Endnote 21 – Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited

Ibid. See also “Report from Berlin,” The Times, August 28, 1883. The unsigned “Report from Berlin” states, “This committee consisted of Professor Dillmann, of the Hebrew Chair; Professor Sachau, the distinguished Orientalist; Professor Schrader, the celebrated Assyriologist; Professor Ermann, another Hebrew scholar; and Dr. Schneider, who in the years between 1852 and 1860, compiled the valuable catalogue of Hebrew books, &c., in the Bodleian Library at Oxford,” as well as “Professor Lepsius, the famous Egyptologist, who is keeper of the Royal Library.” Strack refers to those present at the meeting as “several other scholars (Professor Dillman [sic], Professor Sachau, &c.).” Allegro enumerates this “high-powered body of scholars” as Professors Richard Lepsius, August Dillmann, Eduard Sachau, Adolf Ermann and Dr. Moritz Steinschneider (Shapira Affair, p. 46). The Times report incorrectly refers to Moritz Steinschneider as “Dr. Schneider,” but it is unclear whether the “Prof. Schrader” mentioned is the same as Professor Schroeder, who had declared the manuscript genuine and offered to purchase it. Strack, in his letter to the Times, states, “Nothing of this was then made public, because no one in Berlin for a moment supposed that the codex in question would be the object of further discussion,” implying that Schroeder was not present.

The “Report from Berlin” similarly cites no dissenting opinion: “They unanimously pronounced the alleged codex to be a clever and impudent forgery … so satisfied were the committee with the general internal evidence … that they deemed it unnecessary to call for further proof.” The committee, according to this account, did not fully share their verdict with Shapira: “The committee deemed that it was not at all incumbent upon them to demonstrate a negative, and therefore told the expectant Mr. Shapira that they were disinclined to enter into a bargain with him. They were quite willing, it is true, to buy his wares, though only as an example of what could really be done in the way of literary fabrication.”