BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

The Shapira Fragments

An Artifact of 19th-Century Jewish Christianity

By permission of the The British Library/add. ms. 41294, fol. 33
In 1883, Shapira offered to the British Museum 15 fragments of what he claimed to be the oldest written Biblical text in the world—an abbreviated version of Deuteronomy, perhaps written by Moses himself. (The photo shows one of the blackened, almost indecipherable strips.) Within a year, the scrolls had been declared fakes and Shapira had committed suicide.

Followers of this blog may have heard that the 19th-century Shapira Affair[1] has resurfaced again. In just the past week, a biblical scholar at the University of Potsdam, Idan Dershowitz, has urged scholars to accept the authenticity of the so-called Shapira fragments, brought to the public’s attention in The New York Times article, “Is a Long-Dismissed Forgery Actually the Oldest Known Biblical Manuscript?”[2]

A Bit of Background: Shapira’s Deuteronomy

Moses Shapira

Moses Shapira (1830–1884) was a Jewish convert to Christianity who settled in Jerusalem and operated a novelty shop in the Christian Quarter. In addition to souvenirs, he sold antiquities. He also peddled in forgeries: In the wake of the 1868 discovery of the Moabite Stele, Shapira sold hundreds of clay tablets inscribed in a similar alphabet.[3] These were soon determined to be fake, and Shapira maintained he was duped by his suppliers. To be sure, not everything Shapira sold was fake, and he restored his reputation by procuring medieval manuscripts for clients as important as the British Library. In his more successful years, he moved from Jerusalem’s Old City to the mansion now known as Ticho House (today the villa serves as a free-standing outpost of the Israel Museum, tucked right behind Zion Square).

In 1883, Shapira hoped to sell—for 1 million pounds sterling!—a lot of leather fragments inscribed in a paleo-Hebrew script, which were claimed by their purveyor to be an early version of the Book of Deuteronomy. Although taken seriously for a short time, the fragments were soon dismissed as forgeries. Despondent and debt-ridden, Shapira tragically took his own life in 1884. The manuscripts have since disappeared.

I have long been intrigued by this story, and I would encourage readers who want to know more to read John Marco Allegro’s The Shapira Affair (Doubleday, 1965) and Chanan Tigay’s The Lost Book of Moses: The Hunt for the World’s Oldest Bible (Ecco, 2016). Allegro makes the case for authenticity, and Tigay makes the case against. But, to my mind, they and most others reviewing the matter lost track of one key fact that, at least to me, tips the balance decidedly away from authenticity. The version of Deuteronomy peddled by Shapira is not only unparalleled, but also suspiciously commensurate with his own religious background and commitment. Let me explain.

Shapira’s Jewish Christian Identity

Shapira was something of a Jewish-Christian. Born Jewish in eastern Europe, Shapira converted to Christianity, became a German citizen, and then moved to Jerusalem, where he married a Lutheran nurse. Shapira and his wife attended Christ Church, right inside Jaffa Gate. Founded in 1842 by another Jewish convert to Christianity (Bishop Michael Solomon Alexander), Christ Church was operated as part of a joint Lutheran-Anglican bishopric, albeit one that saw itself as a “Hebrew-Christian Church.”[4] The congregation reached out to local Jews. Christ Church then, as now, espoused a form Christianity that celebrates Jesus’s Jewishness and even utilizes some Hebrew language in worship. Its leaders translated Christian texts into Hebrew. A plaque in the apse displays the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments (following Exodus 20)—in Hebrew.

By all accounts, Shapira was a believing Christian and was viewed as an apostate by local Jerusalem Jews. Yet Shapira’s Jewishness was not entirely sublimated. Interestingly, he continued to use his Jewish-sounding name. At times, he was reminded of his Jewishness by European anti-Semitism (see image of anti-Shapira cartoon—in BAR May/June 1997, p. 34). At other times, Shapira spontaneously reclaimed his Jewish identity, including when he traveled to Yemen in 1879 and procured authentic Hebrew manuscripts in the persona of Rabbi Moshe ben Netanel Shapira. When he sold these manuscripts, he did so as Moses Wilhelm Shapira, “Correspondent to the British Museum.”[5] Shapira knew which side of his divided self to display when and where.

Shapira’s Jewish Christian Deuteronomy

And what does Shapira’s Jewish-Christian hybrid identity have to do with the fragments of Deuteronomy he peddled? Well, perhaps everything.

