May be they meant that the secondary meaning of the word as Paradise came from the Hebrew "gan".
How do you read that into the words in red?
With a crowbar.
Scharf.
were just happening to learn something in the Talmud when you encountered this or do you go digging specifically to find some buried treasure? :)
I suppose they could cite as their source the Tower of Babel story in Genesis.
I would venture to basically agree with you...not that they "made it up" but since Song of Songs/Ecclesiastes was 'obviously' written before the year 960, it must be that Hebrew had the word by then, so it 'probably' was then brought to Greek.
Or, since Hebrew was the oldest language anyway...
The real question is why they included the comment at all. Most academic writers state, very blandly, that the "orchard" is a symbol representing mystical experience. The entire sentence you highlighted in red is actually irrelevant.
I think they are shoddier on such material than you suppose. The idea that they know all this seems dubious. From their standpoint, it could go from Hebrew to Persian to Greek.
>The real question is why they included the comment at all.
Exactly. And that's why I introduced a conspiracy theory about the late dating of biblical books. The little aside is inexplicable by itself.
Incidentally, here is the Soncino's comment on pardes:
>(24) Paradise, Heb. xsrp (cf. Cant. IV, 13, Eccl. II, 5, Neh. II, 8 ), ‘enclosure, preserve, garden, park’ (v. B. D. B. s.v.). L. Blau (Alitjudisches Zauberwesen, pp, 115f) seeks to prove that this account of the entry of the four Rabbis into Paradise is to be understood literally (v. also J.E. vol. V, p. 683). This view is shared, among others, by J. Levy and L. Ginzberg (v. J.E. vol. V, pp. 138f). On the other hand, M. Jast. (Dictionary) and Goldschmidt consider ‘Pardes’ a figurative expression for the mystical realm of theosophy. Rashi explains that the four scholars ascended to heaven, and Tosaf. adds that it only appeared to them that they did so. Similarly, R. Hai Gaon, who discusses the whole Baraitha in a responsum (quoted by Ha-Kotheb in ‘Ein Jacob), and R. Hananel explain that the entry of the Rabbis into the ‘Garden’ was only a vision. Both these authorities refer to the comment on the passage contained in the mystical works ‘Hekaloth Rabbathi’ and ‘Hekaloth Zutarthi’ (v. J.E. vol. VI, pp. 332-3). V. further J.E. vol. IX, pp. 515f.
As you can see, its hardly necessary to discuss the origin of the word.
(By the way, I didn't include the entire Artscroll comment, which also discusses the peshat of the passages, just as the Soncino does.)
The idea that they know all this seems dubious. From their standpoint, it could go from Hebrew to Persian to Greek.
You clearly don't know their staff. You are just projecting your stereotypical Chareidi.
Well said. There's no way they didn't know that it came from Persian, although I could legitimately believe that they actually disagree with that, as opposed to just pretending to disagree.
long history with the Persians, and the relatively later encounter with the Jews
What about the idea of פלשתים being of Greek origin? Wouldn't that indicate a much earlier encounter between Greeks and Jews?
I do know some of their staff.
I thought they included the comment because they like a little culture when they have it. If you say I'm wrong, my apologies to the slighted staff.
S:
"its hardly necessary to discuss the origin of the word."
they just wanted to make sure we understand that greek (and every other language) comes from hebrew, the ur language, and not the other way around. this threat to our emunah was not on soncino's radar.
on a different issue, does the artscroll edition ever use the soncino edition (whether cited or otherwise)?
Nice post (now I'll have to wait until people forget about it until I write my own...)
There are a number of Greek words that come from Hebrew (or more commonly from the related Phoenician) - but I haven't seen anyone who thinks this is one of them.
Jastrow, who of all sources is most likely to try to connect a word with a Semitic root only quotes Gesenius, who writes here ( http://snipurl.com/16ip8 - page 874) that "it seems to originate neither with the Greeks nor Hebrews, but in the languages of eastern Asia."
Kaddari writes that it comes from Ancient Persian, and is also found in late Babylonian, Syrian and even Akkadian (maybe that's how it got into Shir HaShirim and Kohelet).
As far as Artscroll, it doesn't surprise me, but I hope it's not a part of a Mozeson like trend that will from Artscroll spread to the masses.
