Queries & Comments
024
NJPS Not Consistent
To the Editor:
Marc Brettler’s insightful review of the New Jewish Publication Society translation of the Bible (
Recently, however, I found a number of unforgivable departures from this principle:
The Hebrew word ulam is a part of Solomon’s temple. In 1 Kings 6:3, it is translated “portico”; in 1 Chronicles 28:11 and 2 Chronicles 3:4, it is translated “porch.”
The debir was the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s temple. Debir is translated “Shrine” in 1 Kings 6; it is translated “inner sanctuary” in 2 Chronicles 3:16 and 5:7. (Just to make matters more confusing, Kodesh is translated “sanctuary” in 2 Chronicles 5:11.)
In 1 Kings 6:27, bayit is translated “chamber”; elsewhere in the same chapter, it is translated “house.” In 1 Kings 6:36, hatzar is translated “enclosure.” In 1 Kings 7:12, the same word referring to the very same place is translated “court,” as in courtyard.
As you can see, I found all these inconsistencies in the very few chapters I was studying.
Finally, in Genesis 15:18, God makes a “covenant” (brit) with Abraham; in Genesis 21:27, Abraham and Abimelech make a “pact” (brit); and in 1 Kings 5:26 (5:12 in other English translations), Solomon and Hiram make a “treaty” (brit)—three English words for the same Hebrew word. This is not the end, however; in Deuteronomy 7:2, the Israelites are told to grant the Canaanites and others no “terms” (brit, again), so this is a fourth English word for the same Hebrew word. Are there others? I have not made a thorough search.
Adam Mikaya
Washingtion, D.C.
Marc Brettler responds:
Mr. Mikaya’s sharp eyes have caught some of the many inconsistencies in the NJPS translation. These often detract from the high quality of the translation. Certain inconsistencies within the translation are desirable, however, and should not be “corrected.” I will use Mr. Mikaya’s examples to illustrate where the translators have improperly and properly rendered the same Hebrew word with two or more English equivalents.
The differences in translation of the same word in parallel passages in Kings and Chronicles is irksome. I can only point out that the two books, which belong to different segments of the Jewish canon, were translated by two different committees. The Writings committee occasionally “corrects” inaccurate or inelegant renderings made by the earlier Prophets committee. This explains many of the inconsistencies cited by Mr. Mikaya. Before a one-volume edition is published, members of the different committees should from out the differences in parallel texts.
On the other hand, differences of translation of the same Hebrew word are often unavoidable and are even desirable, since similar words in different languages cover different semantic ranges. Thus, the Hebrew brit is used in the Bible for agreements between kings, between commoners, and between a person and God. No one English word can cover all of these usages in each context without sounding awkward. Thus, the variety of translations for brit in NJPS is not only excusable, but desirable. Between God and a person, it is a “covenant” between rulers, it is a “treaty” between two people, it is a “pact.” The moral of the story is “Study Hebrew” in order to appreciate the nuances that Mr. Mikaya points out.
P.S. Just to add to the fun. There are other translations of brit: In Job 40:28 (in other English translations, it is Job 41:4), it is rendered “agreement.”
Slighting the 1917 JPS Bible
To the Editor:
I am writing in reference to a recent article by Marc Brettler, entitled
Brettler claims that the new Jewish Publication Society’s translation is the first “Bible translation executed by a panel of Jewish 026scholars since the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible … two millennia ago.”
I have in my possession a Bible published by the JPS in the year 1917. The last paragraph of the preface states that the translation was finally completed in November of 1915. The committee in charge of this translation closed their meeting with a prayer that “the great task was completed and that the group [of distinguished Bible scholars] which during seven years had toiled together was intact.”
In fact, the Jewish Publication Society had decided in 1908, together with the Central Conference of American Rabbis to “cooperate in bringing out the new translation.” The work was to be done by a Board of Editors instead of trying to harmonize the translations of individual contributions. The members of this Board as finally constituted consisted of seven members—Dr. Solomon Schechter, Dr. Cyrus Adler, Dr. Joseph Jacobs, Dr. Kaufman Kohler, Dr. David Philipson, Dr. Samuel Schulman and Professor Max Margolis. There was equal representation of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning in Philadelphia. For one year, Professor Isaac Friedlander acted as a member of the Board instead of Schechter.
In addition to these distinguished men, a subcommittee reviewed all other known translations made in different countries since the Septuagint was first translated. These translations, made by individuals expert in these fields, were taken into account. Due weight was especially given to the Septuagint and other ancient versions. Non-Jewish authorities were consulted in this effort as well.
I am only a very humble layman, but Brettler’s statement that the new JPS translation is the first one since the Greek translation of the Septuagint is simply not true. The new translation may be—and undoubtedly is—in many ways superior to the translation completed in 1915 and finally published in 1917—but the 1917 publication is also one in which we can take a great deal of pride.