Certainly, the most striking thing about Shapira’s Deuteronomy fragments is that they contain the Ten Commandments—but with some fascinating alterations. Before we examine the changes, we need to contemplate the idea of a version of Deuteronomy that contains no laws other than these ten. Imagine: a shortened Deuteronomy, shorn of all those commandments—like the dietary laws (Deut 14)—that Christians no longer follow, while highlighting only the ones that Christians still revere. A Jewish Christian dream come true?

But there’s more. Shapira’s Ten Commandments display some interesting differences from the traditional versions. Each commandment is followed by a liturgical refrain: “I am God your God.” In addition to encouraging antiphonal recitation, the repeated refrain allows readers to count the commands easily, something that the traditional texts don’t lend themselves to.[6] The first commandment in Shapira’s text clearly includes the “I am” assertion (the first commandment in the Jewish tradition) as well as the “You shall not have other gods” and the following idol prohibition (both combined as the second commandment in many Jewish countings). So the Shapira Deuteronomy is unique in presenting a version of the Ten Commandments that explicitly counts the first command in accordance with Shapira’s own quasi-Lutheran/Anglican Christianity (the Lutheran and Anglican traditions similarly combine these initial commands; again, see BAR May/June 1997 p.35; scroll down until you see the chart.)

The command against taking God’s name in vain is moved from the third slot to the seventh, where it appears reformulated as a prohibition against false oaths, followed by a punishment clause drawn from the idolatry commandment (“visiting the iniquity of the fathers onto the children to the third and fourth generations….”). The Sabbath commandment is significantly shortened. But the real drama comes at the end. At this point, the traditional Lutheran, Anglican (and Catholic) numerations—following the paragraph break noted in the Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 5:21—count two distinct coveting commands: a ninth commandment concerning the wife of one’s neighbor, and a tenth concerning anything else of one’s neighbor. The Shapira fragments, however, present a single comprehensive coveting command as the ninth, followed by a new closer, imported from Leviticus 19:17, “Thou shalt not hate your brother in your heart.”

What motivates this change? The answer lies in another even more original facet of the manuscript. In the Shapira fragments, the Levites gather on Mt. Gerizim and utter ten blessings corresponding to the Ten Commandments (cf. Deuteronomy 27:14). The first, “Blessed be the man who loves God,” corresponds to the first commandment. The tenth, “Blessed be the man who loves his neighbor,” corresponds to the (newly added) tenth commandment.


Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

access

John Marco Allegro (who believed the fragments were ancient) decades ago emphasized the distinctly Christian nature of these changes: “Thus the beginning and end of the divine Law [i.e., the Ten Commandments] is summarized by our text as ‘loving God’ and ‘loving one’s neighbor,’ a conception which will have a familiar ring to the Christian reader.”

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

As Allegro notes, the “peculiar form of the Ten Commandments presented in the Shapira manuscript” has a “Christian ring about it” (p. 136). And he was not the first to say so. Allegro quotes some 19th-century precursors to his own analysis, including the important German scholar Hermann Guthe.

In Allegro’s day, J.L. Teicher, accepting the fragments as genuine, thought similarly: “their contents are most fittingly described as representing the Book of Deuteronomy which was re-drafted for liturgical and catechetic purposes in the Jewish-Christian Church” (see Allegro, Shapira Affair, p. 136).[7]

Teicher, it should be recalled, was among those who thought that all the Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish Christian.[8] For Allegro, the fragments need not have been Jewish Christian exactly, but he did note that the juxtaposition is “too close to be accidental,” and invites comparison with the New Testament above all (p. 137).

The Jewish Christian nature of these fragments has long been recognized, but more recently forgotten. As we recall and reconsider this important connection, our approach to the fragments can move one step further. What was once an argument for late Second Temple period authenticity should now become an argument for 19th-century fabrication. This indeed has been argued at least once before, by Oskar Rabinowicz, in a review essay criticizing Allegro’s book.[9]

Suspicious Coincidence

Scholars and students of forgery quickly learn that forgeries have a tendency to make their way to scholars keenly interested in their content.[10] Shapira claimed to have been duped into peddling the Moabite forgeries, and his daughter seemed to think the same may have happened to him with the Deuteronomy fragments.[11] I suppose it’s also possible that Shapira forged the documents himself. But if we remain focused on the fragments; the question of the forger’s identity recedes behind the suspicion aroused by the coincidences we have surveyed here.

