My Letter to the JPS
Post date: Jun 19, 2020 9:19:50 AM
The American JPS (Jewish Publishing Society) Bible is considered to be the BIBLE for Jews. It is the first Jewish English translation (first edition 1917, New JPS came out in 1985) that started from scratch supposedly without influence from the King James Bible that had "ruled" the English speaking world from its publication in 1611. Its influence on the Anglo-Jewish society is great. I am therefore troubled by the way the JPS translated the 4th plague, Arov, and decided to write them about this a few years ago. Below my email and their reply.
16/5/2017
Dear Rabbi Schwartz,
I am writing an article on Arov, the 4th plague in Egypt and I would be interested to hear your opinion concerning the following.
Although Midrash Rabba (and other early midrashim) offers two opinions concerning its meaning (Rabbi Nehemya - flies, Rabbi Yehudah - wild beasts), it also decides in favor of the wild beasts option.
The Septuagint translated Arov as dogfly which (together with the Vulgate) has influenced ALL NON-Jewish Bible translations. In Jewish sources, however, tradition has always been to translate Arov as wild beasts. Different Targums translate wild beasts, the earliest 14th century Haggadah illustrators all drew wild beasts, Rashi explains wild beasts and the most influential British translator, David Levi in his commentary on the KJV (Spelman Pentateuch), in his Lingua Sacra and in his 1794 Haggadah translation renders Arov as noisome/ noxious beasts (and vermine). The founder of JPS, your lofty organization, Isaac Leeser, in the very first complete English Jewish Bible translation writes: “The English version “swarms of flies” needs no refutation, as the whole context shows it to be incorrect.”
Why then, has the JPS translation throughout the years (both in 1917 and in 1985) decided to follow the non-Jewish KJV translation and not the Jewish sources quoted above? Why add to the New JPS the footnote: "Some: "Wild Beasts"" while this is not SOME but (almost) ALL except some English translations? Careful examination of other language Bibles shows that it is only the Anglican versions that have adhered to the flies option for so long.
Your Bible has an enormous influence on its readers. Are you aware that ONLY English speaking Jews at the Pesach seder are confused with mixed flies or wild beasts translations and pictures? Did you know that more and more English Haggadot have made the decision to opt for the wild animals instead of the flies mentioned in your Bible? To mention just one example, the iconic Maxwell Haggadah has undergone many changes. But the 1932-1954 editions had the flies translation and an illustration copied from the 1609 Venice Haggadah [This is actually the 1611 Amsterdam Haggadah, A.R. 2020] with wild beasts. Illustrations in later Maxwell Haggadot show flies but even the Maxwell Haggadah has eventually changed its Arov translation to wild beasts as can be seen from their 2002-now Haggadot. Every new Jewish Bible/ Haggadah translation coming out these days translates Arov as wild beasts.
May I suggest that in the next revision of the JPS Bible, Arov is translated as "wild beasts" with a footnote "Others: Flies"?
Looking forward to your reply,
Avraham Roos
And their reply:
Dear Avraham,
Thanks for your interesting query.
I checked Harry Orlinsky's z"l notes to NJPS- while he acknowledges the two translations he does not explain why he chose the one, other than to say, "see Luzzatto and Driver"- so you may want to check that out.
You should also see Nachum Sarna z"l in The JPS Commentary to Exodus where he does not defend our translation but does give an interesting scientific explanation as to why "swarms of insects" would make sense.
Personally I think your suggestion for the footnote switch is persuasive.
With best wishes,
Barry Schwartz
Samuel Rolles Driver was an early 20th century non-Jewish English divine and Hebrew scholar. The Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto) was a member of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which placed quite a lot of emphasis on non-Jewish interpretations as well. So if these two were the inspiration for translation decisions for a JEWISH Bible then I have serious doubts how valuable such a translation is. It is, therefore, not surprising that other Jewish Bible translations have appeared since which adhere more to Rashi's explanations.