Deuteronomy 29:28

[Tirno]

In the New American Bible, Deuteronomy 29:28 is translated as: “Both what is still hidden and what has already been revealed concern us and our descendants forever, that we may carry out all the words of this law.”

In the Douay-Rheims translation of the LXX, the verse appears as: “Secret things to the Lord our God: things that are manifest, to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

In the Brenton translation of the LXX, it reads as: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, to do all the words of this law.”

In the New Revised Standard Version (where the verse is numbered as v. 29), it reads as: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law.”

In the Apostolic Bible, the verse is rendered as: “The secret things belong to the LORD your God. But the open things are to you, and to your children into the eon, to do all the words of this law.”

So my question is this: Why is the rendering in the New American Bible radically different from all other translations used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? In the NAB translation the wording is not the same and there is no mention of secret things belonging to God. In fact, it proclaims the opposite: that secret things belong to the people, not to God. I am, for lack of a better phrase, mega-confused.

 

[Ignatius]

In the New American Bible, Deuteronomy 29:28 is translated as: “Both what is still hidden and what has already been revealed concern us and our descendants forever, that we may carry out all the words of this law.”

In the Douay-Rheims translation of the LXX, the verse appears as: “Secret things to the Lord our God: things that are manifest, to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

In the Brenton translation of the LXX, it reads as: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, to do all the words of this law.”

In the New Revised Standard Version (where the verse is numbered as v. 29), it reads as: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law.”

In the Apostolic Bible, the verse is rendered as: “The secret things belong to the LORD your God. But the open things are to you, and to your children into the eon, to do all the words of this law.”

So my question is this: Why is the rendering in the New American Bible radically different from all other translations used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? In the NAB translation the wording is not the same and there is no mention of secret things belonging to God. In fact, it proclaims the opposite: that secret things belong to the people, not to God. I am, for lack of a better phrase, mega-confused.

The NAB was a translation by committee, it is not the best translation.

 

[spockrates]

The New American Bible might be, like the New International Version, a thought-for-thought translation, rather than a word-for-word translation. The idea behind a thought-for-thought translation is to get the meaning of the text correct, even though the words and grammar might not exactly match the extant ancient MSS. Some say thought-for-thought translations are easier to understand, because the wording and grammar is more modern.

 

[Ignatius]

The New American Bible might be, like the New International Version, a thought-for-thought translation, rather than a word-for-word translation. The idea behind a thought-for-thought translation is to get the meaning of the text correct, .

The problem being, of course, that we only have a written record of the inspired Text as handed down. We don’t have any such thing as a 'thought-for-thought " record. We need to stick to the written record that we have been given. Any attempt to give a “thought-for-thought” interpretations is to deviate from what has actually been passed down and hence inject error.

 

[Tirno]

Thank you for your answers. The New American Bible is apparently not a very strong translation. I am considering purchasing an Apostolic Bible or a Douay-Rheims Bible.

 

[spockrates]

The problem being, of course, that we only have a written record of the inspired Text as handed down. We don’t have any such thing as a 'thought-for-thought " record. We need to stick to the written record that we have been given. Any attempt to give a “thought-for-thought” interpretations is to deviate from what has actually been passed down and hence inject error.

You might be right. That is certainly a risk, and the translators must be extremely good at understanding the true meaning of the written language of the extant MSS. However, when one merely translates word-for-word, the meaning of the text is sometimes less clear, as grammar is different from one language to another, and the meaning of words change over time. A thought-for-thought translation can overcome difficulties in grammar and archaic words by modifying the grammar and substituting words to help the modern reader better understand. One example–compare the text of a word-for-word translation (KJV) with a more modern thought-for-thought translation (NIV):

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)

Since the word *abideth *is archaic and the word *charity *does not mean the same as it did centuries ago when the King James Version was first published, the New International Version is easier to understand, and a more accurate rendering of the intended meaning of the author (at least, it is easier and more accurate to the modern reader).

 

[spockrates]

Thank you for your answers. The New American Bible is apparently not a very strong translation. I am considering purchasing an Apostolic Bible or a Douay-Rheims Bible.

Perhaps the best course of action is to consult several good translations? A Web site like this lets you see the text in different versions. The interesting thing is that they all are pretty close in giving the same meaning for each text, with a few exceptions.

biblegateway.com/

 

[thistle]

You might be right. That is certainly a risk, and the translators must be extremely good at understanding the true meaning of the written language of the extant MSS. However, when one merely translates word-for-word, the meaning of the text is sometimes less clear, as grammar is different from one language to another, and the meaning of words change over time. A thought-for-thought translation can overcome difficulties in grammar and archaic words by modifying the grammar and substituting words to help the modern reader better understand. One example–compare the text of a word-for-word translation (KJV) with a more modern thought-for-thought translation (NIV):

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)

Since the word *abideth *is archaic and the word *charity *does not mean the same as it did centuries ago when the King James Version was first published, the New International Version is easier to understand, and a more accurate rendering of the intended meaning of the author (at least, it is easier and more accurate to the modern reader).

Douey-Rheims Bible (English translation before the KJV existed):

“And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.”

 

[spockrates]

Douey-Rheims Bible (English translation before the KJV existed):

“And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.”

Yes, thank you, Thistle!