To my mind, scholars should remain on the highest level of alert regarding the authenticity of the Shapira fragments, if only for the reservations we have resurrected here. Shapira’s strange manuscripts display Christianizing tendencies that are suspiciously aligned with his own curious mix of backgrounds and commitments. There is more than one explanation for this coincidence—and if Shapira was duped a second time, he would be innocent of any crime. But an authentic pre-Christian find is not among the possibilities.


Jonathan Klawans is Professor of Religion at Boston University. He specializes in the religion and religious literature of ancient Judaism.

Professor Klawans is also co-editor (with Lawrence M. Wills) of the recently-released Jewish Annotated Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 2020).

 


 

Notes:


[1] See Fred Reiner, “Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisted,” BAR, May/June 1997.

[2] See Idan Dershowitz, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133.1. (2021), pp. 1–22, and also The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021).

[3] See Hershel Shanks, “Fakes! How Moses Shapira Forged an Entire Civilization,” Archaeology Odyssey, Sep/Oct 2002.

[4] See the historical survey, authored by Kelvin Crombie, posted online at https://www.cmj-israel.org/christchurch/ourhistory

[5] For this part of the story, see Merav Mack and Benjamin Balint, Jerusalem: City of the Book (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), esp. pp. 217–218.

[6] See Ronald F. Youngblood, “Counting the Ten Commandments,” Bible Review, December 1994.

[7] J. L. Teicher, “The Genuineness of the Shapira Manuscripts,” Times Literary Supplement, March 22, 1957, p. 184.

[8]  See, e.g., Teicher, “Jesus in the Habakkuk Scroll,” Journal of Jewish Studies 3.2 (1952), pp. 53–55.

[9] Oskar Rabinowicz, “The Shapira Scroll: A Nineteenth Century Forgery,” Jewish Quarterly Review 56.1 (1965), pp. 1–21, esp. pp. 16–17.

[10] The most insightful work on the history of forgery—and the roles of scholars witting and unwitting—remains Anthony D. Grafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Modern Scholarship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); see also Christopher Jones, “The Jesus’ Wife Papyrus in the History of Forgery,” New Testament Studies 61.3 (2015): 368-378.

[11] See Tigay, Lost Book, pp. 310–311.

 

 

Related Posts

David-Ben Shlomo , Shay Bar, and Ralph K. Hawkins at ‘Auja el-Foqa.
Apr 15
Excavating ‘Auja el-Foqa

By: Megan Sauter

lilith
Apr 14
Lilith

By: Janet Howe Gaines


11 Responses

  1. Michele Barasso says:

    There is another article this weekend on this in the NYT “A Biblical Mystery and a Reporting Odyssey” https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/the-shapira-fragments/

  2. Thank you Professor. Klawans for at least predictably doing the one-sided, boilerplate re-telling of the Shapira saga. Sadly, it was the publishing of Idan Dershowitz’s excellent new book and his keen scholarship on the Shapira manuscript that spurred your article in the first place. Right? Your token link to Idan’s work was useful, but that’s all you offered? No critique of his work? Nothing? Why is that?

    On the other hand, you DID at least encourage readers who want to know more to read Allegro’s “The Shapira Affair” (Doubleday, 1965), and Tigay’s “The Lost Book of Moses” (Ecco, 2016). That was as nice as it was incomplete. BAR readers will certainly be keen to learn of an excellent, even-newer book entitled, “The Moses Scroll,” by Ross K. Nichols, (Horeb Press, March 2021). Whereas Idan’s book “The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book” (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021) is quite technical and scholarly in nature, Nichols’ book is aimed at a more popular audience while also handling some scholarship aspects, including a modern Hebrew transcription reflecting the contents of the scroll.

    Newcomers to the original story will be surprised to learn that the leather “Shapira Strips” themselves were actually two (almost) identical copies of the very same proto-Deuteronomy text. Even back in the 1880s Shapira’s German and English analysts also verified that yes, the twin scrolls had been written by two different hands. Why is that? Why two identical texts? If I was going to do a forgery? Seems like I’d be content to make only one copy—and sell that! A point never addressed.

