charges against the "higher criticism"—of prejudice and an obstinate refusal to listen to facts—which I cannot think that the circumstances at all justify. For Professor Euting, who is the chief authority for questioning the reading shel, though distinguished for his palæographical knowledge and acquaintance with Semitic inscriptions, is quite unknown as a critic; and of all the men in Germany (or elsewhere) who are "critics," Professor König, as those who have read any of his writings well know, is one of the most honest, exact, and painstaking that could be named, and the very last man to go with the stream, or to adopt a view, unless he had satisfied himself by independent personal investigation that it was adequately borne out by facts.
According to Professor Sayce, however, Professor König, finding the shel inconvenient for his theory of the date of the Song (though why he should have done so, seeing that it occurs in Jonah and is common in post-Biblical Hebrew, it is difficult to see), and being addicted to the slovenly methods of the "higher criticism," which has no regard for facts, and is never at the pains to examine original objects, was determined at all costs to get rid of the "obnoxious" word; "so an imperfectly executed cast was obtained, and those who had seen the original were informed that it was much to be preferred to it."
All that is here attributed to Professor König is destitute of foundation in fact. As though either Professor Euting (whom Professor Sayce, strangely, does not mention at all), or Professor König, would work wittingly upon an imperfect copy, or adopt such an unworthy procedure as is attributed to them, for the purpose of evading or suppressing the truth! Even if it be the case (as it very probably is) that the cast used by Professors Euting and König was one which imperfectly represented the original, the blame (if their reading of the inscription should on this ground have been incorrect) rests, surely, not on the two German scholars, but on the authorities of the Palestine Exploration Fund, who sup]:)lied them (as they afterwards, I presume, supplied me) with the imperfect facsimile.
I cannot imagine why Professor Sayce could not have written to say simply (if the facts so required it) that the two German scholars had misread the inscription in consequence of their having been supplied with an imperfect copy, instead of gratuitously employing the occasion for indulging in acrimonious taunts and baseless insinuations.
October 26th, 1893.
In der Nr. vom 21 Oct. hat Herr Prof. A. H. Sayce eine Stelle meines Buches "Einleitung in das Alte Testament, mit Einschluss der Apokryphen u. der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments" (Bonn, 1893) angegriffen. Die uns gemeinsame Liebe zur geschichtlichen Wahrheit zwingt mich, auch meinerseits zu dieser Sache das Wort zu ergreifen.
