了权力集中于少数人之手的可能性。 每个分支部门都拥有一定的审查其他部门的权力，这样就存在着一种权力的分配与平衡。
这一系统的效果就是使野心和权力实现自我约束。 授予每个分支部门以权力，这样当野心家谋求扩张其影响力时，各部门就会互相审查。
麦迪逊说：“野心必须用野心来对抗。人的利益必然是与当地的法定权利相联系。用这种种方法来控制政府的弊病，可能是对人性的一种反射。”这一提供“相反和对抗利益”的政策被称为“野心抵销”概念。
除此之外，人民被赋予一定的救济手段。 选举和一项修正案程序使得政府官员无法将权力攫为己有。 这些防范措施的每一项都源于一种健全的对人性的恐惧。 开国元勋们信仰人类责任和人类尊严，但他们并不太相信人性。 他们的解决办法就是分离权力，并且授予每一个部门对抗的力量。
有限政府
《联邦党人文集》的作者了解，企图在居民中消除情感和野心是徒劳无功的。 他们代之以分权，“以野心对抗野心。” 通过分离不同的制度性权力结构，他们限制了权力的扩张。
这不仅包括了横向的权力分配（分权），也包括了纵向的权力分配（联邦主义）。 某些权力委托给了联邦政府，而剩下的权力则保留给各州和人民。
詹姆斯·麦迪逊正确地称这种新型政府为共和国，他将其定义为“其权力直接或间接得自于绝大多数人民、并由那些乐于在有限期间、或在行为良好期间任职的公民管理的政府。”
他也指出：“提议中的政府不能被看作是全国性的，因为它的权限仅涉及某些列举出的事项，而管辖所有其他事项的、剩余的和不可侵犯的主权则由各州保留。”
政府权力受到宪法的制约，而解释宪法的权力被委托给了司法分支。 正如亚历山大·汉密尔顿所解释的：宪法要成为这片土地上的最高法。
“宪法事实上是，亦应被法官看作根本大法。所以对宪法以及立法机关制定的任何法律的解释权应属于法院。如果二者间出现不可调合的分歧，自以效力及作用较大之法为准。亦即：宪法与法律相较，以宪法为准；人民与其代表相较，以人民的意志为准。”
虽然汉密尔顿称司法机关为三个政府分支中最弱的一支，一些宪法批评家却警告说，最高法院“将会被抬升到凌驾于所有的政府权力之上。”不幸的是，这一推测在过去的几十年里被证明是正确的。
《联邦党人文集》不仅提供了一种坚固美国宪法根基的概括性的政治理论，而且是我们洞察立宪者们在创建新政府时的种种意图的重要资源。 正如我们所看到的，目前的政府结构在哪些方面偏离了立宪者们起初的设想。
立宪者们塑造的政府是以对人性的现实主义观点为基础的。 这一政府的成功在很大程度上是由于对权力结构的分立，因为他们渴望限制人类罪性的冲击。 |
More Less | | MA-Xiamen University | | Years of translation experience: 3. Registered at ProZ.com: Aug 2005. | | N/A | | N/A | | N/A | | NA | | http://dongyun1129.blog.sohu.com/ | | About me
Academic Degree: Master in Political Science
Language Pair: English to Chinese
Translation Fields: News Report, Politics, Public Administration, International Relation, Religion, History, Literature, Advertising
Samples of my translation: http://dongyun1129.blog.sohu.com/
|
Profile last updated
Apr 16, 2008 |
Expertise