    The Shapira scroll fragments remain lost at this point in time. There are a couple of assumed scenarios, but no one knows for certain what happened to them. They were last seen publicly in 1889. What if they were found? To the rank and file naysayers out there, I can only say this. In 2021, no paleographer has access to those strips to examine. Correct? Without a modern, in-hand examination, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can definitively say whether they were authentic or not. Carbon-dating the leather; analyzing the chemical composition and age of the ink pigments; doing a rigorous microscopic examination of the quill strokes; and other tests I know nothing about. THAT my friends is what is absent, and yet, THAT is precisely what is required. Otherwise, it’s all just so much speculation.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you for your thoughts. You are quite right that I did not offer a full critique of Dershowitz’s new book. I do hope to offer a fuller review of Dershowitz’s work, as a book review or review essay, for a peer-reviewed journal.
      My post has a narrower goal, as the initial lines indicate: to call attention to the Jewish Christian angle of the story, an important issue that Dershowitz did not cover. Nichols’s new book doesn’t cover that angle either.
      Some will approach the matter to allow authenticity until forgery is proven. I approach the matter more skeptically, sensing that the affair fits repeating patterns of forgery cases. You are quite right that we can’t prove anything either way without the fragments themselves. In the meantime, some will believe and others will doubt. As new arguments are introduced, this may tip the balance for some one way or another.
      Thank you,
      Jonathan Klawans

  3. Aaron Adams says:

    Dr. Klawans, I appreciate your statement, “forgeries have a tendency to make their way to scholars keenly interested in their content.” We see the same axiom worked out in Morton Smith’s discovery – or forgery – of the Secret Gospel of Mark.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you. Those are perfect lines for readers to underline. I hope readers will also find their way to Anthony Grafton’s Forgers and Critics, cited in the notes.

  4. I posted a comment 2 full days ago . . . never displayed. You have display NO comments. Zero. With (at thsi writing) 2600+ views of the article, and no comments. Why is that?

    1. Michele Barasso says:

      Dear Mr. Wright, I need to apologise. Our spam filter was overzealous. In combing through more than 500 spam emails, I found 10 that were actual comments-4 of which appear on this post
      .

      1. THANKS MICHELE! I appreciate the fix.

  5. Klawans does not appear to have taken into account Idan Dershowitz’s main arguments and he quite readily identifies Moses Shapira as not only the forger, but suggests his motive was to promote “Christianity.” Clearly Dershowitz’s analysis would undermine both ideas. What Jonathan suggests, however, is intriguingly circular–a classic chicken and egg dilemma.  As a scholar of Christian origins, I think it is entirely possible that the Jesus movement was indeed influenced and affected by a version of the Torah such as this, and Ebionite sources say this explicitly, comparing the materials they judge to be added to the Torah to the “tares” sown among the good seed in the parable of Jesus.  They quote Jeremiah: “The false pen of the scribes has made the Torah a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8). Thus we get sayings of Jesus like: “Unless you cease sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you,” and others, even in our New Testament gospels, that imply an “originalist” orientation in the mouth of Jesus–“from the beginning it has not been so,” “Go learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice,” “Whoever looks on a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart,” “the Sabbath was made for man” and quite a few others.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you for your thoughts. While I allow the possibility that Shapira was a forger, I think my piece emphasizes another possibility: that Shapira was duped—just as he himself claimed he was with regard to the Moabite forgeries. That he peddled forgeries—plenty of them—is an established fact, admitted by Shapira himself. Of course, he also sold authentic manuscripts. I do not presume Shapira’s guilt in this case, as I said in the blog post.
      As for the possibility you suggest (a pre-Christian document influencing the New Testament): your proposal is not that far off from Allegro’s (especially pp. 136-137 of his book). Teicher more clearly relates Shapira’s document to early Christian versions of Deuteronomy (his full piece is essential reading). Perhaps we agree on one key point: that the connection between Shapira’s Deuteronomy and various New Testament texts is worthy of discussion. And as I suggested, I think it is important to think about this connection in relation to Shapira’s identity and observable patterns in the history of forgery. These are surely not the only issues to consider; these are additional issues to consider.
      Thank you-
      Jonathan Klawans

