Leeser’s Jewish Bible (1853)

The Twenty-four Books of the Holy Scriptures: Carefully Translated According to the Massoretic Text, On the Basis of the English Version, After the Best Jewish Authorities; and supplied with short explanatory notes. By Isaac Leeser. Philadelphia, 1853.

Isaac Leeser (1806-1868) was a leading figure among American Jews during the 1840’s and 50’s. He was born in Germany, and came to America at the age of seventeen. He was a devout Jew, and became the cantor of his congregation, and shortly thereafter the regular preacher. He was the first to preach sermons in English from the lecturn. He devoted himself to educational projects, became prominent as a writer and publisher of Jewish books, and, perhaps most important of all, founded and edited a monthly Jewish magazine, called The Occident and American Jewish Advocate. His Twenty-four Books of the Holy Scriptures (published by himself in 1853) was a revision of the King James Version, in which he aimed to substitute Jewish for Christian interpretations, and generally to improve the accuracy of the version. The scholarly sources he relied upon in this work are named in the Preface, which we reproduce in full below.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Leeser emphasizes his importance in the history of nineteenth-century American Judaism:

When Leeser commenced his public career the scattered Jewish individuals and the members of congregations in the United States did not number more than from 12,000 to 15,000. His purpose to mold these into a community was to be achieved in part by the pulpit and in part by the press.

Besides engaging in the activities sketched above, Leeser participated in all Jewish movements. He was the earnest promoter of all the national enterprises—the first congregational union, the first Hebrew day-schools, the first Hebrew college, the first Jewish publication society—and of numberless local undertakings. The “Occident” acquired a national and even an international reputation; the Maimonides’ College, of which he was president, paved the way for future Jewish colleges in the United States; and his translation of the Bible became an authorized version for the Jews of America.

In the religious controversies of his time Leeser took an active part on the Conservative side, and lived and died in the unshakable belief that the existence of opposing parties was but transient and short-lived.

Harry Orlinski makes the following remarks on Leeser’s work in his book Notes on the New Translation of the Torah (1969), p. 14.

Rabbi Isaac Leeser (1806-1868) of Philadelphia was responsible for the first Jewish translation of the Bible made for American Jewry. Leeser’s considerable learning in matters biblical and rabbinic derived in major measure from the fine research then flowering in Germany, and his translation of the Bible became in a short time the standard Bible for English-speaking Jews in America. First there appeared, in 1845 in Philadelphia, his version of the Pentateuch, Torat ha-Elohim (“The Torah of God”), in Hebrew and English (five volumes). This was followed eight years later by The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures ... Carefully Translated According to the Masoretic Text on the Basis of the English Version, the Hebrew text facing the English translation. Leeser’s Bible, as it came to be known, had considerable merit, and it is useful even to this day. Its main fault lay in the style; too much of the Teutonic protruded in the translation. On the other hand, the grammatical niceties of biblical Hebrew frequently came through successfully, and the scholarship in general was on a consistently adequate level. Leeser’s Bible would have retained much more of its deserved popularity well into the twentieth century—for it is generally superior even to such early twentieth-century authorized translations as the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV)—had it not been for the appearance in 1917 of the translation sponsored by the Jewish Publication Society of America.

Orlinksy’s statement that Leeser’s revision of the KJV is “generally superior even to such early twentieth-century authorized translations as the American Standard Version of 1901” is extravagant, but the version does deserve respect. Because Leeser adheres to the same Masoretic text that was used by the King James translators, the changes he introduces are relatively minor ones. Many of them represent nothing more than an attempt to conform the English styntax to the Hebrew word order, without any change in the meaning. The more substantial changes represent opinions about the meanings of words and phrases that were commonplace among Old Testament scholars during the nineteenth century — especially when these agree with Rashi and other Jewish expositors. The marginal notes mention only the Jewish commentators, but because they are brief and deal almost exclusively with philological questions, there is not much that can be called flagrantly Jewish in them. The revision is “Jewish” in that it eliminates a few renderings that Jews have associated with Christianity (such as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14), and also by virtue of its religious adherence to the traditional Hebrew text. No Christian or secular scholar would so completely ignore the Septuagint and Vulgate versions as evidence for the correct text and interpretation, or cite the later Jewish Targums as often as Leeser does. As a sample of his work, we reproduce the first three chapters of his revision of Isaiah below.