Ari
>on a different issue, does the artscroll edition ever use the soncino edition (whether cited or otherwise)?
They do, but don't cite it. I can't think of an example offhand, but I'll see if I can provide some soon. It can be proved that they use it sometimes, but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone.
Dave
>As far as Artscroll, it doesn't surprise me, but I hope it's not a part of a Mozeson like trend that will from Artscroll spread to the masses.
I should stress that this is only an aside. I haven't seen Artscroll engage in this in any of the hundreds of other Greek words that are Hebrew also (I never saw them say that συνέδριον comes from סנהדרין. The truth is, Artscroll largely stays away from etymology and Mozeson-like issues as a major theme. It only appears incidentally.
In an as-yet unpublished essay by Prof. Barry Levy of McGill it is shown how in one book Artscroll gives homiletical explanations for the month names (specifcially Marheshvan) while in a Hebrew sefer by R. Dovid Cohen that was printed by Mesorah Publications Marheshvan is dealt with in terms of its Babylonian origin.
All in all, this is why I would say that the issue was probably how it pertains to the dating of Kohelet and Shir Ha-shirim rather than Hebrew as the ur-tongue. I've long maintained that Artscroll's 'sin' is that it (if we can speak of 'it') knows the complexity of the actual tradition and many of its writers even know a thing or two or a hundred about modern scholarship on these issues, but deliberately shows only a monochromatic picture of that tradition in English. It chooses what people who can only access the tradition in English may learn of the tradition. That, to me, is why this blog exists.
S., was it you who published a post about how Artscroll and Soncino translate a passage about Zavah? I remember you (if it was you) found Artscroll's version to be better, but didn't point out that for the most part, Artscroll was copying the Soncino translation word for word. (Much as it was found that their Tanach translations- at least some of them- copy the new JPS word for word.)
I noticed another footnote, in the passage about Onkelos calling up the dead. A reference to "Jesus," as is well known, was censored to read "Sinners of Israel." In a footnote, Artscroll tells us that a specific sinner is meant. It says nothing else.
The Phillistine idea is interesting, but I don't think Pardes would have made it into Greek by that point, certainly not enough for it to sink in that way. The Phillistines arrived in Canaan in about 1200 BCE (same as the Israelites), and most Greek-Persian encounters took place centuries later.
I like Anonymous' line about "liking a little culture" too. I think it's spot on not just for Artscroll but for its world in general.
The Phillistine idea is interesting, but I don't think Pardes would have made it into Greek by that point, certainly not enough for it to sink in that way. The Phillistines arrived in Canaan in about 1200 BCE (same as the Israelites), and most Greek-Persian encounters took place centuries later.
More importantly, Philistines disappeared 100-200 years before advent of Persian empire. I wasn't arguing with the main thrust of the post, just that Greek-Jewish encounter pre-dates Greek-Persian. The mere fact that Greek-Jewish interaction might pre-date fundamentalist dating of Shir HaShirim, in no way proves such dating.
Nachum
>S., was it you who published a post about how Artscroll and Soncino translate a passage about Zavah?
No, it wasn't me. I ran a search to see if it did turn up, and the only reference was a prior comment you made on Hirhurim about the same issue. I'd love to see it.
As for the Philistine idea, while interesting, the point is that it comes without a shred of evidence. How much do we even know about Philistine language anyway? And if the Philistines independently received pardes from the Israelites, the idea here is that they imported it back to Greece? Possible? I guess. But is there a shred of evidence for it? No. Is there more than a shred of evidence that the Greeks got it from the Persian? I think so.
>I like Anonymous' line about "liking a little culture" too. I think it's spot on not just for Artscroll but for its world in general.
That is indeed a sharp comment. The reason why I would not chalk it up to that in this case is because it is totally unsourced and by that I do not mean that it didn't cite a source, but that there is no source to cite! I can well imagine Artscroll on rare occasions publishing a tasty tidbit that is in a good dictionary or a scholarly work, but not one that is a tasty tidbit which is completely baseless--unless there is another intention. I could be wrong, maybe the person who wrote this simply thought it was true and wanted to inject a bit o' culture here, but I have no idea why he would think it was true. He surely never came across this idea in any reputable source. Did he just think it up and had nothing else in mind?
Nachum, are you accusing Artscroll of plagiarism? If so, that's a serious charge.
