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 _prima 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