Moron Rov Chaim Kanievsky?? I think you may want to make a small edit to your post!
I would imagine that Artscroll would want to do a new translation of Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer for the same reason. The Friedlander edition (how dare he suggest that it isn't a tanaitic work!) just doesn't cut it in frum circles!
He compared their Schottenstein Shas project to the projected German Talmud translation (Hebrew commentary, actually)
Perhaps he should have said the German translation that the Chasam Sofer gave his haskamah to, which he later rescinded.
There are also the layout issues. Artscroll is very careful. It does not change the traditonal layout, only reproduces it with the translation and commentary on facing pages. This communicates the message that nothing it added or subtracted. This issue was specifically mentioned in a ban of an edition of Chumash and Rashi with a new commentary (that put the new commentary on the same page as Rashi). All of the older translations in many details communicated a different message.
Gutnick Chumash, by comparison, does put the Rebbe's commentary on the same page as Rashi.
Artscroll is very careful. It does not change the traditonal layout, only reproduces it with the translation and commentary on facing pages.
Ahem...Which Artscroll are you referring to? Aside from Talmud, Artscroll puts commentary on the same page as original text. Their various chumashim do that (Sapirstein, Baal Haturim, Seforno, even Stone).
Gutnick Chumash, by comparison, does put the Rebbe's commentary on the same page as Rashi.
Even if Artscroll (and nearly every other chumash in any language) wasn't doing the exactly same thing, what is the problem with that?
Once again I repeat my assertion that Artscroll plagiarizes from Soncino (and JPS).
Once again I repeat my assertion that Artscroll plagiarizes from Soncino (and JPS).
Who in plagiarized from KJV, who in turn plagiarized from Tyndale. Tyndale either produced original scholarship, or the identity of his source was lost in the mist of time.
Yeah, but they admit it.
Yeah, but they admit it.
So it's not the act of pilfering that has you exercised. Just absence that one lonely line of text way in the back.
Also Artscroll did correct some KJV errors that JPS and Soncino felt obliged to preserve in their translation.
Like what?
Are you referring to the translation by Finkel (this one?
That is not an ArtScroll publication, it was put out Yeshiva Beis Moshe.
Like what?
Yam Suf translated as Read Sea. Anyone with access to a map in the last few hundred years, would have seen that if Israelites somehow crossed Red Sea, they would have ended up in Arabia and not Sinai. The Soncino publishers obviously knew that since the commentary says: "lit. 'the sea of reeds'". Yet they preserved KJV language for reasons that escape me.
Are you referring to the translation by Finkel
Apparently he is. But (a) Judaica Press isn't as fat a target as Artscroll and (b) the ad was merely a launching pad for an attack on Artscroll, which stands on its own and doesn't really depend on an ad for Avos D'Rebbi Nosson.
OTOH, we know why Fred couldn't find it on artscroll.com.
"The ad noted that this classic is "now available in English."
It means "now available in Artscroll."
>Are you referring to the translation by Finkel (this one?
>That is not an ArtScroll publication, it was put out Yeshiva Beis Moshe.
No. I'm referring to the new Artscroll Avoth De-rabbi Nathan.
I doubt that Sconcino plagiarized their translation of the Talmud from the KJV (although if there is a KJV of the Talmud I would be greatly impressed and would like to know more about it).
I am frequently disgusted with ArtScroll's lack of acknowledgment about what came before them. It is dishonest to claim priority, even if you don't plagiarize, when, without doubt, were not the first.
I know that at least recent editions (prior to Artscroll) of the Sconcino Talmud published the translation opposite the Vilna Shas.
Finally, the best criticism I have of the Sconcio translation is that it is a translation without emmendation, i.e. it only translate the Aramaic without the interpolating Rashi explanation. So the text remains, in many instances, just as obscure in English as it would in the original Aramaic.
> I doubt that Sconcino plagiarized their translation of the Talmud from the KJV (although if there is a KJV of the Talmud I would be greatly impressed and would like to know more about it).
