The Politics of Biblical Translation

By Leonard Greenspoon

Published January 30, 2004, issue of January 30, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

As the Israelites prepared to leave Egypt, the Hebrew text of Exodus 3:22 records one of the divine commands in words that the King James Version understood in this way: “But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor… jewels of silver, and jewels of gold.” Through their actions, the Israelites “spoil” the Egyptians. The same or similar wording occurs twice in this week’s Portion, at Exodus 11:2 and 12:35-6. Almost all English translations of the mid- and late 20th century have changed the wording in these passages, from “borrow” to “ask of” (or something similar). Among newer Jewish versions, in which “borrow” is sometimes retained, the alternate rendering is occasionally noted, but not discussed.

How different it was for earlier Jewish translators, especially those in England! The traditional King James rendering was perceived not only as erroneous, but as pernicious, dangerous, anti-Jewish. We see this in representative statements from editors and translators. For example, Selig Newman, a Jewish translator from the 1830s, comments:

[There are many passages in which the KJV] translators were decidedly wrong. [Such cases] may prove dangerous to the infidel, by strengthening him in his unbelief, as well as to the believer, by raising doubts in his mind of the authenticity of a book which apparently contains so many incongruities. For example: “One shall borrow of his, or her neighbour,” but the meaning in the original is not borrow, but ask: i.e., “One shall ask or demand.” This is perfectly in accord with justice… whilst the permission or order to borrow without intending to restore, being a licence to defraud, could not have emanated from the fountain of justice.

The remarks of J.H. Hertz (1913-1946), chief rabbi of the British Empire, echo those of Newman:

[KJV] translates, “every woman shall borrow of her neighbour.” This translation is thoroughly mischievous and misleading. If there was any borrowing, it was on the part of the Egyptians, who had been taking the labour of the Israelites without recompense…. In modern times, enemies of the Bible vie with one another in finding terms strong enough in which to condemn the “deceit” practised on the Egyptians.

There is a tendency on the part of many modern scholars to dismiss a worry such as this as irrelevant or, worse, silly. After all, if we have little concern with the implications of the older translation, why should it have been the cause for so much alarm among earlier generations of translators and commentators? But we should take the time to notice this seemingly isolated historical “oddity.” Although 19th-century England is not nearly so distant from 20th-century America as the latter is from ancient Israel, nonetheless all sorts of presuppositions separate us from individuals of that century. Only when we have understood the contexts in which the older translators operated can we appreciate their reactions.

When looked at in this way, such renderings serve as invaluable representations of their communities, their fears, their values and ambitions, their self-perception and their evaluation of the “outside world.” During much of the 19th century, British Jews were seeking social and civic equality; the Jewish community also was engaged in internal and institutional developments of its own.

Within this context, we can understand what motivated these Jewish translators: They were especially concerned to remove from their English versions (since they could not change the Hebrew text!) any possible inconsistencies, to say nothing of outright contradictions. With equal or even greater vehemence, they sought to extirpate any expression that would suggest character flaws on the part of biblical personages — especially when their actions had divine sanction behind them.

What was at stake, in the view of these translators, was the sanctity of the text and the safety, perhaps even the survival, of their fellow Jews in a society where they still labored under many social and legal impediments. In the hands of their enemies, a shifty Jacob of the Bible could easily foreshadow a shiftless Jacob from London’s East End, and Israelites who pretended to borrow from the Egyptians with no intention of repaying could become blood-sucking moneylenders.

We therefore may conclude that a fairly obscure biblical reference loomed larger than we might have expected for British Jews a hundred or more years ago. Beyond its value as a historical and cultural footnote, is this truly relevant to us today? Alas, it is. As reported by the media worldwide in 2003 — see the December 2003 edition of Bible Review, for example — an Egyptian jurist, relying on just these passages, was preparing a lawsuit against “all the Jews of the world,” who, in his opinion, were responsible for absconding with the equivalent of more than 1,000 trillion tons of gold during the Exodus. This jurist apparently is willing to amortize this debt over a millennium, so long as cumulative interest is calculated and paid.

For those seeking to discredit the Book, or the People of the Book, there is no concept of a statute of limitations. Mistranslations continue to haunt us.

Leonard Greenspoon holds the Phillip M. and Ethel Klutznick chair in Jewish civilization at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.