Leeser’s translation is for the most part highly literal, but it does reflect traditional Jewish interpretations in some places where the rendering is not strictly literal. In Exodus 21: 6 we find the word לעלם (lit. “forever”) translated “till the jubilee.”

Then shall his master bring him unto the judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him till the jubilee. *

* Lit. “for ever;” but servitude is hereafter (Levit. xxv. 10) limited to the jubilee, which is accordingly the eternity of bondage, beyond which it could not exist.

In the context of the abolitionist movement of the time, this was perhaps to emphasize the fact that the Law of Moses required periodic manumission of Israelite slaves. But the text before us is obviously not designed to make that point.

Another notable example of interpretive translation is in Ezekiel 20:25-6, which in the Hebrew reads as follows.

וגם־אני נתתי להם חקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם׃ ואטמא אותם במתנותם בהעביר כל־פטר רחם למען אשמם למען אשר ידעו אשר אני יהוה

A literal translation of these words is, “Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.” (ASV.) Needless to say, he is not referring to the Law given through Moses here, but to the vicious laws and customs of the heathen, which he “gave” to Israel only in the sense that he ordained them as an instrument of degrading punishment, for those Israelites who rejected his own Law. ¹ There is a good deal of irony here. But it seems Leeser was worried about a possible misunderstanding, because he paraphrases: “I let them follow statutes” and “I let them be defiled.”

And I also let them follow* statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they could not live; And I let them be defiled though their gifts, in that they caused to pass (through the fire) all that openeth the womb, in order that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

* Rashi, after Jonathan; meaning, as they had wilfully rebelled, God permitted them to follow their evil inclinations, till the measure of their sin was completed, and their destruction followed, as told in our history. Zunz and Philippson take it in the light, that to the sinners the law is a means of punishment, as its transgression brings painful consequences; wherefore the translation of Dr. P. is follows:—“And I also gave them laws which were injurious (to them), and ordinances through which they did not live; and I made them unclean through their gifts, when they set apart all that opened the womb,” etc., taking בהעביר “as setting aside,” not “as causing to pass (through the fire),” as given by Rashi. But both constructions, though apparently so different, have at last the same bearing, since to the pious the law of God brings happiness and life, not evil and death.

Leeser aimed to help the reader understand the verse correctly with this paraphrastic translation and its subjoined note, but the note seems to indicate that he did not understand it correctly himself.

The most serious errors from our point of view are those which represent anti-Christian tendencies. An example is in the ninth chapter of Isaiah:

1 The people that walketh in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death—a light shineth brightly over them. 2 Thou hast multiplied the nation, made great their joy; they rejoice before thee as with the joy in harvest, as men are glad when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of their burden, and the staff on their shoulder, the rod of their oppressor, hast thou broken, as on the day of Midian. 4 For all the weapons of the fighter in the battle's tumult, and the garment rolled in blood, shall be burnt, become food for fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son hath been given unto us, and the government is placed on his shoulders; and his name is called, Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace. * 6 For (promoting) the increase of the government, and for peace without end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to support it through justice and righteousness, from henceforth and unto eternity; the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

* Heinemann; Rashi renders, "and the Wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, the everlasting Father, hath called his name The prince of peace." Aben Ezra, however, after whom Philippson, applies all the words as epithets of the prince, (Hezekiah,) and translates, "and people call him, Wonder, counsellor, mighty one of God, perpetual father, prince of peace." The only difficulty in the verse is the word אל which may as well be rendered with Aben Ezra "powerful," as God, as this word is found in the same sense in Exod. xv. 11, 15. Only the importance attached to this verse by controversialists has induced us to speak so much of it, as it evidently alludes to a child born already, נתן "hath been," not ינתן "shall be given."

______________________________________________________

1. See Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel, ad loc.

Bibliography and Internet Resources

• Mayer Sulzberger, “Isaac Leeser,” in Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (New York: 1904), pp. 662-663.
• Lance J. Sussman, Isaac Leeser and the Making of American Judaism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1995.
• Lance J. Sussman, “Another Look at Isaac Leeser and the First Jewish Translation of the Bible in the United States,” Modern Judaism 5/2 (1985), pp. 159-190.
• The Leeser Bible online at archive.org.
• Other works of Leeser online at archive.org.
• Reminiscences by Isaac M. Wise, translated from the German and edited with an introduction by David Philipson. Cincinnati: Leo Wise and Co., 1901. A very colorful personal narrative, describing the culture of American Judaism at the time of Leeser.