Soncino Bible, he meant. (Although I'm not sure which edition; I think the Hertz Chumash was published by Soncino at some point, but there is also a distinct Soncino Bible.)
>I am frequently disgusted with ArtScroll's lack of acknowledgment about what came before them. It is dishonest to claim priority, even if you don't plagiarize, when, without doubt, were not the first.
That's basically the point of this post. Not only have they come to supplant, but their tendenz is to obscure that fact, in the books themselves and in the publicity for their books - although I must acknowledge that I have heard N. Scherman refer to prior works, both tinged with praise (he called the Hertz Chumash 'heroic,' but with the subtext that it is now archaic, which it, of course, is) and also with criticism, namely that Artscroll is needed to replace bad, unattractive and hashkafically unacceptable translations.
>I know that at least recent editions (prior to Artscroll) of the Sconcino Talmud published the translation opposite the Vilna Shas.
The Talmud text was added to the Soncino translation in 1963. There's even a review of it by R. Emanuel Feldman in Tradition.
No. I'm referring to the new Artscroll Avoth De-rabbi Nathan.
Can you point me to the page in JP that the add is on. I looked and could not find it.
It might have been in the ad in the Jewish Week, not the JP. Either way, it was on the full page Artscroll ad in one of those publications. Anyone who has last week's issue, please scan and post it, or send it to me please, thanks.
Soncino Bible, he meant.
I actually meant Hertz chumash.
he called the Hertz Chumash 'heroic,' but with the subtext that it is now archaic, which it, of course, is
The translation of Hertz chumash was archaic when it first came out. That may have been by design. According to The Adventure of English, KJV deliberately used archaic forms to make it seem older and more authentic.
but there is also a distinct Soncino Bible.
Commentary by A. Cohen, translation of the "new edition" of Sconcino by/from JPS, duly acknowledged and thanked.
Hertz's heroic work was not in the translation, per sa, rather the commentary, which is today thought of as "archaic". I think you (S) told me that ;)
>The translation of Hertz chumash was archaic when it first came out.
It was indeed; the notes actually frequently correct the translation, or explain archaisms. In fact, in last week's sidra it used the word "beeves" for cows (and, of course, it also uses kine for cows).
I don't think the Hertz used it by design. I think they were unable to reach an agreement with the JPS. Later editions (I'm told) did adopt the 1917 JPS translation.
In any event, no one thinks of the contribution of the Hertz Chumash stemming from the translation. The commentary is the meat of it, very, very archaic it may be.
BTW I think the Nachum Lamm (9:07 pm) was the one sho commented on Artscroll plagiarism
Once again I repeat my assertion that Artscroll plagiarizes from Soncino (and JPS).
Nachum Lamm | 05.11.08 - 9:07 pm |
Either way, it was on the full page Artscroll ad in one of those publications.
Jewish Press did have a full page ad for Artscroll, but I didn't notice any reference to "Avoth De-rabbi Nathan". The Judaica Press ad was much less than full page.
They plagiarize in the sense that they use sources which are not indicated in their bibliographies, but not much in terms of language. As far as the idea that they borrowed language from the JPS, I have in the past countered Nachum's accusation by pointing out that they do so in the same sense and, one supposes, spirit that the JPS too borrowed language from the original KJV.
>Jewish Press did have a full page ad for Artscroll, but I didn't notice any reference to "Avoth De-rabbi Nathan". The Judaica Press ad was much less than full page.
As I said, it may have been in the Jewish Week. I read it Friday night, and I confess I was tired. However, I feel that I am 100% certain that it was Artscroll, part of a single, full-page ad. Was there a Judaica Press ad occupying the top 5th of a page, with Artscroll on the bottom 4/5ths?
Again, I call on someone to scan and post the full page Artscroll ads in the JP and JW.
S. | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 4:25 pm
While I am not making the specific accusation re the Talmud,
and the Sconcino Talmud? Are you convinced that they didn't lift whole parts of the translation from there? (admittedly adding their emendations, which I guess makes it more intellectual dishonesty than plagiarism.)