Well, yes, I am. See, for example, the review in Tradition (about 1982) of Artscroll's Ruth, where the passages from NJPS are laid out side-by-side.
I believe the passage where I noticed the Soncino/Artscroll similarity is Sotah 20a. The reviewer felt that Artscroll's translation of "Isha Perusha" was better than Soncino's, but the text was substantially the same thing.
S., I meant that if Pardes went from Persia to Greece, the Phillistines were too early to have brought it to Israel in time for Shlomo to get it.
Oh, and I agree with your idea about why they mentioned it. At least, it sounds right.
IIRC, the Philistines (according to the theory that they are of Greek origin) belonged to Minoan civilization, and therefore their language may have been different from the one we now call Greek. (The question involves figuring the language behind Linear B.)
Nachum, "sinners of Israel" isn't censorship, it's a faithful translation of the gemara. The reader may speculate, as many have, that the reference is to Jesus, but that's not what the gemara says.
Though "sinners of Israel" sounds clumsy to me; I'd have gone with "a Jewish sinner".
Milhouse, that's what the *censored* Gemara says. The original Gemara explicitly said "Yeshua."
I'm curious what the Hebrew Art Scroll, which often has more scholarly comments tha the English, has to say here.
FWIW the introduction to shir hashirim in the Mossad Harav Kook edition which is written by Amos Chacham suggests that the word Pardeis may have been brought to Israel from Persia earlier by spice traders because their wares were grown in 'pardeisim'.
Hi S, long time no post.
Will try to report back from the source on this later.
OK, before I get to the author’s comments, I would like to get out of the way something that is ticking me off. You write:
Now, it is true that the Schottenstein edition does not claim to be a scientific text. It is for this reason that I wouldn't harp on all the specifics of the note. For example, I won't fault it for noting that the English word paradise come from Greek, even though English did not come from Greek and therefore did not borrow this word from Greek; most English words which ultimately have an ancient Greek origin received it via an intermediary language, like Old French, which in turn received the word from Latin, which in turn received it from Greek. Thus, Latin received the Greek παραδεισος, paradeisos, as paradisus, and Old French had it from Latin as paradis etc.
Well.
Since this is merely a blog, I won’t harp on the silliness of this complaint. I will not comment that saying an English word derives from a Greek word, without detailing every linguistic step in between, is as natural as saying that the Daughters of the American Revolution living today derive from the persons who fought that war, even though it is unlikely that the Daughters’ fathers were 200 years old when they begat them. I will not say a word about that. I will not let the thought escape me that to full-time scholars of Old French and Latin, you have probably oversimplified the lineage of this word by listing only two intermediate steps. I will not say any of this, since after all, we are both the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
If you've got something to say: say it.
Now to the meat of the post: I have been in contact with the author, and he had already received notice of your post from someone else via e-mail. He took some time to look at what you had to say and to dig up his old files. So I will quote and/or paraphrase some of his comments, with my comments in brackets.
First of all, he is gratified that you have taken an interest [yada, yada, yada] and would appreciate any suggestions that might result in improvements.
Secondly, he recollects using the Aruch HaShalem in tracing the origins of pardeis, as well as the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition. He may have used other resources that he doesn’t remember. He was unable to access that volume of Aruch HaShalem now but did check the AHD and it has a word history for paradise, which makes the points you made, including the Iranian/Avestan origin.
“However, I am a little confused by the sentence, ‘I also will not fault Artscroll for describing the Greek word to mean orchard and Paradise; it certainly did not mean the latter in ancient Greek (the Septuagint translators used the word in the sense of Paradise).’
If the Septuagint translators used paradeisos to mean Paradise, does that not mean that this is an accepted usage? Even if they coined this meaning, lechorah that would have become an accepted meaning. (Perhaps he is distinguishing between Ancient Greek before the Targum Shivim and stam Greek afterward; but I didn’t write anything about A n c i e n t Greek, so I am still confused.)”
[OK, now it gets interesting. I had a peek at the original files. You, S. and Anonymous of 8:19 pm, are getting close to a Baruch shekavanti moment.] The paragraph in question was initially twice as long. Here it is in the original form [without formatting or vowelization]:
[Accordingly, one could also translate this sentence: There were four who entered Paradise. Indeed, the English word "Paradise" derives from a Greek word meaning both orchard and Paradise which in turn derives from the Hebrew pardeis. (In some secular etymologies, the word is traced from the Greek to the Persian [where the word means “enclosure”] and no further. However, King Solomon used the word פרדס in the sense of an orchard in Song of Songs 4:13 more than two thousand and seven hundred years ago.)]
