Which is the best Hebrew Bible tagged Text among the several available?

[Weatherby23]

I have these: 

 

1) Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica) Tagged

2) BHS Hebrew (Apparatus, ETCBC)

3) BHS Hebrew (ETCBC)

4) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Tagged

 

Can anyone tell me what the primary differences are and which is the best to use for scholarly work? Like anyone else I would prefer the text that is the most accurate to the manuscripts with the most accurate tagging and access to the apparatus.

[mbcvida]

I believe all of these versions use the same underlying Hebrew text; there may be differences in the tagging and in the apparatai

[Brian K. Mitchell]

14 hours ago, Weatherby23 said:

I have these: 

 

1) Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica) Tagged

2) BHS Hebrew (Apparatus, ETCBC)

3) BHS Hebrew (ETCBC)

4) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Tagged

 

Can anyone tell me what the primary differences are and which is the best to use for scholarly work? Like anyone else I would prefer the text that is the most accurate to the manuscripts with the most accurate tagging and access to the apparatus.

All of the above text are diplomatic transcriptions of the Leningrad Codex. The ETCBC differes with the Westminster in your list concerning morphology/linguisitic philosophy and it has syntaxt tags that BHS tagged the HMT-W4 does not. For true scholarly work it is best to test your quiries on both the Westminster Morphological database and the ETCBC. No, one text is going to get things right all the time, and more importantly because of the different linigistic philosophies they can both be radically different but correct giving you more insight into words and the greater pericope.

 

 

(1) Biblia Hebraica with Westminster Hebrew Morph 4  (HMT-W4 )
The complete text of the Hebrew Bible, following the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis, with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.20 (there is a more update version of this that neither Accordance nor Logos has for some reason). This module includes vowel pointing, cantillation marks, and lemma and grammatical tagging information for each word in the text. The text claims to be almost identical to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

https://accordancebible.com/product/biblia-hebraica-with-westminster-hebrew-morph-4/

 

More (historical) information:

"The electronic version -- in its final form -- reflects as closely as possible the 1987 BHS biblical text (consonants, vowels, cantillation)  only. This version of the text is sometimes known as the CCAT eBHS. This is what can be obtained generally on the Internet, such as at the OTA archives. This text was then used as the basis for the Groves-Wheeler Hebrew  Morphology (MORPH). In the process of this semi-automated parsing, over 600 deviations from the original CCAT eBHS were made. MORPH includes the 
biblical text as one of the fields of each data record and many of those deviations are marked in the raw (ASCII) form of MORPH with a square bracket and a number. This "Westminster note" explains various decisions which had to be made, one of those being where MORPH's interpretation of L at a certain place is different from BHS' and so forth. In addition, there are a large number of changes where we have changed the "morphological slash" due to a difference in parsing from the original typist. Since the first version of MORPH was released, the database has been distributed to various individual scholars, cross-checked against other databases, and used in nearly every "Bible" software that offers access to the original texts. All this usage over a ten year period has generated an ever decreasing number of corrections to the consonants and vowels, almost always in the direction of L, away from BHS. Since MORPH's biblical text did not include the accents, the accents probably have a significant number of errors in them. However, even so, MORPH's Hebrew text is not a precise representation of L. For example, MORPH follows BHS in the vocalization of the parallel passage in Numbers where only the consonants stand. So MORPH is somewhere between BHS (1987) and a "diplomatic" representation of L." (Tue, 31 Oct 2000 Kirk Lowery)

 

(2)  BHS Hebrew (Apparatus, ETCBC) The complete text of the Hebrew Bible, following the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, with ETCBC Morphology. This module includes vowel pointing, cantillation marks, and lemma and grammatical tagging information for each word in the text. The BHS Apparatus is included with this purchase, and the text is marked with the sigla for the notations in the apparatus

 

(3) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with ETCBC Morphology (WIVU) and Syntax
The ETCBC Advanced database of the Hebrew Bible (formerly known as WIVU database), contains the scholarly text of the Hebrew Bible with linguistic markup developed by the Werkgroep Informatica at the Free University (WIVU) of Amsterdam and edited by Eep Talstra of the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer (ETCBC).
Eep Talstra was the founder of the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer. The centre was previously known as the Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universiteit (WIVU), was renamed in honor of Eep Talstra when he retired in 2012.
https://accordancebible.com/product/hebrew-masoretic-text-with-etcbc-morphology-wivu-with-syntax/

 

More information:

The WIVU database = aims(or at least on the aims was) to distinguish between distributional ('atoms') and functional data (phrases, clause, sentences, paragraphs) atoms are tagged with functional syntactical labels as well. Higher literary-critical issues have some tagging, and instead of simply lemma, it uses Lexeme. Takes a bottom up approach and searches are constructed based on a different logic than the Anderson-Forbes and the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology.