Was there a Judaica Press ad occupying the top 5th of a page, with Artscroll on the bottom 4/5ths?
The Jewish Press had a full page A/S ad. And a small Judaica Press in the bottom corner. Even if you made a mistake, I'm not terribly bothered by it. You could have used 70% of Artscroll new book announcements and come up with the same post. Artscroll does act as if they invented Anglo-Jewish publishing. I happen to think that it is driven mostly by marketing.
>Are you convinced that they didn't lift whole parts of the translation from there? (admittedly adding their emendations, which I guess makes it more intellectual dishonesty than plagiarism.)
I never took the time to compare language (I have the whole rest of my life to do that) except on specific occasions, and that was to compare inerpretation. If you can supply examples where they used the Soncino text as a template to build their own translation onto, then please do so!
As I said, they are guilty of plagiarism in the sense that they don't cite all their sources (or even have a bibliography in the case of some books such as the Talmud translation, possibly to aid in that, as it makes it easier for them to obscure the full scope of what it is that they use for research. Example: recently I posted about how they reference the substance of Shnayer Leiman's article on the "mud-mouse" from the Norman Lamm Festschrift, but Artscroll neither names him, the article, or the book it appeared in. Other reviewer-critics have shown how they use EJ sometimes, without ever citing it, etc.
But one of the things which I think Artscroll is generally pretty naki about is in using their own language and style. An Artscroll book truly reads like an Artscroll book!
>The Jewish Press had a full page A/S ad. And a small Judaica Press in the bottom corner. Even if you made a mistake, I'm not terribly bothered by it. You could have used 70% of Artscroll new book announcements and come up with the same post. Artscroll does act as if they invented Anglo-Jewish publishing. I happen to think that it is driven mostly by marketing.
I would like to see the ads in both papers. If I was mistaken, at least it was an honest mistake on my part. In any case, I did read an ad which I thought (and still do) was from Artscroll and it did spark the thoughts leading to this post!
I agree that this thing is a marketing technique, but it's also driven by a desire to supplant. As I said, I personally heard Scherman say that one of Artscroll's aims, backed by gedolim, is to replace the faulty Jewish texts that exist.
EJ?
Encyclopaedia Judaica
Are you convinced that they didn't lift whole parts of the translation from there? (admittedly adding their emendations, which I guess makes it more intellectual dishonesty than plagiarism.)
I have no doubt that Artscroll used Soncino Talmud (and possibly Hebrew Steinsaltz) in developing their translation. I seriously doubt that the lifted "whole parts of the translation from there". That'd be too easy to catch.
As I said, I personally heard Scherman say that one of Artscroll's aims, backed by gedolim, is to replace the faulty Jewish texts that exist.
S. | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 4:40 pm
I think you also implied that the new text will be "purified" or rendered "Politically correct" (words in quotes are actually my interpretations not quotations.)
Sorta like Chabad citing the Rebbe, or the Ulta Rebbe as the sorce of all insight into Torah
JoeCool | 05.12.08 - 4:41 pm
S. | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 4:37 pm
Actually, I distinctly recall S compareing an Artscroll and a Sconcino translation were only one word was altered.
Although S didn't think this was a direct copy, myself and others at the time did.
And what about the American translation contemporaneous with the Sconcino?
Encyclopaedia Judaica
S. | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 4:41 pm
Thanks
>I think you also implied that the new text will be "purified" or rendered "Politically correct" (words in quotes are actually my interpretations not quotations.)
That's right. I mean, it is true that there is always financial gain to be had from an ostensibly attractive new edition (which is fine, of course). It's also true that many times the existing works contain flaws (and not just that they are not "Torah-True"). But it is also true that new Artscroll editions have the advantage (from their point of view) that they omit sources and interpretations that they don't want readers to see. What was wrong with the Chavel Ramban translation? Many things, I'm sure, but one of them is surely that his sources are not all ideologically pure.
>Sorta like Chabad citing the Rebbe, or the Ulta Rebbe as the sorce of all insight into Torah
Maybe, but not exactly. That would be the case if they kept the same interpretations and stuck to a policy of attributing them only to the sources they want readers to know of. But they are revising interpretations to (as is their right, of course).
>Moron Rov Chaim Kanievsky?? I think you may want to make a small edit to your post!
Two qomotzin.
What was wrong with the Chavel Ramban translation?
Primarily that it wasn't generating revenue for Artscroll.
>Primarily that it wasn't generating revenue for Artscroll.
I agree that it's a component, maybe even the dominant component.
But the Friedlaender Moreh Nevukhim generates no revenue for them either, but don't expect to see an Artscroll version any time soon. Artscroll has principles besides money.
>And what about the American translation contemporaneous with the Sconcino?
Of the Talmud?
But the Friedlaender Moreh Nevukhim generates no revenue for them either, but don't expect to see an Artscroll version any time soon. Artscroll has principles besides money.
True. But even if they put aside those principles and produced one, it still would not generate much revenue. There's just much more money to be made in Kosher by Design and Daily Dose of Torah. Baal Haturim or Ramban aren't huge money makers either, but I bet they are more profitable than Moreh could ever be.
There obviously is a market, albeit small, for the Moreh, or it wouldn't still be in print. In any event, Artscroll would know how to market it:
"Read the timeless hashkafah classic by the Rambam, the classic outstanding Sephardic Torah Giants ..."
BTW, where's the market for the Yerushalmi translation? I'm sure Artscroll hopes to help create such a market, but that sounds like an expensive gamble. I'd assume that they actually do intend to be marbitz Torah, as they see it, in addition to making money! (Incidentally, they also describe the Yerushalmi as a "classic.")
FWIW Scherman said that the frilly Artscroll product is meant to make money for the company which, he says, the heavy stuff doesn't really do.
There obviously is a market, albeit small, for the Moreh, or it wouldn't still be in print. In any event, Artscroll would know how to market it
Just checked. Various prints of Fiedlander's Moreh rank in 400,000 range on Amazon. Passover by Design is #15,259. The reason Moreh is in print is that the text is in public domain.
FWIW Scherman said that the frilly Artscroll product is meant to make money for the company which, he says, the heavy stuff doesn't really do.
Which is why Artscroll goes around asking for donations to publish that stuff. They still need a certain level of sales to justify the cost of translating, editing, and printing.
The ArtScroll Yerushalmi is fully subsidized -- if they sell no copies, they won't lose money. And they can sell it for decades and decades and decades.
Here is the Judaica Press blurb on Avos D'Rebbi Nosson:
"The monumental classic commentary on Pirkei Avos, newly translated into English."
At least this advertisement doesn't claim to be the first translation, only a new translation. It is however, both a classic and a monument.
Of the Talmud?
S. | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 5:03 pm
Rodkinson translation
The ArtScroll Ramban is much nicer than the Chavel -- it includes the original Chumash text for reference, as well as both the Hebrew and English Ramban, and more detailed notes. I like them both, but the ArtScroll is much more useful.
"The monumental classic commentary on Pirkei Avos, newly translated into English."
I could be wrong, but I thought that the Jewish Press add for Judaica Press said "now available in English". I'll look again tonight.
"But the Friedlaender Moreh Nevukhim generates no revenue for them either, but don't expect to see an Artscroll version any time soon. Artscroll has principles besides money."
LOL. zing!
>Rodkinson translation
That was incomplete and about 40 years prior to the Soncino.
"The monumental classic commentary on Pirkei Avos, newly translated into English."
I could be wrong, but I thought that the Jewish Press add for Judaica Press said "now available in English". I'll look again tonight.
Just checked it. The Judaica Press ad says: "NOW IN ENGLISH!". The same ad says about Rabbeinu Yona on Pirkei Avos: "FINALLY,NOW IN ENGLISH!" I suppose the difference in blurbs means that they weren't trying to imply that their Avos d'Rebbi Noson was THE first English translation, but one can easily draw the opposite conclusion.