Mrs. P.J. Rosenbloom
Bloomington, Minnesota
Marc Brettler responds:
The Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation was a landmark translation. It incorporated many keen insights of the late professor Max Margolis, noted for his scholarship relating to the Biblical text and the versions. However, despite its claims, this translation was not an independent translation by a committee working from the Hebrew text. Harry Orlinsky comments in his Notes on the New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia: J.P.S., 1969), p. 10, “For, in truth, that version [the 1917 J.P.S.] was essentially but a modest revision of the Revised Version of 1885, a revision that was only a small percentage of the whole.” Thus, my contention that NJPS is the first modern translation by a Jewish committee made directly from the Hebrew text is accurate.
BAR Goofs Up a Caption
To the Editor:
The caption to the magnificent aerial picture of the Capernaum remains (“Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 08:06, by James F. Strange and Hershel Shanks) states that “the southwest steps [to the platform on which the synagogue was built] are visible in the photo.” Surely this is an error. It should be “the southeast steps.”
Gerry Chappeau
University City, Missouri
It surely should be.—Ed.
To the Editor:
I enjoyed your fine article on “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 08:06. However, I wonder if your observers of present-day buildings are as accurate as they are of the ancient ruins. In the beautiful panoramic photo of the site, I see the Franciscan Fathers’ Convent as built of black stone (probably the black basalt that abounds in the area) and with a red roof. In the caption accompanying the photo, you refer to the “red brick convent of the Franciscan Fathers.” Do the words deceive me or does the photo?
Rev. John J. Looby
St. Thomas More Church
Canton, New York
Rev. Looby is correct; BAR’s caption is wrong. Only the roof is red. That’s what comes of writing captions from an unprojected slide.—Ed.
BAR’s Headline Too Sensational
To the Editor:
I received the copy of BAR (January/February 1983) with my report on the Korazin 066[Chorazim] pilaster, and wish to thank you. The title which you gave the article (“Has Another Lost Ark Been Found?” BAR 09:01) is, however, too sensational. And the artist’s reconstruction which accompanied the photograph of the pilaster is premature. A proposal for the reconstruction of the pilaster’s original place in the synagogue has already been developed; it differs completely from that of BAR. I hope to publish it in the near future.
Ze’ev Yeivin
Deputy Director
Department of Antiquities
Jerusalem, Israel
We hope to publish Dr. Yeivins reconstruction for our readers as soon as it is available.—Ed.
Concluding the Exodus Coverage
To the Editor:
Many thanks for concluding (I hope) the controversy in BAR about the date and place of the “Red Sea crossing” by the Israelites during the Exodus with the wise article by Yehuda Radday (
The previous articles reminded me of children saying “’tis so,” “’tis not.” Some of the authors spent as much time and space downgrading each other as they did in presenting their views.
Professor Radday has moved us to a higher plane, and for that I am grateful.
Mrs. William H. Fellows
San Marino, California
To the Editor:
I received my first issue of BAR and was sadly disappointed. I was particularly distressed by Professor Radday’s article,
I am returning to you the November/December issue I received and am asking for a full refund as I would like to have nothing further to do with your magazine.
Grace May
New York, New York
To the Editor:
Yehuda T. Radday’s plea for understanding is a great contribution in comprehending the “reality” of the Bible.
For those who claim that it is God’s word, totally true, remember that it was written by fallible man, sinner, from what he thought God, the king, and priests and others wanted, in man’s own words.
Thomas S. Booz
Plantation, Florida
068
Israel at Night
To the Editor:
The article by Abraham Malamat entitled “How Inferior Israelite Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,” BAR 08:02, was most interesting, particularly in its reference to night movements in confrontations. His list of these episodes leaves out some of the more spectacular nocturnal victories of the Israelites including Passover and Entebbe.
Perhaps Israel had good historical reasons for starting the day when the sun set and not when it rose—night was the time of its greatest achievements.
Even on a personal level, night was the time of the greatest triumphs. Both Jacob before becoming Israel and facing Esau and Moses before facing Pharaoh experienced their moments of truth at night.
Long before Freud, Israel knew that night is the time to face one’s fears and to cause fear in one’s foe. In both ways, victory has been the result.
Peter Feinman
Hartsdale, New York
How to Get the Israel Exploration Journal in English
To the Editor:
Is there an English-language edition of the Israel Exploration Journal, and how would I go about obtaining an offprint or photocopy of a specific article in it?
Frank C. Tribbe
Penn Laird, Virginia
The Israel Exploration Journal is published in English, not Hebrew. The address of the Journal is P.O. Box 704 1, Jerusalem, Israel.—Ed.
NJPS Not Consistent
To the Editor:
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.