PREFACE

IN presenting this work to the public, the translator would merely remark, that it is not a new notion by which he was seized of late years which impelled him to the task, but a desire entertained for more than a quarter of a century, since the day he quitted school in his native land to come to this country, to present to his fellow-Israelites an English version, made by one of themselves, of the Holy Word of God. From early infancy he was made conscious how much persons differing from us in religious ideas make use of Scripture to assail Israel’s hope and faith, by what he deems, in accordance with the well-settled opinions of sound critics, both Israelites and others, a perverted and hence erroneous rendering of the words of the original Bible. Therefore he always entertained the hope to be one day permitted to do for his fellow Hebrews who use the English as their vernacular, what had been done for the Germans by some of the most eminent minds whom the Almighty has endowed with the power of reanimating in us the almost expiring desire for critical inquiry into the sacred text. So much had been done by these, that the translator’s labours were rendered comparatively easy; since he had before him the best results of studies of modern German Israelites, carried on for the space of eighty years, commencing with Moses Mendelssohn, Herz Wesel, or, as he was called, Hartog Wessely, and Solomon of Dubno, down to Dr. L. Zunz,* of Berlin, whose work appeared in 1839, Dr. Solomon Herxheimer, Rabbi of Anhalt-Bernburg, whose work was completed five years ago, and of Dr. Lewis Philippson,† Rabbi of Magdeburg in Prussian Saxony, whose work is not yet quite completed‡ while writing this. In addition to these entire Bible translations, the translator has had access to partial versions of separate books, by Ottensosser, Heinemann, Obernik, Hochstatter, Wolfson, Lowenthal, and some anonymous writers, referred to occasionally in the notes appended to this work; besides which he has had the advantage of the copious notes of Dr. Philippson’s and Dr. Herxheimer’s Bibles, in which these learned men have collected the views of the investigators, both Israelites and others, in the path of biblical criticism. The ancient versions, also, of Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targumist have been carefully consulted; and wherever accessible, the comments of the great expounders Rashi, (Rabbi Shelemoh Yizchaki,) Redak, (Rabbi David Kimchi,) Aben Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ben Ezra,) Rashbam, (Rabbi Shelemoh ben Meir, the grandson of Rashi,) Ralbag, (Rabbi Levi ben Gershom,) and Rabbenu Sa’adyah (Saadias) Gaon, as also the Michlol Yophi, and the modern Biurim, have been sedulously compared, so as to insure the utmost accuracy of which the translator is capable. His library is not very extensive; but he trusts that the foregoing catalogue of auxiliary works will prove that he has had at hand as good materials as can be obtained anywhere to do justice to his undertaking. It must be left to those acquainted with the subject, to decide whether he has taken due advantage of the materials in his hand; but he trusts that the judgment will be in his favour, at least so far, that he has been honest and faithful.

The translator is an Israelite in faith, in the full sense of the word: he believes in the Scriptures as they have been handed down to us; in the truth and authenticity of prophecies and their ultimate literal fulfillment. He has always studied the Scriptures to find a confirmation for his faith and hope; nevertheless, he asserts fearlessly, that in his going through this work, he has thrown aside all bias, discarded every preconceived opinion, and translated the text before him without regard to the result thence arising for his creed. But no perversion or forced rendering of any text was needed to bear out his opinions or those of Israelites in general; and he for one would place but little confidence in them, if he were compelled to change the evident meaning of the Bible to find a support for them. He trusts, therefore, that to those who agree with him in their religious persuasion, he has rendered an acceptable service; as they will now have an opportunity to study a version of the Bible which has not been made by the authority of churches in which they can have no confidence; and that to those also who are of a different persuasion, his labours will not be unacceptable, as exhibiting, so far as he could do it, the progress of biblical criticism among ancient and modern Israelites — a task utterly beyond the power of any but a Jew by birth and conviction.

As regards the style, it has been endeavoured to adhere closely to that of the ordinary English version, which for simplicity cannot be surpassed; though, upon a critical examination, it will readily be perceived that the various translators differed materially in their method, and frequently rendered the same word in different ways. In the present version, great care has been taken to avoid this fault; but the translator does not mean to assert that he has succeeded to as great an extant as he could have desired. He will not enumerate what he has done; but let any one who is desirous to investigate this point compare the two translations, and he will readily convince himself that this may be called a new version, especially of the Prophets, Psalms, and Job; and he confidently hopes that the meaning has been rendered more clear by the version itself, and, where this was not altogether practicable, by the notes appended at the foot of the page.

He found great difficulty about coming to a satisfactory resolution with regard to the spelling of the proper nouns. Any one the least acquainted with the manner they are presented in the common versions and the languages of Western Europe, must know that they are very much corrupted; but they have in this shape become so much interwoven with the language of history and of daily conversation, that it would have produced endless confusion to spell them after the original manner. Hence the ordinary method had to be retained for words in constant use; but where this was not the case, a spelling more in accordance with the original has been resorted to. The j should always be pronounced as y, to accord with the Hebrew; and ia as ya. A should be sounded as long ah; e as long a; i as long ee; and u as oo. Ch stands for the Hebrew ח; where ע occurs in the Hebrew, an apostrophe ’ has been used for the most part; but there are no English letters to represent these sounds exactly. For instance, “Zechariah,” pronounce Zecharyah; “Jehu,” as Yay-hoo, &c.

The translator will not ask that his errors and misconceptions shall be excused; but he trusts that any fault which may be discovered will be kindly pointed out to him, so that he may be able to make use of all such remarks to correct his work in a future edition; and he for his own part will not be satisfied with what he has done, but endeavour to improve by future experience.

Whenever words have been supplied which are not in the text, but requisite to make the sense clear, they have been placed in parentheses; for instance, 1 Chron. iii.9, “(These were) all the sons of David,” where there is no equivalent in Hebrew for “these were,” though no sense could be made of the phrase without supplying these two words. The parenthesis is also used occasionally, but very seldom, to denote a construction, where an actual parenthesis of a whole sentence, or of one or more verses, occurs.

The whole work has been undertaken at the sole responsibility, both mercantile and literary, of the translator. No individual has been questioned respecting the meaning of a single sentence; and not an English book has been consulted, except Bagster’s Bible, a few notes of which have been incorporated with this. The peculiarity of the style will readily indicate them. The author’s name would have been appended, had it been known to the translator.

Although about the sixth part of the contents of this volume are notes, still he did not mean to write a commentary on the Bible, nor must the notes be regarded as any thing else than a mere slight aid for the explanation of grammatical and other difficulties. For this they are probably ample enough; otherwise they must appear very defective in quantity and manner.

With these few remarks the translator surrenders a labour in which he has been engaged, occasionally, for more than fifteen yeas, to the kindness of the public, trusting that, by the blessing of the Father of all, it may be made instrumental in diffusing a taste for Scripture reading among the community of Israelites, and be the means of better appreciation of the great treasures of revelation to many who never have had the opportunity of knowing what the Hebrews have done for mankind, not alone in preserving the sacred books, but by labouring to make them intelligible to the world at large.

Philadelphia,
Elul 17th, 5613.
Sept. 20th, 1853

* Dr. Zunz, whose work is often quoted in these notes, only translated the two books of Chronicles; but he was aided by Rabbai Chayim Arngeim, of Glogau, with Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, the Books of Kings, Ezekiel, Hosea, Obadiah, Jonah, Micha, Nahum, Zechariah, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Nehemiah; by Michael Sachs, then of Prague, but now of Berlin, with Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, Isaiah, Joel, Amos, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and Lamentations, (Jeremiah was translated by both conjointly;) and by Dr. Julius Fürst, of Leipzig, with Daniel and Ezra. Occasionally in the notes, “Zunz” is named; at other times, the special translators.

† The merit of the later translators consists therein that they have adhered to the letter of the text, and not rendered it freely, to avoid difficulties and to improve the style, as was done by Mendelssohn and his immediate followers. A close, literal rendering will be found to characterize this version also.

‡ Only to 1 Chronicles vi. 16.

Isaiah 1–3