The author recalls seeing, perhaps in Aruch HaShalem, that the earliest Iranian usage mentioned was long after this. He also recalls pondering how to phrase this carefully and deciding that, with such a clear early usage in Song of Songs, and without alternative ancient parallels, it was “safe” to write, together with the explanatory bracket, that the Greek word derived from the Hebrew, meaning that it ultimately derived from there.
At a later stage, one of the Readers [i.e. great talmidei chachomim who check over the Artscroll Gemara files] questioned whether the parenthetical comment belonged in the Schottenstein Talmud. [I saw
At a later stage, one of the Readers [i.e. great talmidei chachomim who check over the Artscroll Gemara files] questioned whether the parenthetical comment belonged in the Schottenstein Talmud. [I saw the fax of the handwritten note, among other handwritten notes re: other points. I guess the objection was that it was too Chochmas Yisrael-like in flavor.] The author therefore took it out. “In retrospect, once the maamar musgar was taken out, I should have made the preceding sentence more ambiguous.”
Re: “the non-traditionalist view of the dating of all three books as post-Exilic:”
None of that even crossed his mind.
Some short points:
“I thought they included the comment because they like a little culture when they have it.”
He’s not sure what this means, but in the sense of sharing “a dvar chochmah which is interesting,” maybe. (He says this pardes/Paradise digression probably started that way, but there was also the larger idea of the metaphor of an orchard being used to describe Paradise and, in turn, the contemplation of Maaseh Merkavah.) But he can’t speak for the other authors/editors.
“The entire sentence you highlighted in red is actually irrelevant.”
See previous point.
“they just wanted to make sure we understand that greek (and every other language) comes from hebrew, the ur language, and not the other way around.”
“False.”
Re: Soncino
He said that he had looked at Soncino several times over the years and had not found it particularly useful, except for geographical information. He had once found there a translation of a difficult word that he liked and used it, but it was changed later to a simpler word.
Re: Plagiarism of Soncino Sotah 20a
“That is a very severe accusation.” And then after looking at the Soncino translation of the end of the Mishnah at this address: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sot...h/
sotah_20.html and comparing it with the Artscroll treatment: “It’s pure hotzaas shem ra. So much for the chazakah of milsa d’avida li’igluyei.”
Finally, he noticed that on your sidebar the heading, “Do Artscroll transliteration work?” is missing an ‘s’ after the third word, or ‘Do’ should be ‘Does.’
First, thank you very much for getting this response. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you email me ( dbmin9 at aol dot com ) and either give me the author's email address, or at least name, so that in the future I can respectfully ask questions first?
Secondly:
>If the Septuagint translators used paradeisos to mean Paradise, does that not mean that this is an accepted usage?
No; it means that there was no Greek word for a concept from Judaism, so the translators applied a Greek word which they felt best suited the sense.
>Even if they coined this meaning, lechorah that would have become an accepted meaning.
Granted, but to whom? Did the Septuagint become part of Greek literature such that it could coin new Greek words for the ancient Greeks?
But even if it did, how does it pertain to a Hebrew origin for the word? If we're agreeing that the Greeks got its sense of Paradise (capital P) from the Septuagint, then we're also agreeing that a Greek word was used, not a Hebrew word given a Greek suffix.
>None of that even crossed his mind.
I believe him; but could you paste what he said exactly on this point?
But again I still don't see how he drew the conclusion that English Paradise derives from a Greek word which derived from Hebrew pardes.
>Finally, he noticed that on your sidebar the heading, “Do Artscroll transliteration work?” is missing an ‘s’ after the third word, or ‘Do’ should be ‘Does.’
Thank you.
>Aruch HaShalem
I'm not surprised, but pleased to see that this is an Artscroll source. For those who don't know, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ale...Alexander_Kohut
>Re: Plagiarism of Soncino Sotah 20a
Who made that accusation? Not me.
