A Reply to Robert Holmstedt on Eclecticism

Robert Holmstedt recently posted a four-part post on his blog, which he styles as a critique of eclecticism in the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. As this is somewhat of a hot topic these days, I thought I would post a brief response here. Holmstedt's argument rests on two key concerns.

First, he argues that since an eclectically reconstructed text is not an historical artifact, it is of no use to linguists, and in fact only serves to obscure linguistic data. The point is fair enough in one respect. Few indeed would wish to construct new linguistic categories on the basis of undocumented modern conjectures! Yet I think he takes this argument too far. Several points in response.
     First, Holmstedt does not evaluate an eclectic text relative to realistic alternatives. When we realize that the alternative he proposes is continuing to use a morphologically tagged transcription of a single medieval manuscript riddled with scribal errors, ancient emendations, and inconsistencies arising through the vagaries of centuries of transmission, which can in no way be said to be representative of the vast and rich tradition of the Hebrew Bible, an eclectic text doesn't actually seem so bad.
     Second, the vast majority of any well-done eclectic text of the Hebrew Bible will inevitably be documented in ancient sources anyways. The number of undocumented modern conjectures should be quite low (and clearly marked as such in the editions anyways so as not to "obscure" the data), and the number that actually have any significant bearing on larger linguistic questions even fewer. Linguists should have been paying attention to these documented alternatives already anyways, so the only real effect of incorporating them into text editions will be to challenge naive defaults like the Leningrad Codex and force linguists to think more intentionally about their source texts. Either way, a well-done eclectic text is bound to be more linguistically sound than a transcription of a late and convoluted text, where responsible linguists would be forced to weed through the mess of scribal confusion for themselves (which probably few are competent to do) before having a secure data set for their work. The point of an eclectic edition, after all, is not a perfect text, but a better one than what can be found in any given manuscript. Sound linguistic analysis should never be based on a small number of textually problematic cases, regardless of which text is printed. Maybe forcing linguists to recognize the complications underlying their corpus of texts isn't such a bad thing after all.
     Third, Holmstedt seems to undervalue the utility of an eclectic edition. Modern textual critics are almost always forthright in their presentation of their eclectic editions not as historical artifacts, but as scholarly (re)constructions that attempt to approximate a lost textual state that is of some utilitarian interest. Holmstedt contests that this recognized reality invalidates any historical, exegetical, or linguistic usefulness for an eclectic edition. But such a stance rings hollow when we realize once again the even worse alternative that he proposes. The goal of a pure text is obviously forever unattainable, but textual critics try nonetheless to produce editions that are useful to real users. The simple reality is that a well-done eclectic edition is more useful to more users than a diplomatic edition, because more people are interested in ancient states of the Hebrew text than in late medieval Jewish copies. Despite their admitted limitations, skillfully executed eclectic editions provide a more reliable foundation for this type of study than the alternatives. Nothing need be lost in the process, but there is much potential gain. The goal of an eclectic edition is not to replace historical texts with an artificial text, but to present the results of careful text-critical work to non-specialists in a user-friendly way, while still laying out the complex textual tradition before the reader to explore and take into account. All historical, exegetical, and linguistic work on the Hebrew Bible is based on contingent texts, and eclectic texts highlight that reality in a productive way, while still offering users some specialist guidance through the confusing maze of the tradition. No one text is final, and the field will only be enriched by a variety of such voices, rather than silencing them by shoving them to an appendix never to be read by the vast majority of readers. The era of eclectic editions of the Hebrew Bible promises finally to bring to the forefront of everyone's minds that the text we use is always contingent and force us all to be wiser readers, both of the contingent text itself and the broader tradition which it records. This is not a liability, but an opportunity.