      1. Thanks for this good response Jonathan. One has to wonder, if the forger were not Shapira, who might it have been, and for what motive, since Shapira bought it for a pittance from the Bedouin. Certainly Salim did not have that kind of knowledge of either Hebrew Bible or early Christianity–much less the level of knowledge of critical historical studies of Deuteronomy at the time (esp. Bleek’s 1860 work)–which Rollston’s clever forger theory would require.. It is interesting that Shapira himself wrote–who could have done this–other than Ganneau! As you know, Tigay explores this thoroughly, along with the far out idea that Ginsburg himself did it. There are not a lot of other candidates. I wonder if you have ever had time to read Shapira’s letters to Schlottmann, Strack, Ginsburg, and so forth, and his various notes, they are in the BM 41294 dossier. I think they shed a lot of light on both the ms., the ways in which Shapira and the scholars, especially Guthe and Meyer, were deliberating things. Nichols covers a lot of that in his book. I find the point that Mansoor first raised, and Guil and others have advanced, that 1878 reports of leather scrolls, wrapped in linen, with a “sticky substance” in a Dead Sea cave–given the subsequent discoveries of our DSS, should give us all pause. Guil is especially good on this, covering the external evidence so thoroughly. Regarding Allego and especially Teicher, both of which I have carefully studied, I was not so much of thinking of their idea “Judea-Christian” versions of Deuteronomy, but rather Idan’s whole thesis that this is a 1st Temple document, that might have been available to sectarian groups of Jews offering alternative readings of the Moses valediction, including Jesus or his followers. Too much to cover in comments but thanks for the exchange. I wish you well as you delve further into Idan’s work–I found it captivating, and also Nichols, The Moses Scroll, provides the fullest version of the “story,” so far, with lots of new materials and documentation. I do think there is a good chance some of the fragments will be recovered, and if so, lots of our questions can at least be less hypothetical.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


11 Responses

  1. Michele Barasso says:

    There is another article this weekend on this in the NYT “A Biblical Mystery and a Reporting Odyssey” https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/the-shapira-fragments/

  2. Thank you Professor. Klawans for at least predictably doing the one-sided, boilerplate re-telling of the Shapira saga. Sadly, it was the publishing of Idan Dershowitz’s excellent new book and his keen scholarship on the Shapira manuscript that spurred your article in the first place. Right? Your token link to Idan’s work was useful, but that’s all you offered? No critique of his work? Nothing? Why is that?

    On the other hand, you DID at least encourage readers who want to know more to read Allegro’s “The Shapira Affair” (Doubleday, 1965), and Tigay’s “The Lost Book of Moses” (Ecco, 2016). That was as nice as it was incomplete. BAR readers will certainly be keen to learn of an excellent, even-newer book entitled, “The Moses Scroll,” by Ross K. Nichols, (Horeb Press, March 2021). Whereas Idan’s book “The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book” (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021) is quite technical and scholarly in nature, Nichols’ book is aimed at a more popular audience while also handling some scholarship aspects, including a modern Hebrew transcription reflecting the contents of the scroll.

    Newcomers to the original story will be surprised to learn that the leather “Shapira Strips” themselves were actually two (almost) identical copies of the very same proto-Deuteronomy text. Even back in the 1880s Shapira’s German and English analysts also verified that yes, the twin scrolls had been written by two different hands. Why is that? Why two identical texts? If I was going to do a forgery? Seems like I’d be content to make only one copy—and sell that! A point never addressed.

    The Shapira scroll fragments remain lost at this point in time. There are a couple of assumed scenarios, but no one knows for certain what happened to them. They were last seen publicly in 1889. What if they were found? To the rank and file naysayers out there, I can only say this. In 2021, no paleographer has access to those strips to examine. Correct? Without a modern, in-hand examination, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can definitively say whether they were authentic or not. Carbon-dating the leather; analyzing the chemical composition and age of the ink pigments; doing a rigorous microscopic examination of the quill strokes; and other tests I know nothing about. THAT my friends is what is absent, and yet, THAT is precisely what is required. Otherwise, it’s all just so much speculation.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you for your thoughts. You are quite right that I did not offer a full critique of Dershowitz’s new book. I do hope to offer a fuller review of Dershowitz’s work, as a book review or review essay, for a peer-reviewed journal.
      My post has a narrower goal, as the initial lines indicate: to call attention to the Jewish Christian angle of the story, an important issue that Dershowitz did not cover. Nichols’s new book doesn’t cover that angle either.
      Some will approach the matter to allow authenticity until forgery is proven. I approach the matter more skeptically, sensing that the affair fits repeating patterns of forgery cases. You are quite right that we can’t prove anything either way without the fragments themselves. In the meantime, some will believe and others will doubt. As new arguments are introduced, this may tip the balance for some one way or another.
      Thank you,
      Jonathan Klawans

  3. Aaron Adams says:

    Dr. Klawans, I appreciate your statement, “forgeries have a tendency to make their way to scholars keenly interested in their content.” We see the same axiom worked out in Morton Smith’s discovery – or forgery – of the Secret Gospel of Mark.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you. Those are perfect lines for readers to underline. I hope readers will also find their way to Anthony Grafton’s Forgers and Critics, cited in the notes.