(I assume you're referring to this post:
http://onthemainline.blogspot.co...-
pharisees.html )
OK, I am running out of time here, so I'll try to make it fast:
>Did the Septuagint become part of Greek literature such that it could coin new Greek words for the ancient Greeks?
Seems reasonable to me. A classic it was.
>But even if it did, how does it pertain to a Hebrew origin for the word? If we're agreeing that the Greeks got its sense of Paradise (capital P) from the Septuagint, then we're also agreeing that a Greek word was used, not a Hebrew word given a Greek suffix.
No, I think he's saying that there was a Greek word meaning orchard that was remarkably similar to the earlier Hebrew word also meaning orchard, which was perhaps its antecedent. The Septuagint scholars used the Greek-from-Hebrew orchard word in a metaphoric way to mean Paradise.
>>None of that even crossed his mind.
>I believe him; but could you paste what he said exactly on this point?
That was not typed, but it was along the lines of "Lo alah al daati" or something like that.
>>Re: Plagiarism of Soncino Sotah 20a
>Who made that accusation? Not me.
Not you, chalilah.
It was in this thread, here, here and here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4659976/
#286622
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4659976/
#286686
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4659976/
#286690
[By the way, how do you embed a link in a word, such that the reader will just see a blue "here" and will be able to click on it to reach the location?]
lawrence kaplan
"I'm curious what the Hebrew Art Scroll, which often has more scholarly comments tha the English, has to say here."
can someone elaborate on the differences between the hebrew and english editions. i thought the hebrew was merely a translation.
NCO Chassid:
"He said that he had looked at Soncino several times over the years and had not found it particularly useful, except for geographical information. He had once found there a translation of a difficult word that he liked and used it, but it was changed later to a simpler word."
i asked about soncino because i am curious sometimes why artscroll retranslates texts that already have a translation. of course there are good reasons to retranslate a text. in comparison to older editions, artscroll editions have better layout (though not for all purposes) and are more readable in the 21st century, but does artscroll argue that their translations are more correct/accuarate (either in terms of translation or texts used). why is an artscroll translation superior to soncino, silbermann, chavel, etc.
S:
"I'm not surprised, but pleased to see that this is an Artscroll source."
one of the resources that kohut had when composing the arukh ha-shalem was his mastery of persian, which he incorporated into the work. so it is interesting that he was consulted particularly for pardes. (i think most reviewers recognized his persian knowledge as an asset. some however considered this a liablility because he was "biased" toward persian. margolis in particular wrote that that one should dafka not rely on kohut for persian etymologies. or something like that.)
can someone elaborate on the differences between the hebrew and english editions. i thought the hebrew was merely a translation.
I'm not sure there are specific differences to elaborate on. My understanding is that they are spearate works authored by different individuals, although I assume the Hebrew authors used the earlier English versions as reference.
J.I.
well if they are "separate works authored by different individuals" there should definately be "specific differences to elaborate on." according to LK, for example, the hebrew edition is apparently more scholarly (though i hope he will comment on what exactly that means).
if hebrew is not an obstacle, which edition is the better choice?
NCO Chassid, the plagiarism accusation was me. S. finally found the source I was thinking of- see the link to his earlier post on "Pharisees." The first passage contains very similar words- "Foolish pietist" and so on.
In any event, I'm a bit attuned to check accusations of plagiarism from Artscroll because of what happened with their Tanach and JPS.
I find it interesting he has to consult "Come and hear," an anti-Semitic site, for Soncino, unless he just meant it as a reference. After all, we know that R' Scherman has a Steinsaltz on his desk. :-)
>why is an artscroll translation superior to soncino, silbermann, chavel, etc.
This question certainly should not apply to the Talmud, which is actually more than a translation in the case of this particular work. Whether you like Artscroll's ignoring modern scholarship or selective-masorah approach or not, you just can't compare what the Schottenstein does with what the Soncino does, although the Soncino translation and notes are useful.
But as for why these new translations are necessary, I'm sure you won't find an official statement anywhere, but in some cases the old ones are dated and their English is archaic and unattractive to most people. That is a legitimate issue. Personally, I enjoy 19th and early 20th century English ("in no wise" is an awesome turn of phrase!).