Second, Holmstedt makes a practical argument that the level of linguistic sophistication necessary to make informed textual decisions is beyond the grasp of most textual critics and that it is unlikely that any individual can ever possess all of the requisite skills to produce a good eclectic edition. Without wading through the details of his critique of Fox's readings, I am willing to grant Holmstedt the extraordinary complexity of the traditions of the books of the Hebrew Bible and the need for collaborative work, including between textual critics and linguists. Textual critics are dependent upon a thorough knowledge of linguistics, just as much as linguists should be dependent upon a thorough knowledge of their source texts. I too doubt that any one person can ever develop all of the necessary skills to do everything well that is necessary for such vast projects, and I have no doubt that the field will inevitably move towards larger collaborative projects as it develops, much as in other disciplines. But Holmstedt needs to cut us a little slack here in the early stages of the movement. We are, after all, starting out about two centuries behind most of our peers in terms of editorial philosophy. ;)
     I will take this opportunity to put in a good word for my text-critic colleagues, however. In my experience, textual critics actually tend to be some of the most linguistically competent scholars in the Biblical Studies guild, even if not sufficiently theoretical and sophisticated to satisfy Holmstedt. It takes a special sort of person to jump into the deep end of a textual tradition requiring--at a bare minimum--advanced competence in 5-10 ancient languages from numerous linguistic families over a span of over 2000 years and learn to swim, and it would be a rare person who survived this initiation who was not a philologist in the truest sense. I will be the first to admit my own limitations, but everyone's work will have weaknesses at points, without necessarily devaluing the overall work. After all, even after years of study, I am still stuck trying to figure out the Hebrew verbal system. ;)
     Tongue-in-cheek witticisms aside... or perhaps a theoretical linguist would have me call them semantic mechanisms of humor... (note to self: spend a month reading up on Raskin's and Attardo's General Theory of Verbal Humor before it is out of date) In all seriousness, I welcome Holmstedt's invitation to greater collaboration, and I plan to continue learning much from the work of linguistic specialists, but I don't think that is a fundamental flaw of any relevance to the principle of publishing eclectic editions of the Hebrew Bible.

As a final word, while Holmstedt (like many other detractors) brings up realistic challenges to the theoretical coherence and practical feasibility of producing eclectic editions, he does not provide a better alternative. In a world of modern textual scholarship characterized by countless digital texts and endlessly customizable user interfaces, I can understand that a rudimentary eclectic text might feel "barbaric", as Holmstedt's colleague put it. But it remains a valuable scholarly contribution, not as the final word, but as a useful record of informed decisions with a utilitarian purpose. If by his swinging pendulum of textual criticism outside of Biblical Studies Holmstedt is referring to recent trends in Material Philology, I will not hold my breath. I have learned much from scholars working from such a perspective and value many of their contributions as supplementary to traditional text-critical work, but they come up woefully short of providing a full-bodied alternative to eclectic text editing when it comes to large, complex, and important traditions like that of the Hebrew Bible. Eclectic texts, despite their limitations, have been and will continue to be important contributions to the study of ancient literature in most disciplines. Our long-standing reticence as a discipline is not a virtue or forward thinking, but a shortsighted retreat to the familiar and inadequate. A couple of years ago I explained at a meeting of the European Society for Textual Scholarship that some of the world's most important and well-preserved literature is still being studied almost exclusively on the basis of a transcription of a single late and problematic manuscript and a handful of mostly inaccurate and unhelpful footnotes, and not one person stood up to laud our bold disregard for outside scholarly conventions. Some just laughed incredulously, and I think there may be some ESTS members out there who still haven't figured out how deadly serious I was being. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is slowly limping into the age of modern scholarly editing, a latecomer for sure, but if the all-star cast working on the HBCE is any indication, it is hopefully off to a good start.

Richelle and Perrot on Paleo-Hebrew Paleography

Matthieu Richelle and Antony Perrot have put up a website to present the data from their forthcoming article on Paleo-Hebrew paleography. I had the opportunity to interact extensively with them at the EAJS lab in Aix-en-Provence and afterwards concerning their work, and I can safely say it makes an important contribution to the study of the Paleo-Hebrew script in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The article is soon to be published in the proceedings volume, where I also have an article on the methods of material reconstruction of fragmentary scrolls. For my own thoughts on Paleo-Hebrew paleography (generally sympathetic to Richelle and Perrot), see Eibert Tigchelaar's and my article on Hebrew and Aramaic paleography in the Textual History of the Bible series.

Gary Rendsburg on Old Torah Scrolls

Gary Rendsburg writes an illustrated survey of the oldest post-DSS Torah scrolls known today in The World’s Oldest Torah Scrolls. It includes background and discussion of the oldest known fragments and scrolls, as well as images of each.

