Scientific American Supplement, No. 401, September 8, 1883Various
Science
Scientific American Supplement, No. 401, September 8, 1883
Various
Science -- Periodicals
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
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account