Page:Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894.djvu/261

Rh Dr. Neubauer and myself was wrong. Stupid Englishmen, who are not "scientific critics," might suppose that the denial and assertion were made after a careful examination of the original object. But such a proceeding is not at all in accordance with the methods of the "higher criticism," and might have inconvenient results for "scientific" theories. So an imperfectly-executed cast was obtained, and those who had seen the original were informed that the cast was much to be preferred to it. As it happens, the part of the weight where the word shel is engraved is somewhat worn, and the cast has consequently failed to reproduce all the lines of the letters.

Fortunately, the weight is in the possession of Dr. Chaplin; and as he now resides in England, those who care to do so will have little difficulty in convincing themselves that the reading of the inscription which I have given is correct.

Of course the "scientific critics" will prefer what Professor König in his recently published "Einleitung in das Alte Testament," p. 425, calls the "authentische Nachbildung," and will maintain with him that the same text is repeated in both lines of the inscription. In this way the obnoxious shel can be got rid of, and the dogmas of the critics remain intact. Plain people like myself, however, have a foolish preference for facts.

2em

Christchurch, Oxford, October 23rd, 1893.

I am sorry to trouble you; but I cannot refrain from entering a protest against the injustice of Professor Sayce's letter in the Academy of last week, on the inscribed weight obtained by Dr. Chaplin on the site of Samaria.

The facts of the case, omitting what is irrelevant, are simple. The inscription in question was read by Professor Sayce in 1890 (Academy, August 2, p. 94) as containing the Hebrew particle shel, and was referred by him, on account of the form of the characters, to the eighth century B.C. As the use of shel at this period harmonised with the early date to which (upon other grounds) I assigned the Song of Songs in my "Introduction" (1891), I mentioned the fact, giving a reference to Professor Sayce's letter in the Academy, as well as to one by Dr. Neubauer, which appeared simultaneously in the Athenæum. Professor König in his "Einleitung in das Alte Testament" (1893), p. 425, states that he procured an "authentische Nachbildung"—by which, I suppose, he means a cast—of the inscription from the Palestine Exploration Fund in London, which he submitted to the eminent Semitic palæographer, Professor Euting, of Strassburg, who read the inscription differently, and declared that in his opinion it did not contain the particle shel. Professor König adds that his own judgment of the inscription agrees with that of Professor Euting.

Upon the strength of these facts, Professor Sayce brings a series of