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.