 

(3) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Tagged this uses the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.14 while the HMT-W4 Groves-Wheeler uses the Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.20. I would use (1) over (3) for morphological searches. 

 

 

Grace and Peace,

 

                          Brian

[Mike Atnip]

Thank you, @Brian K. Mitchell. This helps me, at least gets me started. Perhaps someone could make a list of the "strengths/weaknesses" of the various Hebrew text modules, and when a person would want to use one over the other, for newbies, in practical applications? For myself, I prefer something written rather than a video.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

 

From Willam A. Ross & Elizabeth Robar's, "Linguistic Theory and the Biblical Text" (pg 240 to 244)

Quote

 

The Role of Linguistic Theory in the Creation of Text Databases

The different endeavours to create linguistic databases of the Hebrew Bible reflected the different approaches that were and are current in biblical linguistics. Each approach has its advan-tages and disadvantages. And even in those cases where the builders of a database try to be as theory-neutral as possible, it will be evident that any database and any choice that is made is informed by one’s position about Biblical Hebrew and about language in general. This is not only a challenge for computational approaches. It is the case in any linguistic or textual study of the Hebrew Bible or Greek New Testament. Let us have a look how linguistic theory functions in the three most well-known databases (above, §1.1; see also Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2018, 7), which we will discuss in the order of their age.

 

First, the Andersen–Forbes database is eclectic andhence somewhat ambiguous in its relation to generative grammar. Andersen and Forbes explicitly reject Chomskyan linguistics but also “find much of value in the work of the generativists, especially generalized phrase structure grammar” (Andersen and Forbes 2012, 14; see also Van Peursen 2015, 301). One of the main reasons for their rejection of Chomskyan linguistics is their claim that Biblical Hebrew belongs to the non-configurational languages, which are “a serious impediment to the transformationalists’ quest for Universal Grammar” (Andersen and Forbes 2012, 87).13 Andersen was also influenced by structuralism and by Kenneth Pike’s tagmemics (Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2018, 7). Informed by syntax, function, and semantics, they developed a rich set of annotation labels, including, among others, seventy-six part-of-speech labels.

 

Second, the ETCBC tried to be more independent of linguistic theory by following the principles of distributional analysis, 

form-to-function, and bottom-up. Unlike the Andersen–Forbes database, the ETCBC database has a rather minimal parts-of- speech set (Kingham 2018). And unlike the other databases, the ETCBC database does not immediately assign functions to forms, but starts with a distributional analysis of linguistic phenomena (at all levels, for example varying from morphemes to clause patterns) before functional labels are assigned. Moreover, the deduction of functions from formal criteria is transparently and traceably documented in auxiliary files that are part of the data creation workflow (Kingham 2018; Kingham and Van Peursen 2018). The ‘bottom-up’ description is used for approaches that start from the identification of morphemes and word level analy-sis and move from there to the higher levels of phrases, clauses, sentences, and text-syntactic relations. It is often combined with the form-to-function principle, which holds that we should first make a distributional analysis of forms and patterns before any function can be deduced. It starts from the awareness that we know little about the biblical languages and that to avoid creating an echoing well out of our own analysis or database, we should start with observable textual phenomena before we pro-ceed to function or even semantics.‘Bottom-up’ is often contrasted with ‘top-down’. In Biblical Hebrew linguistics, the latter is represented, for example, in the textlinguistic approach of Robert Longacre (1989), which is much more informed by cross-linguistic evidence and applies categories known from other languages (such as narrative, predictive, hortatory, or expository genres; techniques for, for 

example, distinguishing between mainline and offline informa-tion or for indicating the peak of a text or discourse). Likewise, the distributional analysis of forms and patterns, which to some extent is like Construction Grammar or exemplar-based syntax as it developed in the 1980s and 1990s, is often considered as a counter-reaction to the generative linguistic framework.

 

Third, the Holmstedt–Abbegg database, also called the Accordance Hebrew Syntactic Database, is based on a generative framework (cf. Accordance documentation 2014). Whereas the Andersen–Forbes and ETCBC databases started in the 1970s, the Holmstedt–Abbegg database started more recently, in 2008. Their intention was to create a database upon a model of Hebrew syntax that differed from the two existing databases, with “a tight focus on syntax, grounded in (but not bound by) Chomskyan generative linguistic theory” (Holmstedt and Cook 2018, 2). 14 More specifically, they adhered to Chomskyan minimalism, which was developed in the 1990s from the Government-and-Binding model that was prevalent in the 1980s, but they also realised that “to base the database and its underlying tagging scheme on a fully articulated minimalist framework would be inappropriate. ” For this reason, they combined their adherence to Chomskyan theory with the motto “data primary, theory wise” (Holmstedt and Cook 2018, 3). That the Holmstedt–Abbegg database is grounded in Chomsky’s generative approach is visible, among other things, in the inclusion of so-called null constituents. Because of the 

generative principle that every phrase has a ‘head’, a null marker has been inserted in every phrase that lacks an overt head. That Holmstedt et al. were not bound by the generative approach is visible, for example, in their non-binary hierarchical clause analysis, thus differing from Chomsky’s minimalist syntax (as well as the Government-and-Binding model), which adopts a strictly binary approach to constituent structure (Holmstedt and Cook 2018, 10).

