Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-08-19
THE LEATHER MANUSCRIPTS.

We have received from an accomplished
Hebrew scholar 4 communication respecting
the very interesting discovery-if it should
prove to be a discovery and not a fraud-of
ancient manuscripts on leather, containing a
portion of the book of Deuteronomy, in
which he explains the divisions of the ten
commandments. Students Of Oriental au-
tiquity, and especially biblical scholars, are
examining these manuscripts with great care,
aud such is the state of our knowledge upon
subjects Of this character, that if there lie
fraud it will scarcely escape detection. The
jerusalem bookseller who processes to have
procured them by theft from their Arab
owners, is personally of ill.character, a man
who hiss been concerned in attempts to paRs
Of frauds on previous occasions. Tn
act, however, that in places the letters can be
brought out only by moistening them with
alcohol, and some other circumstances, favor
their genuineness and antiquity. The cub
ect is Of the more interest as the book OF
Deuteronomy has been subjected to sharp
criticism, and pronounced by very able
Judges to be OF later origin than the time of
xUOHtt. DuOul0 AlSrC hlohuoCAl pt PiONC SCh-
uine, they may have come bearing upon the
subject. The divisions of the ten COM
mandments as made by the Masorets, and
about which the Catholics and Protestants
disagree, is entirely a matter Of tradition
and not of revelation, nor have they the au.
thority the text itself possesses. Referring
to the fifth chapter of Deu~tero nomy, as we
find it in HAhn's Hebrew Bible, Lsipsic,
1884, each commandment is there pointed
off from the succeeding one by a single
samech, the Specification of which letter, go
used, our Alabama correspondent explains.
The first division includes all that is said
about who is the God Of Israel,
and the prohibitions not 10 have,
or make, or wsrsnip any other God.
This makes the prohibition not to take the
sacred name, Jsveh, in vain Tor 10 a fslse-
hood-shau), the second, and the Sabbath
commandment the third commandment;
"HoDor thy father" ETC., the fourth, md so
on. The last commandment, srtiicially and
against sense, divides the "covet' omm and
ment into two commandments, and good
sense is better than doubtful tradition.
'FThou shalt not commit adultery" and
'Thou shalt not steal" are both included in
one division, against the sense. The true
way to divide the commandments, one from
the other, is evidently by the logical sense;
bat such q division has always left the
student in the dilemma OF having only nine
commandments, as follows: First, God; sec
ond, name; third, Sabbath; fourth, father
and mother; fifth, murder; sixth, adultery;
seventh, stealing; eighth, false witness; ninth,
covet. Here comes a singular point-the as-
serted newly-found manuscripts have ten
commandments, and the tenth is: "Thou
shalt not hate thy brother in Thy
heart" This, at first sight, appears
TO favor the commences Of the manu-
scripts and to add immeasurably to their
value, but if they are spurious the writer
knew of that value and Importance, and in
vented accordingly. There is an expression
used by Christ that appears 10 show that, in
his time, the commandments began and
ended as these manuscripts do. In Matt.
xxi, $40, he says that to love God is the
4rst great COnmduuueuI anu 10 love Tue
neighbor the second. The Hebreaist knows
the consistency there is between "brother"
and "neighboT" used as general terms. Turn
ug 10 our correspondents communication
we find him strongly doubling the sheePskin
manuscript story. Comparing them with the
Noah's ark discovery, ses-serpent and SINH
lar stories, he says: "rhe whole discovery
seems 10 be a hoax" but adds that if genuine
"lhe fragments would decide and set at rest
more than one point" He then gives the
following explanations:
The fragments-if genuine and of the age
pretended-would reach into the time before
the exile, and therefore be exempt Of what
ever influence Esdras had, or might have had,
on the form of the Bible as we have 1t now.
Possibly critics might ind them to be, prop,
erly speaking, not parts OF the Thors, but Of
a Tarvum. The reason, however, why i
commsncsd writing these lines was to show
hat the correct division OF The decaiogus