  4. I posted a comment 2 full days ago . . . never displayed. You have display NO comments. Zero. With (at thsi writing) 2600+ views of the article, and no comments. Why is that?

    1. Michele Barasso says:

      Dear Mr. Wright, I need to apologise. Our spam filter was overzealous. In combing through more than 500 spam emails, I found 10 that were actual comments-4 of which appear on this post
      .

      1. THANKS MICHELE! I appreciate the fix.

  5. Klawans does not appear to have taken into account Idan Dershowitz’s main arguments and he quite readily identifies Moses Shapira as not only the forger, but suggests his motive was to promote “Christianity.” Clearly Dershowitz’s analysis would undermine both ideas. What Jonathan suggests, however, is intriguingly circular–a classic chicken and egg dilemma.  As a scholar of Christian origins, I think it is entirely possible that the Jesus movement was indeed influenced and affected by a version of the Torah such as this, and Ebionite sources say this explicitly, comparing the materials they judge to be added to the Torah to the “tares” sown among the good seed in the parable of Jesus.  They quote Jeremiah: “The false pen of the scribes has made the Torah a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8). Thus we get sayings of Jesus like: “Unless you cease sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you,” and others, even in our New Testament gospels, that imply an “originalist” orientation in the mouth of Jesus–“from the beginning it has not been so,” “Go learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice,” “Whoever looks on a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart,” “the Sabbath was made for man” and quite a few others.

    1. Jonathan Klawans says:

      Thank you for your thoughts. While I allow the possibility that Shapira was a forger, I think my piece emphasizes another possibility: that Shapira was duped—just as he himself claimed he was with regard to the Moabite forgeries. That he peddled forgeries—plenty of them—is an established fact, admitted by Shapira himself. Of course, he also sold authentic manuscripts. I do not presume Shapira’s guilt in this case, as I said in the blog post.
      As for the possibility you suggest (a pre-Christian document influencing the New Testament): your proposal is not that far off from Allegro’s (especially pp. 136-137 of his book). Teicher more clearly relates Shapira’s document to early Christian versions of Deuteronomy (his full piece is essential reading). Perhaps we agree on one key point: that the connection between Shapira’s Deuteronomy and various New Testament texts is worthy of discussion. And as I suggested, I think it is important to think about this connection in relation to Shapira’s identity and observable patterns in the history of forgery. These are surely not the only issues to consider; these are additional issues to consider.
      Thank you-
      Jonathan Klawans

      1. Thanks for this good response Jonathan. One has to wonder, if the forger were not Shapira, who might it have been, and for what motive, since Shapira bought it for a pittance from the Bedouin. Certainly Salim did not have that kind of knowledge of either Hebrew Bible or early Christianity–much less the level of knowledge of critical historical studies of Deuteronomy at the time (esp. Bleek’s 1860 work)–which Rollston’s clever forger theory would require.. It is interesting that Shapira himself wrote–who could have done this–other than Ganneau! As you know, Tigay explores this thoroughly, along with the far out idea that Ginsburg himself did it. There are not a lot of other candidates. I wonder if you have ever had time to read Shapira’s letters to Schlottmann, Strack, Ginsburg, and so forth, and his various notes, they are in the BM 41294 dossier. I think they shed a lot of light on both the ms., the ways in which Shapira and the scholars, especially Guthe and Meyer, were deliberating things. Nichols covers a lot of that in his book. I find the point that Mansoor first raised, and Guil and others have advanced, that 1878 reports of leather scrolls, wrapped in linen, with a “sticky substance” in a Dead Sea cave–given the subsequent discoveries of our DSS, should give us all pause. Guil is especially good on this, covering the external evidence so thoroughly. Regarding Allego and especially Teicher, both of which I have carefully studied, I was not so much of thinking of their idea “Judea-Christian” versions of Deuteronomy, but rather Idan’s whole thesis that this is a 1st Temple document, that might have been available to sectarian groups of Jews offering alternative readings of the Moses valediction, including Jesus or his followers. Too much to cover in comments but thanks for the exchange. I wish you well as you delve further into Idan’s work–I found it captivating, and also Nichols, The Moses Scroll, provides the fullest version of the “story,” so far, with lots of new materials and documentation. I do think there is a good chance some of the fragments will be recovered, and if so, lots of our questions can at least be less hypothetical.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend