Chaim Potok was named the editor-in-chief of the Jewish Publication Society from 1965-1975, but the NJPS translation first started to appear in 1962, and it was not completed until 1982 (and not printed in a single volume until 1985).

Chaim Potok was a later addition to the Kesuvim translation team (which originally consisted of Moshe Greenberg, Jonas Greenfield and Nahum Sarna; later expanded to include Saul Leeman, Chaim Potok, Martin Rozenberg, and David Shapiro.)

Chaim Potok was also the editor of the “peshat” commentary section of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s official Chumash (Pentateuch) Etz Hayim.

——

I cannot agree with your assessment of the NJPS because it does not follow the Hebrew as closely as other Jewish translations (such as Buber-Rosenzweig’s, Fox’s, or Alter’s translations). Even more serious, there are serious stylistic differences among the translation philosophies of the Torah (Pentateuch), Neviim (Prophets), and Kesuvim (Writings).

——

However, I do agree with your assessment that the satan in Job (and in Jewish thought generally) is quite different than “Satan” in medieval and contemporary Christian thought. To distinguish the satan from the Christian/Greek “Satan” I usually take care pronounce then name of the satan with pointed Sephardic accent: the sa-TAHN. (Despite my usual practice of sticking to an Ashkenazic accent.)

Your analogy of the prosecuting attorney is an excellent one — since the prosecuting attorney still reports to the Judge.

——

Finally, I can commend to you Robert Alter’s recent translation of Job. I am quite sure that you will prefer it greatly to the NJPS translation.

I think your suggestion, Tylor, is good. Although I wonder if suggesting that this is Satan suggests something about the realia of the text that may be problematic (if the events of the prologue actually “happened”, then what does it teach about God? That human lives are expendable to prove a point to Satan?)

One can appreciate understanding how the text would have been understood by its original audience, and that is definitely the first step in understanding any text from the OT. But I don’t think Christians should end their ultimate interpretation of any OT text based on purely Hebrew/Jewish interpretation.

It would be like interpreting Sam Gamgee’s character after only reading the first few chapters of LOTR. Does not knowing the whole story help shed some light on the ambiguities of his earlier character?

Maybe the best way to go in a Christian translation would be to say “the adversary” but with a footnote saying this is traditionally believed by Christians to be an early view of Satan?