Secondly, these particular works are frankly too maskilic for contemporary Orthodox tastes. Artscroll et al enabled the Orthodoxy that officially eschews Haskalah to regroup and remove those works from the Orthodox library. Obviously, given the scope of my blogs, I am very opposed to this development and am personally doing my small part to counter it. But from the point of view of Artscroll and lots and lots of people who support what they're doing, these works are a purification of the old ones. Of course, the open secret is that you can't completely separate Haskalah from talmud Torah in the 21st century. You're going to have to consult the Arukh Ha-shalem, you're going to have to consult Jastrow, you're going to have to consult critical texts prepared by chochmas Yisroel people etc. But this fact can be easily kept from the public. I didn't see "Kohut, Alexander" in any Schottenstein bibliography.
Nachum
>I find it interesting he has to consult "Come and hear," an anti-Semitic site, for Soncino, unless he just meant it as a reference.
I'm sure he did. I use it as a reference too, as it's handy (although I also use the JClassics complete Soncino available through my Spertus subscription).
Incidentally, there is a project in the works to place the Soncino online so that folks will no longer have to use Come and Hear.
Good morning everyone! Am very tight for time this morning [due to my poor time management skills] so I'll try to hit just a couple points that I think I might know something about:
1) Re: S.'s request for Artscroll author's e-mail contact: Working on it but can't promise anything.
2) Re: Hebrew vs. English Artscroll Gemaras: 95% of the Hebrew is already in the English. The Hebrew authors/editors take the English as a basis, adapt it into Hebrew and try to improve here and there. Just take any Hebrew-English pair and compare them side by side. The major exceptions, I have been told, are the early English Gemaras such as Eruvin. There, the English is only about 50-60% of the Hebrew.
In that sense, the Hebrew is better. However, the English has to translate and take a stand on every word of the text, so that is interesting/useful often.
3) Re: Why a new translation? I don't understand the question: The Artscroll treatment is totally different and, from the perspective of a Daf Yomi learner, superior to the Soncino, the English Steinsaltz and Neusner.
As far as the Hebrew compared to Mesivta and the other new stuff: That's a good question.
4) Re: Come and hear: It was just a reference to the Soncino text online.
5) Re: Kohut. The author once showed me that there was an appendix volume to the Aruch HaShalem written after the petirah of Kohut, which went on the attack against him regarding the Iranian etymologies. [Don't know if he checked this volume for pardeis.]
That's it. Must go.
S., I merely wondered if he had an actual Soncino volume and was just using the website in his letter. Either way, it's no big deal. As to the project you mentioned, I hope so!
(Incidentally, you're talking to someone who's gotten most of Soncino's original stuff- including their sadly no longer published original, "goyish" Tanach- off of abebooks.)
I suppose it's just hard to imagine someone who doesn't have a hava amina that some books of Tanach may have been written in the Bayis Sheni period, but I'm sure they're out there- people who see "Pardes" in Shir HaShirim or Koheles and therefore can have no thought past their conviction that those books were written by Shlomo.
In the elucidator's response, you saw no claim that he was unaware of the late dating issue, only that it wasn't part of his cheshbon. What I do find interesting is how davka this little two line aside was actually discusses as possibly being too chochmas Yisrael for the project.
I dunno. He seems pretty definitive in saying, "Well, it's in Shir HaShirim, so clearly it was part of Hebrew in 2700 BCE." (Sic, this is Artscroll chronology of when Shlomo lived.)
Right, but that doesn't mean he is unaware of the "controversy."
NCO Chassid:
"Re: Kohut. The author once showed me that there was an appendix volume to the Aruch HaShalem written after the petirah of Kohut, which went on the attack against him regarding the Iranian etymologies. [Don't know if he checked this volume for pardeis.]"
i think you are referring to Tosefet Arukh ha-Shalem (1937), which contains supplementary comments by Samuel Krauss, Bernhard Geiger, Louis Ginzberg, Immanuel Loew and Benjamin Murmelstein.
