Talk:ArtScroll

This article needed some work, e.g. the names of the imprint's general editors (fixed). I have removed a whole string to mailing list archives that appear to be containing criticism. PLEASE DO NOT ADD SUCH LINKS. They don't help. Do us all a favour and condense the criticism in an encyclopedic fashion. If there happens to be an anti-Artscroll page out there, parfait. But not the archived waffle of mailing list subscribers. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. But I am worried that someone is going to come along and deny that such criticsm exists, that is why I gave the links in the first place. RK

Criticism

I have much toned down the criticism section. I'm not aware of official editorial responses to this criticism, so much of it is speculation at its best and hatemongering at its worst.
Minor points:

• Baruch Epstein makes extensive mention of the Netziv's newspaper reading in Mekor Baruch, and this has been faithfully translated by Dombey.

Which publisher, which edition? Mesorah has been forced to recall some editions of its books due to criticism by its readers. They objected to the censorship. RK

• Does anyone have the complete reference of the 1991 Schachter article?

With any luck, I will by Tuesday. RK

• I recall seeing Rabbi Soloveitchik between Rabbis Kotler and Feinstein in a recent print of Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins biography. He looks positively uncomfortable, but not invisible :-)

Then you have the first or third edition. The first edition sold-out, and the second edition had the censorship. The outcry, by Orthodox Jewish readers, was so great that Mesorah had to re-issue the book and restore the photograph in a third edition. RK 14:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• The Kamenetsky shirt issue is too petty for words. Unless this has been reported in a serious source, I protest its inclusion in this article. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How is this issue petty? It is scary that Artscroll editors faked photographs of rabbis to make them look like their sterotypes of Haredim. However, it is indicative of their worldview, which is to rewrite history and make all of religious Judaism fit into their preconceptions. RK

How is it hatemongering to discuss Orthodox response to this censorship? Check out the archives of Orthodox Jewish e-mail discussion forums, like Avodah and Mail-Jewish. You will find that they are filled with observant Orthodox Jews who view Torah and sages in the same regard that you do. These forums contain both Orthodox rabbis and laypeople (Mail-Jewish has some Conservative Jews as well, but is mostly Orthodox); Both forums are well-represented by Haredi and Centrist Orthodox voices. I am aware that for anyone not familiar with the controversy, this will be uncomfortable. Artsroll is presented by many as the voice of Orthodox Judaism, so criticism of this one publisher is seen as an attack on Orthodoxy. But it just isn't so. RK 14:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism by Rabbi B. Barry Levy

Orthodox Rabbi B. Barry Levy writes that "Artscroll is full of errors" in his article in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought.

what is perhaps most astonishing is the number of plain, old-fashioned mistakes. The translations are frequently accompanied by notes recording the "literal" meanings of words or phrases which have been rendered into idiomatic English. Much of the time these "literal" translations are possible meanings of these words in other contexts or dialects of Hebrew. In their present contexts the literal translations are often misleading, if not totally wrong, and create the impression that the editors would have preferred less accurate translations.

Diqduq (grammar) is anathema in many Jewish circles, but the translation and presentation of texts is, to a large extent, a philological activity and must be philologically accurate. Again, the Artscroll effort has not achieved a respectable level. There are dozens of cases where prepositions are misunderstood, where verb tenses are not perceived properly and where grammatical or linguistic terms are used incorrectly. Words are often vocalized incorrectly.

These observations, it should be stressed, are not limited to the Bible text but refer to the talmudic, midrashic, targumic, medieval and modern works as well. Rabbinical passages are torn out of their contexts, presented in fragmentary form to enable distortion of their contents, emended to update their messages even though these new ideas were not expressed in the texts themselves, misvocalized, and mistranslated: i.e. misrepresented.

...How these errors have managed to escape the eyes of the many sages whose approbations adorn the volumes may seem somewhat puzzling, but again, it is the presentation of these letters - the Madison Avenue blitz - which makes these documents what they are . Anyone who reads these "approbations"...will see that the rabbis who wrote the letters did not read the commentaries themselves. These letters are more like personal good wishes, character references and the like than testimonies to the work's accomplishments.

Judge Not a Book By Its Cover B. Barry Levy, "Tradition" Vol. 19(1), Spring 1981, p.89-95