Amen — three cheers for the NAB
Since I rarely look at it, I’ve only just noticed that the New American Bible is the only English translation, at least as far as I know, which doesn’t try to translate the various “Amen” sayings of Jesus (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) into English, but leaves them beginning “Amen I say to you” (or in the fourth gospel, “Amen, Amen …).
This is of course something characteristic of the sayings of Jesus in the gospel tradition, an echo in Jeremias’ terms of Jesus’ ipsissima vox. The unusual phrase prefaces no-one else’s words in early Christian or Jewish traditions as far as we yet know. Even if subsequent discoveries show it is not unique it is reasonable to call it a characteristic, and singular style of speech.
It has often struck me as odd, however, that the mainstream of English translation has chosen to translate it into English with variations of “Truly, (truly) I tell you”. After all it already stood in the Greek New Testament as one of the rare untranslated set Aramaic or Hebrew words, and one of the few that receives no additional editorial translation. It appear to have passed over quickly into the liturgical use of the church in much the same way it was used in the Jewish liturgical tradition, so that neither its meaning, nor the oddity of using it to preface a sentence was unknown.
The Vulgate continued this tradition with “Amen dico tibi / vobis” leaving the Amen untranslated, and so it continued as far as I can see to the late medieval period. From the versions I’ve checked Tyndale is the first who makes the change with “Verely I say vnto you” making its appearance.
I don’t know enough about other languages, and I’d be interested to hear from someone who does, although the Luther Bible tradition is like the English – “Wahrlich, ich sage euch” and modern French Bibles go in the same direction.
It seems to me, however, that the choice of the gospel writers was not to translate this word, but embed the original in their Greek, knowing that its use in the worshipping and praying tradition of the church vouchsafed its meaning, significance and idiosyncracy to the gospel tradition. In choosing to translate it, the English Bible tradition split that connection apart, made a translation choice the gospel writers had rejected, and created a mistaken impression of Bible English that has weakened the memory of Jesus’ characteristic and singular way of speaking.
So three cheers to the NAB for getting this one right, or perhaps two and a half — I’d have preferred “Amen, I tell you”
May 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Tough one, Doug.
You may recall my earlier incarnation was a linguist and I find I can’t decide on this one. But, in terms of your own preferences as stated, I would have thought that the ‘verily I say’ sort of approach still retains a pretty distinctive flavour. I’m now wondering what is happening in translating into previously un-Bibled languages… The question is when does a loan word become a normal part of the language (it acquires a certain je ne sais quoi?) -and when does it lose sufficient currency to require re-rendering? Is there sufficient Christian religious ‘capital’ to retain ‘Amen’ uncomplicatedly? (Probably yes for the time being). Those are the more socio-linguistic considerations… I know of one British Christian who has engaged in a personal programme of eliminating the word ‘Amen’ from his prayer vocabulary: he tends to use phrases such as “So be it”. Naughtily, with my interest in NewAgery, I consider translating it ’so mote it be’! However, those translations don’t work so well with the ‘Amen lego humin’ phrases…
May 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hi Andii, long time no speak. I tend to think that “Amen”s long currency in prayer means that if we used it to preface those Jesus’ sayings that used it, it’s impact would be analagous to the impact it had when Jesus used it. A sort of “affective” dynamic equivalence.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hmmm. You may be onto something there. However, For those who only or mainly hear it as a kind of ‘Over.’ ie a signing off phrase, the loss of access to the etymology may prove fatal to deciphering it: “Over and out, I say to you…” prompts the question of why he’s starting by finishing. Of course that can be answered with a little explanation, but it may be initially confusing. (And that’s without dealing with the mishearings by the truly unChurched: “our men”, for example).
Undecidable without proper sociolinguistic study, but I suspect we’ve marked out the hypotheses that would be tested!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think I’d argue that the problem of hearing it as “Over and out” – an ending phrase or even some kind of magical incantation for prayer, already existed for the Greek speaking churches, and the problem of how to understand it as a beginning phrase therefore also existed for them. Nonetheless, the Greek speaking writers of the NT still chose to use it, believing that the liturgical use would question, emphasise and elucidate the initial use in Jesus’ sayings. Our translation tradition has chosen to obscure the connection, and by doing that, is arguably not a translation but a paraphrase, even in the most word-for-word versions.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Interesting idea. Have to think further about that. It does elide the Aramaic and Hebrew speakers, though …
May 11th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Great catch! Anytime we see that type of transparency in the original, it should be carried through faithfully in all translations. Clearly there was a choice for transparency and something akin to a direct quote. Our translations should capture the same. Great teaching point as well. dt http://www.davetilma.com
July 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
[...] However, I beg leave to doubt that. First, I wonder whether “assure” is remotely the right verb to introduce one of the most condemnatory clauses in scripture. It seems to me to fail at a fairly basic level of meaning. Secondly, and more importantly, this is a passage where Matthew (in common with the whole Jesus tradition) has already made a significant translation choice, which is not to translate. Beginning solemn utterances with “Amen” is seen as so characteristic of Jesus (and possibly unique to him) that the Hebrew is preserved in the Greek translation. Its regular use in prayer that has persisted to this day means that we, just as much as the original audiences, would hear just how distinctive and unusual it was for Jesus to use our prayer-finishing word as his declaration-starting word. Alone among our English translations, the NAB gets this right. [...]