Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-09-22

AT. l snail not AK you 10 puulisH tiiF
report m full but / think that t. al
much of IL in which the Internal en-
dences of the forgery are set out VIII
not be 6evoid OF interest to such 81
your readers as are interested in the
subject at all This part OF the he
port therefore hand you as follows:
~. Taking for granted that because
4 the eanonical text already contains
two recenslons Of the Decalogue, non
snrinOuniabie objections would bs
raised against third recension, pro-
/ vid.d it presented = Biblical precept,
! the iorger maniiesily made the Ten
! Commandments the groundwork oi
( his text. Accordingly, he not only
modelled the Decalogue after the
pattern Of Iseviticus xvii. and xix. but
/ derived his additions from those
! chapters. Thus the refrain am God
thy God, which he inserted ten times
+ Is simply variation IF the longer re-
frain, Il am the Lord your God,
which occurs exactly ten tines at the
end Of ten precepts or groups of pre-
cepts Ia LeVititus tNyiii., >, 4, 10; Nix,
,. 3, (. ~, % 81, 3-ij. Again, what is
here lie seventh commandment, il
made up from LevitcuS xix, II, while
the additional teuth commandment IL
simply Leviticus xix, III
oil. Though deuteronomy xvii,
lila. orders ttat the Representative YES
of the twelve tribes are to place them.
selves on Mount Gerizim and Ebal, in
order TO re,ite the blessings and the
curses for the observance and the
trausgressions of certain precepts, yet
the maiedietions only are given verses
1926. This nauifestly suggested to
the forger the idea of supplying the
benedicti0ns. In accordance with this
plan, therefore, he not only filled up
the gap with ten heatitudes, but made
these ten benedictions harmonic with
his version of the Ten Command.
monts.
Iii. Equally manifest is his de-
sign in altering the maledictions con-
tanned in the ctnonical text OF Deuter-
onomy xvii, 1925. The additions,
omissions and insertions in the Shap-
ira slips are palpably so framed az to
yield ten jurisdictions to range round
the Ten Commandments according to
the forger's version of them"
Naturally, those who wished the man
uscrift to turn out II forgery breathed
freer when this report came out, and
now that the authorized version il no
longer menaced by Mr.. Shapiro, they
are presumably happy.
1T is stated here authoritatively that
before Mr. Shapiro came to England
with this manuscript, he offered it for
sale in Berlin, to the royal library. In
giving the preference TO this institu-
ton, the worthy dealer in
antiquities in Jerusalem was
doubtless Influenced by the fact that il
paid at the time what was supposed to
be most muniiicent price for the
Hamilton collection OF literary treas
ures. Therefore, he did not saw:
Here is Il genuine coder OF part OF
Deuteronomy, what will you give me
for it?' He merely said, Look at
what / have brought you; If you find
II to be what | shrewdly think it il.
name your price and let us see if we
can come To terns.p | gather these
facts from n Berlin letter published
mere, and further that such men as
Professor Lepsius, the famous Egyptol.
ogist, who Is keeper of the Royal H.
brary; Professor Dillnan of the He
brew chair; Professor Sachau, the dis
tinguished Orientalist; Professor Srhra-
der, the celebrated psychologist; Pro
lessor Ermann, another Hebrew
scholar; aud Dr. Schneider, who in the
years between 1852 and 1860, compiled
the valuable catalogue of Hebrew
books. etc, in the B0dleian library ut
oNlurd, m II IN committee, devoted
JUST one hour 20 the document and
theh unanimously pronounced ii a
clever, impudent forgery. OF course,
Mr.. Shapira didn't sell out in Berlin
AFTER That, but with his
precious li,ecary relic came to
Lohdoh where IL took the wise men
who examined it weeks to determine
what was plain TO the German conf
hlttee after one hour. What has be.
come OF The manuscript aud its owner?
| know not but ! do know that this
alleged ancient biblical manuscript
stirred up London churchmen consid-
sraoly. IL IS not charged against Mr..
Suapira that he was the forger him.
sell, or even that lie knew the manu-
script TO be forgery, although some
suspicion as TO the honesty OF his con-
hectlon WIN the transaction will nat
uraliy attach to him. The 4 mes de-
voted first and last great deal of
space and Thought to it, but acquiesced
IN DIS G'nsbury's decision. On, one
part It's comments are Interesting. AS
TO the motives Influencing the forgers
Sior DE- Ginsbury thinks the lob was
Tue work OF several mem il SAYS;
Inal the book OF Deuteronomy was
selected ~ the subject OF the fraud can
oe readily explained. The theory has
neen started that the five books of
Moses, and especially the last, are Inv
! means as ancient rs they profess To
oe' that they were in fact made up AT n |
late date, with the helm
VI previously existing documents, of |
when no separate remains are TO be
lound. "A like suspicion has been cast
90 tse IeXt OF jeremiah, of which the
SeptuIaint version does not corre..
pohd with the existing Hebrew YER
SION ~ Is said that some years AFRO a |
dehreW text OF Jerimiah, claiming IA
nc lhe old original which the Sentun- |
Siht lrlnslators had had before them |
una had used, was manufactured NJ |
jerusalem. However that may be the |
imposition has now been tried i'm nm.
1thef shape, An ordinary forper |
would nave been content with Inc |
,uhialoh Bible text. The forger of tho 4
?napira SIPS has been far more amhi. 4
lous IN his aims. He has sought to |
supply one OF the archaic ORIGINALS
rom which the common Bible tex5
was constructed, and to furnish nnf'a.
'iai which would fail in win Ia
.heory OF lis hate and unauthoria-
lNe pharacter An OLD text. older IL
i'any, centuries than any we pos.,ss
SoUlG nave had a value OF III own
pul What Mr. Shapira's friend has
,'Neh us IS document claipline M ha
more valuable ard more interesfing hv
at Nhat lie would have Us hnJ}ayn