NCO Chassid:
"Why a new translation? I don't understand the question: The Artscroll treatment is totally different and, from the perspective of a Daf Yomi learner, superior to the Soncino, the English Steinsaltz and Neusner.
i freely admitted above that artscroll has presented its editions in a more user-friendly layout/format/arrangement (for most purposes) and in a more readable English.
my question is about the actual translation itself. new translations properly should define how they resemble and differ from previous attempts (or where they are indebted and where they depart). sometimes they claim that previous attempts relied on corrupt texts or that the translators themselves lacked the facility to do a proper job.
so what i am asking is does artscroll consider its TRANSLATION (as opposed to its overall edition) better than previous attempts. do artscroll's scholars understand rashi better than silbermann or ramban better than chavel (to get away from the talmud, which is better for the daf yomi participant).
as an aside, whereas i know the chavel ramban and the silbermann rashi, artscroll markets its editions under the artscroll (or a patron's) name, not under the names of the translators. i don't mean to "diss" artscroll, but i am asking these questions because we (or i) don't know who the artscroll translators are.
S:
"Secondly, these particular works are frankly too maskilic for contemporary Orthodox tastes."
i agree with everything you wrote in this repsonse, except i would have listed this as primary.
" I didn't see "Kohut, Alexander" in any Schottenstein bibliography."
obviously. it is interesting that treif books are permitted to be read by some but not by others.
>i agree with everything you wrote in this repsonse, except i would have listed this as primary.
I'm sure it is primary. But there are a at least two parties to consider in terms of why these new translations are made.
From the persective of the average consumer, I'm sure these new editions simply seem newer, they look better and they read better. Furthermore, they even look like seforim!
From the perspective of the company itself, it is obviously an opportunity to make money--note, I do NOT fault them for this and I do NOT consider this to be dishonorable, so long as the aim is not to squash the competition. Thus, I feel that it may well be dishonorable for A. to try to corner the Israeli market and to issue new editions of, say, the Chumash with Rashi, as they have done. To me, that seems like nothing other than the business desire for monopoly.
On the other hand, maybe it is a financial necessity for them, and I don't fault them for it if so.
And then there is the other perspective of the company, which is ideological, as well as of the rabbinic supporters; for these it is an opportunity to reclaim these texts for the Anglo audience in need of translation.
WRT the quality of the translations themselves, no one will accuse these translations of rising to great literature in their own right. But A. probably does believe that Soncino did not always correctly convey the meaning, and it is a very real issue that Soncino's English is archaic--but, then, A's is often awkward, or at least its not a style which anyone is used to. They also have coined a whole slew of phrases which appear to be changed for the sake of differentiating with the old stuff. Ex: there is no "rabbinic literature," but in Artscroll there are "rabbinic writings." There is *nothing* wrong with the latter term, but A. appears to have invented it.
re Kohut, the truth is that Jastrow is basically "allowed," although no one loves it. It's just a fact. It just so happens that Aruch Ha-shalem is 1) in Hebrew and 2) more obscure. So what the rules are is not at all clear. I think the rule is basically to avoid appearances of Haskalah, as well as its spirit.
S:
"they look better"
personally, i think they look ugly gaudy.
"It just so happens that Aruch Ha-shalem . . "
i would add
3) not available on the market
" Jastrow is basically "allowed,"
i thought jastrow is treif as well.
>personally, i think they look ugly gaudy.
That's a matter of personal taste. Personally I'm the kind of person who wants to visit the MOMA, not the kind of person who thinks "modern art isn't art." But obviosuly its a matter of opinion. But many people do think these new versions look better.
>i thought jastrow is treif as well.
Noooope.
http://onthemainline.blogspot.co...tionary-
be.html
Barely anyone talks about it though, unless someone has a particular beef with it and tries to persuade people to eschew it.
"That's a matter of personal taste."
i guess i'm just not a faux leather type of a guy.
regarding the jastrow link: intersting. but stop referring me to more posts. i need to get something done at work today.
Haha, sorry. Anyway, I will just reiterate what I said: I think the rule is to avoid the spirit of Haskalah and also to keep it in the shadows. If you can do this, and maintain the correct hashkafah no one really cares what anyone learn from (excepting, of course, those who actually do care about things like the publishing house and the author). But, as we have seen, no Artscroll shas is going to be written without the Aruch Ha-shalem. It would be ridiculous.
It just so happens that Aruch Ha-shalem is 1) in Hebrew and 2) more obscure.
Also, at least the edition I've seen, "looks like a sefer". Even if you scrutinize the title page, unless you know who the author was, it's tough to see the maskilish qualities.
It's a bit circular to do this, but I just put a post discussing "pardes", and even mentioned this comment thread:
http://www.balashon.com/2007/12/...d-
paradise.html
Commenting by HaloScan
