Computer Analysis of Pentateuchal Composition

According to this Yahoo article, a group of Israeli scholars has developed an “authorship attribution” computer program that has divided the Pentateuch into two authors, aligning around 90% of the time with the traditional academic divisions (that identify a priestly and non-priestly source). The results were presented at a recent Association for Computational Linguistics conference in Portland, Oregon. The control for the program was to jumble up Ezekiel and Jeremiah and see how well the program could pull them apart. The program, according to the researchers, divided the books “almost perfectly.” A couple other interesting results from the experiments:

- Genesis 1 is non-priestly

- Isaiah is divided into two authors responsible for Isa 1–32 and 33–66, respectively

In related news, I was speaking today with Kent Clarke about the beta release of BibleWorks 9 (he is in charge of the BibleWorks Manuscript Transcription Project) and he mentioned the software is making it possible to instantly compare all similarities and differences between manuscripts. They’ve only been able to run a limited number of full New Testament manuscripts so far, but he mentions that the main manuscript traditions are clearly aligned (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Caesarean [a minor group only attested for Mark?]), as well as subgroups that have been suggested by scholars in the past. His project

seeks to provide over the next four years scholarly-produced transcriptions of approximately two hundred New Testament papyri, uncial, and minuscule manuscripts. These new transcriptions, which will be based upon high quality digital images of the actual manuscripts or their facsimiles, will serve as the foundation for the development of a New Testament Textual Criticism software application. This project will (1) develop a module that incorporates new technology and processes that more accurately and effectively allow for manuscript transcription and collation; (2) provide extremely accurate representations of the manuscripts being transcribed; (3) make the raw transcription data availablewithout charge for personal or academic use; (4) effectively enable program users to immediately compare, contrast, and fully collate any desired selection—either partial or full text—of these manuscripts; (5) allow for a broad range of detailed statistical queries relating but not limited to such issues as textual affiliation and congruity of the New Testament manuscript tradition; (6) link directly to the manuscript transcriptions their corresponding high resolution digital images where publication permissions have been granted; (7) be “open-ended” in that ongoing transcription and imaging work, as well as the recording of relevant extra-textual features such as sociological and codicological details, can be seamlessly incorporated into the software; and (8) serve as the groundwork for published volumes containing full transcriptions of each manuscript, as well as complete collations for each book of the New Testament.

More Jordan Lead Codices Photos and Info

Shortly after beginning my coverage of the Jordan Lead Codices topic on my blog, a comment appeared on this post from someone identifying themselves as Ilan Shibli and purporting to be one of the Bedouins involved with the original acquisition of the codices. He stated:

The Books were orginally “discovered ” by a Bedouin from Shibli who worked with Hassan Saida. He bought them from a Jordanian Taxi Driver he was friendly with. Later the two Bedouins Paid vast sums of money to Elkington and Feather and the like to get the works authenticated. During this time not one of them tried to hand the works to any authority. On the contrary they obtained an export license under false pretences. ( the books already being in Europe) When a dead end was reached and not willing to hand over more money to the publicity seeking Elkington the Bedouins stopped all contact and hence his own campaign ” to do the right thing started” He was NEVER THREATENED! just IGNORED
many serious far more discreet scholars have seen the works and the real finder and owner is more than happy to supply photos free of charge and to be interviewed.
There is NO secret or conspiracy
The books ( and there are not 70!) are made of ancient metal and what is of interest more than content is the fact they ARE ONE OF THE FIRST BOOKS TO BE PRINTED

I’ve been in sporadic contact with this person since then. He appears to claim to be located in Israel, although his IP information (which is not always perfectly accurate) locates him in Great Britain, and some of his emails have come from a Blackberry. I asked for evidence that he had access to codices that were not already accessible online. He sent along, over the course of several days, the following photos (all of which are to be credited to Ilan Shibli):

These photos give us a much better look at the script used on the codices. For the best analysis of that script see Steve Caruso’s blog, especially this post. I’ve already discussed the iconography of the lower register in the first photograph (here), but the iconography in the upper register is also found scattered among a bunch of other plates. See the following, for instance:

This is obviously another cast image that was reused on a number of plates. The writing below the menorah in the image is meaningless, as far as I can tell. That the images on these plates are modern productions is, in my opinion, pretty much beyond dispute. Dr. Northover’s analysis supports an ancient provenance for the lead, but as others have pointed out, and as he stated in a note to me, there is quite a bit of ancient lead lying around, and the composition of the lead does not necessarily indicate the antiquity of the codices.

(Elkington is offering a number of other photos for purchase on various websites around the world. Some of the sites offer bigger preview photos than others. Some of the higher quality previews are available here.)

Back to Mr. Shibli. I later sent a few questions to help clarify some of the background of the codices. Following are my questions:

- How did you originally come to possess the codices, and were you told where they came from?

- When and how did Mr. Elkington become involved?

- Did you give Elkington any or all of the codices, and if so, how long did he have them?

- Did Elkington arrange for the metallographic analysis with Dr. Northover at Oxford or did someone else?

- How much money did Elkington end up charging for his services?

- Who is currently in possession of the codices?