https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0358.05.pdf

 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

17 hours ago, Mike Atnip said:

when a person would want to use one over the other

Okay, which linguistic theory or school of thought are you most in line with? Are you influenced by structuralism, distributional analysis, or Chomskyan generative linguistic theory? Once you figure that out then you will know which of the above Synax databases will match your assumptions best.

 

Personally, however, I think it is much better to search all the databases you have access to as a way of double (or even triple) checking your search results.

 

17 hours ago, Mike Atnip said:

Perhaps someone could make a list of the "strengths/weaknesses" of the various Hebrew text modules,

(1) (HMT-W4) Michigan-Claremont-Westminster Electronic Hebrew Bible  
Was first archived at the Oxford Text Archive (OTA) in 1987 meaning that Some form/version of this text has been avaible to the public since 1987.  Then a little after the the world wide wide web became public in 1991 the database was then also avaible from the  Westminster Hebrew Institute(now know as the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research). The strength of this text is one of the most widely used morphological databases of the Hebrew Bible. The weakness of this text is that is does not contain syntax taging and it is not hyperlinked to a textual apparatus. 

 

(2) (MT-ETCBC-A) with Apparatus Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with ETCBC Morphology and Apparatus 

The strengths this text has both the morphology of the ETCBC and the apparatus of the BHS. 

 

(3) (MT-ETCBC Bundle) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with ETCBC Morphology (WIVU) and Syntax

The strengths of this bundle s that you get both the Morphology ETCBC and the ETCBC syntax (database / trees / documentation) 

A weakness is that this not hyperlinked to a textual apparatus. 

 

(4) (BHS-T) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Apparatus and tagging

The Westminster morphology text is a much older version (4.14)  but it's strength or advantage is that has been modified with hyperlinked sigla to textual apparatus of the BHS. This text also comes with the apparatues. This was Accordance first Hebrew Bible to come with an apparatus. It's weakness is of course the older morphology and errors that since been corrected.

 

Some people prefer the ETCBC morphology and others prefer the Westminster morphology (some prefer something else).

However, all the texts above sometimes have typos and errors, but they usually do all have the same error this another reason why it is good to use more than one text to double check your work. Here are a few example:

 

 

 

 

[Mike Atnip]

12 hours ago, Brian K. Mitchell said:

Okay, which linguistic theory or school of thought are you most in line with? Are you influenced by structuralism, distributional analysis, or Chomskyan generative linguistic theory? Once you figure that out then you will know which of the above Synax databases will match your assumptions best.

Thank you VERY much.

As far as my linguistic theory, I am made to think of what I heard someone say over 30 years ago concerning the millennium: He was asked whether he was post- pre- or amillennial. He replied, "I am pan-millennial ... it will all pan out some day!"

So, I can say that I am pan-linguistical. 🙂

I just now saw the previous post about how they relate to the modules, and I was going to ask for just that sort of information. And you already supplied it.

So, DOUBLE thanks!

[Weatherby23]

Thank you for your comments Brian. I understand what the differences are in the databases now, though I'm still not sure which I'd like to use as my default HB text. I suppose I'll go with #4 since it's got the critical apparatus, though I suppose #2 would be an alternative to consider. 

 

I wonder how much different the morphological tagging is between #1 and 4?

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

1 hour ago, Weatherby23 said:

I wonder how much different the morphological tagging is between #1 and 4?

#4 is alright, actually it was great when it came out! But because it has a much older version of Westminster morphology I run most of my morphology searches #1. 

Just to make sure... know that #1 and #4 are two different editions of the very same Westminster morphology (so they are not going to be that different as one is simply a more corrected version of the other)!

 

1 hour ago, Weatherby23 said:

I suppose I'll go with #4 since it's got the critical apparatus, though I suppose #2 would be an alternative to consider. 

 #2 and #3 both have ETCBC and that will sometimes very different from the Westminster morphology. You really can't go wrong with any of the these text, but personally I use #2 & #1 over #4 when I run morphological searches (I also use the Andersen forbes database). 

 

 Grace and Peace,

               

                      Brian