NAB, Matthew 6:33, and awkward English

[Omyo12]

So I’m having trouble understanding the NAB on this one:

Matthew 6:33 (NAB)
But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.

Seems like it’s missing a “to” or something…

I don’t understand… other more literal translations are clearer

Douay-Rheims
Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

Revised Standard Version
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

Am I missing something here? Could someone explain the NAB’s rendition?
Oddly enough, the New Jerusalem Bible renders it similarly:

New Jerusalem Bible
Set your hearts on his kingdom first, and on God’s saving justice, and all these other things will be given you as well.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I agree, that is not the best best choice of words, “as well” is sometimes added for clarification.

Here’s the Greek

33 ζητειτε δε πρωτον την βασιλειαν του θεου και την δικαιοσυνην αυτου και ταυτα παντα προστεθησεται υμιν

ζητειτε δε -but seek

πρωτον- first

την βασιλειαν- the kingdom

του θεου - of God

και- and

την δικαιοσυνην αυτου- his righteousness

και- and

ταυτα παντα - all these things

προστεθησεται- will be added

υμιν- to you

 

[Omyo12]

I agree, that is not the best best choice of words, “as well” is sometimes added for clarification.

Here’s the Greek

33 ζητειτε δε πρωτον την βασιλειαν του θεου και την δικαιοσυνην αυτου και ταυτα παντα προστεθησεται υμιν

ζητειτε δε -but seek

πρωτον- first

την βασιλειαν- the kingdom

του θεου - of God

και- and

την δικαιοσυνην αυτου- his righteousness

και- and

ταυτα παντα - all these things

προστεθησεται- will be added

υμιν- to you

Thanks for your reply

I know the Greek,
but I still can’t see how:

…all these things will be added to you

leads to

…all these things will be given you besides.

I still feel like it’s missing a “to”

…all these things will be given TO you (besides).

and while the NJB’s “as well” is much better, it’s also missing the “to”

Am I missing something in English grammar that allows the NAB and NJB to write it as such?

I’m somewhat of a “grammar nazi” (especially with the Holy Bible) so it’s really bothering me…

 

[COPLAND_3]

Thanks for your reply

I know the Greek,
but I still can’t see how:

…all these things will be added to you

leads to

…all these things will be given you besides.

I still feel like it’s missing a “to”

…all these things will be given TO you (besides).

and while the NJB’s “as well” is much better, it’s also missing the “to”

Am I missing something in English grammar that allows the NAB and NJB to write it as such?

I’m somewhat of a “grammar nazi” (especially with the Holy Bible) so it’s really bothering me…

I agree, I don’t like it either. υμιν is a dative personal pronoun and should be translated as “to you”. The NAB has numerous places that disappoints me.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Omyo12,

As you are aware the NAB is a dynamic equivalence translation where less attention is paid as to whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is retained. This allows the translator to use a better English style and word choice, hopefully, though by no means always, producing more readable translations. This unfortunately is not always the case as the example you cite clearly demonstrates. Moreover since the New Jerusalem Bible is toward the very dynamic end of the spectrum, its “awkard” rendition is also hardly surprising. This fact may well account for the clumsy rendering of the St. Matthew text both in the NAB and certainly in NJB.

Admittedly, literal translations, such as the Douay-Rheims, can be difficult to read, but the disadvantage of a dynamic translation is that readability comes at a price. Dynamic translations lose precision owing to the fact that they omit subtle hues of meaning to a passage that only a literal can preserve. More crucially they run greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal opinions into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

That said, It does seem rather trifling to be concerned about an unsatisfactory rendering of a text in the NAB given that that translation is replete with rampant liberalism anyway. Please have a perusal of the following link for an enlightening disclosure:

sanctepater.blogspot.com/2009/04/wolf-in-calfskin-rampant-liberalism-of.html

Trust this may have been some help to you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[puzzleannie]

I asked DD#2 the English major and she says the grammar is correct so no, I don’t have a problem with it, the “to” can be implied in the prepositional phrase.

 

[Edward_Pothier]

I agree, I don’t like it either. υμιν is a dative personal pronoun and should be translated as “to you”. The NAB has numerous places that disappoints me.

I think that the worry is misguided. With a verb of “giving” connected to an accusative construction and a dative one, it is clear that the accusative is the direct object and the dative one is the indirect object.

A very clear example of omitting the “to” with the indirect object is the famous phrase in the Our Father (Matt 6:11) “give us today our daily bread”. We do not demand that it be “give to us …”, although the grammar is the same as the passage in question (except first person plural rather than second person plural).

Edward Pothier

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think that the worry is misguided. With a verb of “giving” connected to an accusative construction and a dative one, it is clear that the accusative is the direct object and the dative one is the indirect object.

A very clear example of omitting the “to” with the indirect object is the famous phrase in the Our Father (Matt 6:11) “give us today our daily bread”. We do not demand that it be “give to us …”, although the grammar is the same as the passage in question (except first person plural rather than second person plural).

Edward Pothier

Correct, I should have been more careful how I worded that. Though the sentence sounds so much better when υμιν is translated as “to us” when following a future passive indicative like προστεθήσεται then when it follows an aorist active imperative like δὸς. “give us” is easier on my ears than “will be given you”. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So I’m having trouble understanding the NAB on this one:

Seems like it’s missing a “to” or something…

I don’t understand… other more literal translations are clearer

Am I missing something here? Could someone explain the NAB’s rendition?
Oddly enough, the New Jerusalem Bible renders it similarly:

There is no difference in meaning between​

• to give someone something
• to give something to someone

• the word-order changes, but they are both good English usage; at least in the UK; maybe US English is different here