Artscroll ad shows 12 different Avos commentaries and 5 "new titles". Not one of them Avos d'Rebbi Noson.
I saw a frummy Avos D' Rebbi Noson translation at a relative's house a few months ago. Maybe published by someone from the Scranton Yeshiva? I will try to track that down.
Maybe published by someone from the Scranton Yeshiva? I will try to track that down.
No need. That's the one from Judaica Press: "It is compiled from a recent two-volume version published by Yeshivath Beth Moshe in Scranton, PA"
JoeCool, thanks for the correction. I suppose I was more tired than I realized and did not notice that the full page was actually two ads. I will promptly correct that which needs correcting in the post, but - of course - my thoughts remain my thoughts and so the substance of the post stands!
"FWIW Scherman said that the frilly Artscroll product is meant to make money for the company which, he says, the heavy stuff doesn't really do."
It's hard to believe Artscroll isnt turning a healthy profit on it's heavy stuff too, by which I guess they mean standard gemaras. Every edition has funding for the volume itself, the daf yomi sized volume, the seder it appears in, and the overall Schottenstein funding. These are all separate sources of income. That is in addition to the purchase prices of the books themselves. I dont know why they even need to pay a "team of scholars" (=bunch of kollel guys) to do the translation, in the past we had one man doing many masechtos by himself. If that doesnt translate into profit - [elucidate, I meant to say] something's wrong.
"namely that Artscroll is needed to replace bad, unattractive and hashkafically unacceptable translations."
It's incredible how often I hear people parrot the mindless assertion that Soncino was written by koifrim, or reshoiyim. You know what their proof of this is? Because the editor was named "Isadore".
Yep. It's these geniuses that Artscroll caters to.
>It's hard to believe Artscroll isnt turning a healthy profit on it's heavy stuff too, by which I guess they mean standard gemaras. Every edition has funding for the volume itself, the daf yomi sized volume, the seder it appears in, and the overall Schottenstein funding. These are all separate sources of income.
It is hard to believe, but I personally heard him say that those things (Gemaras included) don't really make money. He even compared their expense to pricey academic text books, which are expensive because they cost so much to produce in the first place (paying scholars, being a big expense).
I don't know if that's *really* quite the case, or if it is now, or if it is since the entire Shas was finished (I heard him say this a few years ago).
Furthermore, Artscroll has a great . . . (scam?) Idea? going, in that it somehow was able to convince people that it is a tzedakah organization. Daniel Bomberg should have thought of it! So they do get donations, tax-free status for their "non-profit" foundation, etc.
>It's incredible how often I hear people parrot the mindless assertion that Soncino was written by koifrim, or reshoiyim. You know what their proof of this is? Because the editor was named "Isadore".
You've actually, literally heard that?
Well . . . no. I've heard countless people say Soncino was written by koifrim, but I've never heard anyone say that the proof is a guy named Isadore wrote it. But then I'm racking my brains to understand how anyone could say this. Because it's written in impeccable English? Because it quotes sources other than achronim? (For some people, non-Jews are as repulsive as, for some people, Jews. Which is very intressante.)
Actually,there probably is no reason. It's just mindless repetition. it's just one of those things many people are trained in yeshivah to say, but never actually stop to think about it.
>Because it quotes sources other than achronim?
Well, read this thread. Although you are technically correct that these are sources "other than achronim," it is only half the story, isn't it?
That said, if such people knew who any or many of those sources actually were, I'd be surprised, and if they did, if they'd ever read them or even knew what they would or would not object to in them I'd be surprised.
That said, I don't think it's that either. I think it's just some kind of overall perception that the Soncino just doesn't interpret the Gemara correctly, some kind of underlying assumption that whoever did the translations never heard of Rashi, but somehow simply rendered the Aramaic into literal (archaic) English.
It's incredible how often I hear people parrot the mindless assertion that Soncino was written by koifrim, or reshoiyim.
Not to quibble too much, but Soncino Press didn't exactly shy from employing kofrim to produce some of its publications.
I was speaking about Chumash and Shas.
Commenting by HaloScan