Eibert Tigchelaar on Skilled Scribes

Eibert Tigchelaar's lecture Beautiful Bookhands and Careless Characters has been posted online by the University of Birmingham. He proposes classifying scribal hands according to skillfulness, beauty, and regularity. He also suggests that there may be a correlation between skillfulness and function.

Joint Venture of the FJMS and NLI!

Just announced... a new cooperation between the FJMS and NLI! This looks very promising for future resources for studying Hebrew manuscripts!

The Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society (FJMS) and the National Library of Israel (NLI) are proud to announce a historic cooperation agreement

The Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society (FJMS), and The National Library of Israel (NLI)  are proud to announce a historic cooperation agreement that will guarantee the long-term stability and development of the most advanced digital projects related to Hebrew manuscript research in the world, merging the cutting-edge resources of the FJMS with the NLI's vast collection. The NLI is the world's largest and most comprehensive repository of Jewish books, manuscripts, periodicals, and archives, in both physical and digital formats. The FJMS, for nearly twenty years, has developed multiple digital humanities projects designed to enable research into Hebrew manuscripts.  According to the newly signed agreement, the projects affiliated with the FJMS will be gradually integrated into the NLI's technological infrastructure, allowing the resources of both projects to mutually support one another. The FJMS's flagship digital initiative is the Friedberg Genizah Project, created under the Direction of Professor Yaacov Choueka, which allows scholars to view, read, and annotate hundreds of thousands of images of fragments and documents from the famed Cairo Genizah. The website's advanced technologies assist in identifying separate fragments that originally stem from the same document. The hundreds of thousands of visits to the site demonstrate its unparalleled contribution to learning and research. In addition, the FJMS sponsors Hachi Garsinan, a website that provides images and transcripts of textual variants of the Babylonian Talmud; Yad HaRambam, which will providea synoptic text of Maimonides' influential code of Jewish Law, based on early printings and manuscripts; an online collection of important Judeo-Arabic texts and annotated bibliography of the field; the comprehensive Sussmann Thesaurus of Talmudic Manuscripts; and the Yemenite manuscripts from the collection of Yehuda Levi Nahum.  FJMS is currently developing a Dynamic site where researchers can use unique tools to create synoptic transcriptions of textual variants of their choosing. The FJMS is the brainchild of Albert Dov Friedberg, a Toronto-based philanthropist and investment manager, whose concern for Jewish sacred texts has made him a leading supporter of Jewish manuscript research. Over the course of 125 years, the National Library of Israel has developed into the world's leading Judaica library. Through its current renewal process the NLI has also now emerged as a technological leader, with a world-class online catalog and digital presence. Particularly relevant in this context is Ktiv: The International Collection of Digitized Hebrew Manuscripts, which aims to provide centralized online access to all of the world's Hebrew manuscripts. Millions of images of nearly 50,000 manuscripts are already available on the Ktiv website (ktiv.nli.org.il), which was launched in August 2017.  Ktiv is a joint venture of Albert D. and Nancy Friedberg through FJMS and the National Library of Israel, in cooperation with the Israeli Ministry of Jerusalem and Heritage's Landmarks project. According to Oren Weinberg, Director General of the NLI, this agreement will "bring the technological developments of both bodies into conversation with one another, allowing the best minds and products of the Jewish digital humanities to cross-pollinate." Albert Dov Friedberg added, "Our agreement assures that this work, to which I have dedicated so much of my concern and resources, will continue to grow, develop, and be preserved into the future."

Van der Horst Review of Snapshots of Evolving Traditions

Pieter van der Horst has a sympathetic but critical review of Liv Ingeborg Lied, Hugo Lundhaug (ed.), Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology. I think he does a fair job appreciating the value of the material turn in philology, but also pushing back against the reductionistic idea that we should abandon all attempts at critical text reconstruction (as does Davila in the same volume). I would agree completely that Material Philology is an opportunity to expand the horizons of our scholarship, not an excuse to narrow them.

Mugler's Review of Griffith's "The Bible in Arabic"

AJR has published Josh Mugler's review of Sidney Griffith's The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the 'People of the Book' in the Language of Islam. It sounds like a very interesting overview of important issues that would be well worth further consideration.

HT Agade