The surprises of archæology are magnificent and apparently
inexhaustible. It is continually bringing forth things new and old, and
often it happens that the newest are the oldest of all. Whether this
or the exact converse is the case in regard to the latest discovery of
Biblical archæology is a question not to be determined offhand; but the
interest and importance of the question can hardly be overrated. There
are now deposited in the British Museum fifteen leather slips, on the
forty folds of which are written portions of the Book of Deuteronomy
in a recension entirely different from that of the received text. The
character employed in the manuscript is similar to that of the famous
Moabite stone and of the Siloam inscription, and, therefore, the mere
palæographical indication should give the probable date of the slips as
the ninth century B. C., or sixteen centuries earlier than any other
clearly authenticated manuscript of any portion of the Old Testament.
The sheepskin slips are literally black with age, and are impregnated
with a faint odor as of funeral spices; the folds are from 6 to 7 inches
long and about 3½ inches wide, containing each about ten lines, written
only on one side.
So far as they have yet been deciphered, they exhibit two distinct
handwritings, though the same archaic character is used throughout.
In some cases the same passages of Deuteronomy occur in duplicate on
distinct slips, as though the fragments belonged to two contemporary
transcriptions made by different scribes from the same original text. At
first sight no writing whatever is perceptible; the surface seems to
be covered with an oily or glutinous substance, which so completely
obscures the writing beneath that a photograph of some of the
slips--which we have had an opportunity of examining side by side with
the slips themselves--exhibits no trace of the text. But when the
leather is moistened with spirits of wine the letters become momentarily
visible beneath the glossy surface.
These extraordinary fragments were brought to England by Mr. Shapira,
of Jerusalem, a well known bookseller and dealer in antiquities.
Mr. Shapira's name will be remembered in connection with certain
archæological problems which have been solved by some scholars in a
manner not altogether creditable to his sagacity.
The Moabite pottery which reached Europe through Mr. Shapira's agency
and is deposited in the Museum at Berlin is now commonly regarded as a
modern forgery; but of this forgery, if it be one, it is asserted that
Mr. Shapira was the dupe and not the accomplice. The leathern fragments
now produced by Mr. Shapira were, as he alleges, obtained by him from
certain Arabs near Dibon, the neighborhood where the Moabite stone was
discovered. The agent employed by him in their purchase was an Arab
"who would steal his mother-in-law for a few piastres," and who would
probably be even less scrupulous about a few blackened slips of ancient
or modern sheepskin. The value placed by Mr. Shapira on the fragments
is, however, a cool million sterling, and at this price they are offered
to the British Museum, where they have been temporarily deposited for
examination.
Dr. Ginsburg, the well-known Semitic scholar--whose receipt of a grant
of £500 from the Prime Minister toward the production of his important
work on the "Massorah" we announced with much satisfaction yesterday--is
now busily engaged in deciphering the contents of the fragments and
examining their genuineness. On this latter question we refrain from
pronouncing an opinion. When Dr. Ginsburg's report appears, we shall be
able to judge whether these extraordinary fragments are really 2,500
years old, or have been compiled within the last few years.
No complete account of the contents of the fragments can yet be given.
To decipher them is a work of time and of infinite patience and skill,
as will readily be inferred from the account we have given above of the
appearance and condition of the slips. But enough has been deciphered to
show that the text employed in them exhibits discrepancies of the most
remarkable and important character as compared with that of the received
version of the Mosaic books.
In the first verse of the ninth chapter of Deuteronomy, where the
received version reads, "Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in
to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself," the corresponding
passage of the fragments substitutes the plural for the singular, "Ye"
for '"Thou," while for "_g'dôlîm_," the word translated "greater," it
reads "_rabbîm_." But a far more complete idea of the variations of text
and signification may be obtained from a comparison of the text of the
Decalogue as it appears in the received version in the sixth chapter of
Deuteronomy with that contained in the fragments so far as they have yet
been deciphered. The version of the fragments, literally rendered, runs
as follows:
"I am God, thy God, which liberated thee from the land of Egypt, from
the house of bondage. Ye shall have no other gods. Ye shall not make to
yourselves any graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven above or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth.
Ye shall not bow down to them nor serve them. I am God, your God.
Sanctify ... in six days I have made the heaven and the earth, and all
that is therein, and rested on the seventh day, therefore rest thou
also, thou and thy cattle and all that thou hast: I am God, thy God.
