>>> 2006年第3期
不能这样对待韦伯
作者：阎克文
原译：这种罪恶只在一种非个人的权威形式中才可能，圣经，以及对甚至是最圣洁和完美的人的过度忠诚，因为这可能影响对上帝的顺从。(第189页)
拙译：信仰权威是有罪的，过度忠诚于那些即使最圣洁、最完美的人物也同样是有罪的，因为那将妨害对上帝的顺从，唯一可以容许的权威信仰就是对一种非人格权威形式——《圣经》——的信仰。
评注：韦伯前面用一大段文字概括了十七世纪以后盎格鲁撒克逊诸民族对待政治权威的普遍态度，最后指出了其中的宗教根源。可是读了译者给出的译文，大概除了不解以外，就只有目瞪口呆了!
22．原文：According to Hudson Taylor,China has about fifty million families； one thousand missionaries could each reach fifty families per day(!)or the Gospel could be presented to all the Chinese in less than three years．(p．225)
原译：根据哈德逊·泰勒，中国有5千万家庭，1千个传教士每天可以接触50个家庭(!)，或在不到3年的时间将福音书带给全部中国人。(第189页)
拙译：按照哈德逊·泰勒的说法，中国有5000万个家庭；1000个传教士每天可以各自接触50个家庭(!)，或可在不到3年的时间内将福音书带给全体中国人。
评注：如果只看译者给出的译文，任何一位读者大概都会毫不犹豫地断定，韦伯这时的算术水平以及相关的判断能力均处于极度低下的状态!
23．原文：Calvinism as such is not responsible for those feats of missionary zeal,since they rest on an internominational basis．Calvin himself denied the duty of sending mission to the heathen……(p．225)
原译：并不是加尔文宗本身产生了那些狂热的宗教业绩。这些宗教业绩是以相互命名为基础的。加尔文式的个人否认给异教徒送传教士的义务……(第189- 190页)
拙译：传教热忱产生的那些业绩并非加尔文主义本身之功，因为那些宗教业绩是建立在各教派共同作用的基础上的。加尔文本人则否认有义务向异教徒传教
24．原文：The ascetic principle of self-control also made Puritanism one of the fathers of modern military discipline．(p．235)
原译：禁欲的自我控制原则，同时也使得清教成为近代军事政策的先父之一。 (第200页)
拙译：禁欲主义的自制原则也使得清教成为现代军事纪律的源泉之一。
评注：这里且不管译文的主谓宾搭配是否妥当，关键在于，无论是德文原著还是英译用词，都与“政策”毫不相干，不知译者是怎么发现了其中新意的?
25．原文：John Wesley emphasizes the fact that everywhere,among Quakers， Presbyterians,and High Churchmen,one must believe in Dogmas,except in Method- ism．(p．251)
原译：约翰·卫斯理强调：除了循道宗教徒之外，无论什么地方，教支派教徒那里也好，长老会教徒那里也好，高教会教徒那里也好，任何人都必定信奉教义。(第 217页)
拙译：约翰·卫斯理强调的是这一事实：不管什么地方的贵格会教徒、长老会教徒还是高教会教徒，都会信个什么教理，但就是不信循道宗的教义。
评注：读者完全可以把那个“教支派”认定为印刷错误，否则就永远无法解释韦伯怎么会凭空杜撰出这样一个怪物来折磨读者。不过关键在于，甚至不用看上下文就会明白，译者根本就没有读懂英译原文，把整个句子理解得彻底走了形，否则就同样无法解释为什么如此简单的句子竟能译成那般模样!
26．原文：It is one of the many merit of Karl Muller's Kirchengeschichte to have given the Baptist movement,great in its way,even though outwardly unassum- ing,the place it deserved in his work．It has suffered more than any other from the pitiless persecution of all the Churches,because it wished to be a sect in the spe-cific sense of that word．Even after five generation it was discredited before the eyes of all the world by the debacle of the related eschatological experiment in Munster．And,continually oppressed and driven underground,it was long after its ori- gin before it attained a consistent formulation of its religious doctrines．Thus it pro- duced even less theology than would have been consistent with its principles， which were themselves hostile to a specialized development of its faith in God asa science．That was not very pleasing to the older professional theologians,even in its own time,and it made little impression on them．(P．253)