And this is the response I received:

1. As I said before we trade Hay and Horses on the Jordanian Border. We met and befriended a taxi driver and the story started from there. In fact as you have probably guessed it I was the one who first made the contact and first got the books. Hassan later got involved.

2.We had been knocking on doors in Europe some v eminent discreet researchers and we met through our friend in Jericho a Palestinian women working for the PLO, she made us all sorts of promises to buy the books and inlfated value etc. she introduced us  ( against the advise of the reputable European Contacts) to a Nick Fielding and in Turn  Robert Feather and David

This was in 2008/9. We hosted their visit to Israel and told them the truth about everything including the facts the books ( some of them were already – innocently in Europe) They came up with the idea to fabricate various stories and to invent export licences. We were a bit confused but naively went along with things. David made out he was the third wheel just there to take photos

3. We gave them one book for analysis and paid them well over £5000 – infact in total  close to £10,000 to send off for testing etc

4. Meanwhile other translators and researchers continued to work for free and still are discretely

5. Elkington until Hassan took the book back had  access the books as did the other for over a year but it was Robert Feather ( we discovered later- a ” devout Jew’ who was hiding ” treasure in his house!  Not once did Elkington inform the Jordanians and not once did feather alert the israelis

as they kept demanding money and we were getting no where, we just parted company hence the surprise to see how he ” popped up again” He has been out of the picture for around 2 years/. We heard some chinese whispers that if he was not ” let back in’  he would go ” denounce us” but we told him to go ahead/ So far nothing had been proved  just the age of the metal. We travelled previously quite legitimately not hiding anything. We truly had no idea what they were

Meanwhile other books appeared and Hassan ” bought them” Ellkington made his own trips to Jordan

6. We are currently in possession of the Lead Codices as we always have been in Israel

Ilan also sent me a copy of a report that analyzed the codices, reportedly produced by David Elkington. It can be found here. I cannot fully vouch for the story presented above, and I don’t know anything more about Mr. Shibli than what he has told me (and what my computer tells me about where his computer is), but the photos provided should show that this individual has unique access to the codices, or at least photographs of them. Take that for what it’s worth.

EDIT: Another thing Mr. Shibli stressed on several occasions that should be noted is that he has never tried to make any money off of the codices or their photos. He has provided them free of charge to those who ask, provided he is credited.

The Angel of Yahweh in Early Hebrew Bible Narrative

There are two general approaches to explaining the angel of Yahweh in the early biblical narratives where his identity seems to be conflated or confused with the identity of God himself. The most prevalent view is that the angel, as a divine messenger, represents his patron so completely that he may be referred to and even described as the patron. The other view is that the word “angel” is simply an interpolation where it was originally Yahweh himself interacting with humanity. As I have been compiling research I have come across the former position more and more in recent research (two examples are Erik Eynikel, “The Angel in Samson’s Birth Narrative: Judg 13,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception [Friedrich V. Reiterer, et al., eds.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007], 109–23; Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009]). In this post I’d like to explain why I find the latter view to be far more convincing.

I count 36 occurrences of מלאך יהוה in Gen-Judg, with an additional six occurrences of מלאך אלהים. The first of all occurrences (canonically) is in the story of Hagar’s fleeing from Sarah. The confusion of identity here occurs in v. 13, where the narrative explains that Hagar “called upon the name of Yahweh who spoke to her.” Hagar’s next comment in the Hebrew is unclear, but we should probably read after the NRSV (based on the name given to the well), “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” This would echo sentiments found in our other angel of Yahweh pericopes (Gen 32:30; Exod 3:6; Jdg 6:22–23; 13:22). Exod 33:20, which states that no human will see God and live, is alluded to in each example. This particular story makes more sense with the word “angel” removed from vv. 7, 9, 10, and 11, and with Hagar speaking directly with Yahweh.

The next occurrence of the angel of Yahweh is in the Akedah from Genesis 22. The angel of Yahweh is said to stop Abraham immediately before he sacrifices Isaac. The narrative again makes perfect sense with the word “angel” removed from vv. 11 and 15. In v. 16 we have Yahweh speaking, but the phrase “says Yahweh” appears. This does not necessarily indicate reported speech, though, and is unlikely to be original. It appears nowhere else in Genesis and it never appears anywhere else associated with any angel of Yahweh. In v. 14, the explanation of the name of the mountain could be “On the mountain of Yahweh it shall be provided,” or “On the mountain of Yahweh he will be seen.” In both these stories the notion of seeing God appears to have been obscured to hide God’s own presence.

Exodus 3 is our next pericope. In that story, Moses speaks with the angel of Yahweh. The angel is only mentioned in v. 2, and afterward God himself is the interlocutor. In v. 6 God even states, “I am the God of your father . . .” Moses even lowers his gaze because he is afraid to look upon God. Of considerable importance here is that v. 2′s statement “and the angel of Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush” does not fit the narrative. It preempts Moses’ noticing the bush (which follows “and he looked, and behold!”) and his moving close enough to it for the entity to speak out of it. The most likely reason is that that statement is a late interpolation meant to contextualize the comments that followed. Without the statement, it is God himself speaking to Moses.

