5 - Humboldt, Translation, and Dialogue between Faiths: Emmanuel Levinas, Stanley Hauerwas, and Shahab Ahmed

Summary

[Hölderlin] sagt von der gültigen Vergangenheit des Menschen: “Seit ein Gespräch wir sind und hören von einander,” Hölderlin sagt nicht, wir führten ein Gespräch: selber sind wirs. Wir sind ein Gespräch.

[Hölderlin] says of the meaningful past of humanity: “Since we are a dialogue and hear from each other.” Hölderlin does not say that we once had a dialogue: we are it ourselves. We are dialogue.

—Martin Buber.

In the last two chapters I explored the application of Humboldt’s idea of translation to the languages and cultures of Asia, especially the Kawi language of Java and the religious texts of ancient India. In the next two chapters I will explore the relevance of that idea to the second central theme of this book: communication between different faith traditions in the contemporary world. In this chapter I will examine some of the difficulties as well as the promises of applying Humboldt’s idea of translation to communication between the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. My argument will be exemplified by an examination of the relationship between faith commitment and dialogue between religious traditions in the work of three modern representatives of those traditions. In the next chapter I will look in detail at one contemporary attempt at interfaith communication—the practice known as Scriptural Reasoning—to which, I will suggest, Humboldt’s understanding of translation as dialogue is especially relevant.

Translation and Faith: Concepts and Problems

The point of this chapter is not to argue that any of the figures it will consider are conscious or unconscious heirs to Humboldt’s legacy, nor to suggest that Humboldt’s idea of translation should explicitly be invoked in the practice of interfaith dialogue. It is to suggest that the Humboldtian framework can illuminate what happens in interfaith communication at its best and clear away some of the misunderstandings that often prevent such communication from succeeding; and that it has some decisive advantages over some influential alternative ways of understanding translation between faith traditions and between such traditions and the secular public sphere. Some of the theories of translation that I will consider are relatively constrained by the tradition of which they are a part; others are more open to alternative perspectives.