Honor thy father and thy mother ...: I am God, thy God. Thou shall not
kill the person of thy brother: I am God, thy God. Thou shalt not commit
adultery with the wife of thy neighbor: I am God, thy God. Thou shalt
not steal the property of thy brother: I am God, thy God. Thou shalt not
swear by my name falsely, for I visit the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of those who take
my name in vain: I am God, thy God. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy brother: I am God, thy God. Thou shalt not covet the wife
... or his manservant, or his maidservant, or anything that is his: I am
God, thy God. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: I am God,
thy God. These ten words (or commandments) God spake."
Several points may be noted in this version. The singular refrain "I
am God, thy God"--which does not appear at all in the received
version--occurs ten times, being, as it were, a solemn ratification of
the Divine sanction given at the end of each separate precept. If this
be so, the first two commandments, as they are commonly reckoned, are
here fused into one, and the tenth place is taken by a commandment which
does not appear in the received version of the Decalogue.
It will further be observed that the distinctive Jewish name for the
Almighty, "Jehovah," or "the Lord," does not appear at all, the familiar
phrase of the received version, "the Lord thy God," being replaced
throughout by "God, thy God."
On the many variations in arrangement and detail we need not dwell;
they speak for themselves. But we have quoted enough to show that these
fragments present problems of the utmost importance and interest both to
criticism and exegesis, unless, indeed, they are to be regarded as
the ingenious fabrications of some Oriental Ireland, who, knowing the
interest felt by scholars in variations of the Sacred Text, has set
himself, with infinite pains and skill, to forestall a growing demand.
Until this preliminary question is resolved to the satisfaction of all
competent scholars, no further questions need be raised. In any case
the _primá facie_ presumption must be held to be enormously against
the genuineness of the fragments. Such a presumption rests on the
improbability of finding manuscripts older by at least sixteen centuries
than any extant manuscripts of the same text, on the comparative ease
with which such fragments can be forged, and on the powerful motives
to such forgery attested by the price placed by Mr. Shapira on his
property.
All that we know of the _provenance_ of the fragments is that Mr.
Shapira obtained them from an Arab of doubtful character; and that
Arabs of doubtful character have driven a splendid trade in Moabite
antiquities ever since the discovery of the Moabite stone. On the other
hand, the forger, if forgery there be, is assuredly no clumsy and
ignorant bungler, as the makers of the Moabite pottery were confidently
alleged to be by those who disputed its genuineness. It is, of course,
part of his craft, and not, perhaps, much more than the 'prentice part,
to give to the sheepskins on which the text is inscribed an appearance
of immemorial antiquity. But a good deal more than the skill required to
make a new sheepskin look like an old one has gone to the production of
Mr. Shapira's fragments. If they are forged, the fabricator must have
known what scholars would be likely to expect in genuine fragments,
and have set himself to fulfill their expectations. In these days of
scientific palæography and minute textual scholarship no forger of
ancient manuscripts could hope to take in scholars unless he were a
scholar himself. Variations of text would be looked for as a matter of
course; palæographical accuracy would be exacted to the minutest turn
of a letter. Now, to vary a text so as to furnish a different recension
without betraying ignorance or solecism requires scholarship of no mean
order, while it is very far from an easy thing to write currently in an
archaic and unfamiliar character in such a manner as to deceive experts
in palæography. But the fabricator of these fragments, if fabricated
they are, has attempted and accomplished a good deal more than this.
He has in some cases produced two identical texts written in different
hands, both preserving unimpaired the archaic character of the letters.
This implies either the employment of two scribes or else an almost
incredible skill in the single scribe employed, and in either case
it doubles the probability of detection. If, moreover, the supposed
fabricator is also himself the scribe, it is evident that he is not only
a very ingenious artist, but also a very accomplished scholar, and one
can only regret that he has engaged in an industry which has placed him
at the mercy of an Arab who would steal his mother-in-law for a few
piastres, and is likely, therefore, to enrich no one but Mr. Shapira. We
should expect to find, however, that his extraordinary ingenuity has at
some point or another overreached itself. Familiar as he must be with
the labors of modern Biblical critics--for otherwise he would hardly
have ventured to impose upon them--it would be strange if he were not
betrayed into some more or less suspicious coincidences with them. In
any case, the problem presented by the fragments is one of profound
interest, and the whole world of letters will resound with the
controversy they are certain to excite.--_London Times_.
* * * * *
[Illustration: SPECIMENS OF OLD KNOCKING DEVICES FOR DOORS.--_From the
Building News_.]
* * * * *