Next we move to two narratives from Judges, namely Gideon’s call and Samson’s birth narrative. In the first (Judg 6:11–24), the angel comes to Gideon, who appears not to recognize him, and states that Yahweh is with him. He then announces Gideon’s call to lead the Israelites. In vv. 11, 12, 21, and 22 the text has “angel of Yahweh,” but in vv. 14 and 16 Gideon is represented as speaking directly to Yahweh. In v.  17, Gideon actually asks for proof that he is speaking specifically to Yahweh. In v. 20 it is “angel of God.” This is peculiar, and the only other uses of “angel of God” in Gen-Judg also appear in places where the identity of God is mixed up with that of an angel (Gen 21:17; 31:11; Exod 14:19; Judg 13:6, 9). As with other stories, Gideon’s angel speaks as God in the first person with no messenger formula to indicate it is a mediated message. Again we have the allusion to Exod 33:20, but here Gideon laments, “Help me, O Yahweh God, for I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face!” Exod 33:20 does not place a restriction on seeing the angel of Yahweh, however, it explicitly states that no human can see God himself (and specifically his face, given the context). Gideon’s lament is completely unique, and the story fits perfectly with the other reconstructed narratives if we simply remove each instance of “angel.”

In Samson’s birth narrative (Judg 13:3–23) the interlocutor is described as an angel of Yahweh throughout, but when Manoah realizes to whom he has been speaking he laments, like the others, “we shall surely die, for we have seen God.” Now, the comment could be translated “for we have seen a deity,” in reference to an angel, but, again, this is not what Exod 33:20 says, and the allusion is clearly to that text. V. 19 also provides an interesting problem. It states that, on the angel’s orders, Manoah offered a meat offering on a rock “to Yahweh. And [?] did wonders/wondrously.” There is no subject attached to the participle מפלא, “to be wonderful.” Many translations assume the angel is understood, since he is overseeing the sacrifice (thus, “the angel did wondrously”), while others believe the statement refers to Yahweh, and want it to act as a relative clause (thus, “to Yahweh, to him who works wonders”). The most straightforward reading would probably be, “to Yahweh, and he did wondrously.” This would identify the one who commanded the sacrifice as Yahweh.

This is further supported by the actual command in v. 16, where the text states, “The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, ‘If you detain me I will not eat your food, but if you want to prepare a burnt offering, offer it to Yahweh.’ (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of Yahweh).” There is only one scenario in which I can see the narrator providing the explanation if the angel is not actually Yahweh himself, and that’s if the angel is promoting sacrifices to a specific deity to which Manoah otherwise wouldn’t have offered his sacrifice (“‘Oh, and make sure you offer it to Yahweh specifically’ [and Manoah didn't know that the guy actually worked for Yahweh]“). To me it makes much more sense that the narrator is explaining that Manoah didn’t know he was speaking to Yahweh himself, since it would sound weird for Yahweh to say “offer a sacrifice to Yahweh” if he knew he was speaking to Yahweh.

Three more considerations support the interpolation theory. First, as Samuel Meier has pointed out, there is textual instability among the versions in these narratives. For instance, in Gideon’s narrative, the Septuagint has “angel of Yahweh” throughout. The Septuagint also has additional occurrences of “messenger” all by itself in Samson’s birth narrative and in Hagar’s story, and an additional “messenger of the Lord” at Gen 16:8. Josephus only presents God interacting with Abraham in Genesis 22. The Vulgate makes no mention of an angel in Exod 3:2, mentioning only God appearing. Second, in none of these instances is any self-identification or messenger formula present. Some have claimed that the messenger was so fully identified with his patron that it was not necessary, but there is simply no evidence for this notion. The closest we get is the anomalous “says Yahweh” in Gen 22:16. Third, later versions frequently interpolate the word “angel” where they want to avoid God’s presence, visibility, or participation in something of questionable morality. For instance, in Exod 4:24 both the Septuagint and the targums interpolate the angel to avoid the notion that Yahweh would have come down to kill Moses. In Num 22:20 and 23:4 the Samaritan Pentateuch changes “and God met Balaam” to “and the angel of God met Balaam.” He does not change Num 22:9 or another phrase in Num 23:4, however. In the Palestinian Targum God tells Moses that his angels will pass by him, not that he himself will pass by, as in Exodus 33. Numerous other examples could be brought up, but this should do.

In conclusion, the notion that  the angel is a hypostasis of God or so closely represents him that their identities merge without comment or explanation is simply a rationalization that is subordinate to the necessity of a synchronic or univocal reading of the text. Without such a demand the only logical conclusion is that the angel of Yahweh in these early biblical narratives is a late interpolation, probably from some late- or post-Deuteronomistic writer.

Lady McGaga On Inerrancy

James McGrath has some great thoughts up on his blog regarding the all-too-common notion that those who reject inerrancy are only uncritically appropriating modern naturalistic/humanistic/liberal/whatever presuppositions. He has said pretty much everything I have only recently begun to try to articulate, so I won’t bother to add anything to it, but will just point you to it and suggest you give it a read.