A Discourse Concerning The Antiquity And Origin Of The Points, Vowels And Accents That Are Placed To The Hebrew Bible (Part 1)
This is part 1 of a multi-part series, in which we will be setting out the Athenian Society’s discourse on the antiquity of Hebrew pointing in full. The Athenian Society was founded in 1691 - the year that this essay was published - by John Dunton, an English bookseller. We are reproducing this work across several blogs due to its value in the current debate over the text of Scripture. May it be a blessing unto you, dear reader.
על קדמות הנקודות והטעמים אשר ללשון
OR, A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE ANTIQUITY AND ORIGIN OF THE POINTS, VOWELS AND ACCENTS THAT ARE PLACED TO THE HEBREW BIBLE. IN TWO PARTS.
The FIRST PART:
WHEREIN The opinions of Elias Levita, Ludovicus Capellus, Dr. Walton, and others for the novelty of the points, are considered, their evidences for the same examined; and the improbability of their conceit, that the Masoretes of Tiberias pointed the text, is at large discovered from the silence of the Jews about it, their testimonies against it; the unfitness of the time, place and persons of late assigned for the invention of the points, from the nature of the Masora, and of the Masoretic notes on the verses, words, letters, points, vowels and accents of the Old Testament. Their observations on all the kinds of the Keri u Ketib; the Words written full, or defective; the Ittur Sopherim the Tikkun Sopherim, and the rest of the parts of the Masora, and from other considerations.
The SECOND PART:
Containing the principal testimonies and arguments of Jews and Christians, for the proof of the antiquity, divine origin, and authority of the points, vowels and accents — wherein the chiefest objections of Elias, Capellus, and others, are either obviated, or briefly answered.
The Cause, Occasion and Method of the ensuing Discourse is declared in the Prooemium, or Introduction.
Amongst our abstracts of books that have a more particular relation to ecclesiastics, such as the various editions of the Bible, Jurieu’s System of the Church, and so on, we have thought fit to insert this our own following collection; which perhaps may more particularly treat of the parts of the Masora, than any piece yet extant. It will be of great use to all scholars that are designed for the study of the origin tongues; and will help to make good our title-page: The Young Students Library. We have herein endeavored to remove some prejudices, and reconcile the differences of the learned on this great and weighty subject; which is of no less consequence than the receiving or rejecting the Bible itself. We must not enlarge in prefacing to any work, where the works themselves are to be abstracts, but refer you to the subject itself.
Advice to the Young Students of Divinity
Recommending the Study of the Scriptures in their origin Languages; together with the Writings and Commentaries of the Rabbis thereupon; with Directions for the Knowledge thereof.
Men and Brethren,
Your work is the greatest, as St. Paul says: “Who is sufficient for these things?” Consider what knowledge the work you must account for at the last tribunal, doth most require, and attend it, hoc age: You are to have the care of souls, and to your trust are committed the oracles of God. Your great concern therefore is, to know the mind of God, as it is revealed in his Word, that you may teach it to others, and defend it against all opposers. This is all you are entrusted with, and shall be judged by, to wit, the Bible. This word or mind of God is contained perfectly in the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament only. Translations are no further God’s Word, than they do express the sense thereof; which in all places they cannot perfectly do, without more words than are allowed to be in a translation. These sacred origins are the standard and rule of our life, worship and doctrine; and the fate of all translations depends on their preservation. If therefore the teachers need not know, nor be able to defend the origin, none else need: then the translation of it would be needless, and so the Scripture itself, and thereby all religion and ministry to boot; if any of these things are needful, they are all so, for they stand or fall together.
Now that we may know the mind of God in his Word, we must first know what the words themselves do signify, and properly and literally mean: This we cannot do in many places, without the help of the rabbis, or of those who have been taught by them, which is much the same, and that on several accounts; which renders their work needful, as Leusden in Philologus Hebraeo-Mixtus (pag. 115, etc). and others do manifest, as:
(1) Because many words, as to the grammar and sense of them, could not be known without the help of those masters of the Hebrew tongue; as עֱר֖וּךְ, Joel 2.5. בְּעַ֧ד Joel 2:9, etc.
(2) There are many words but once used in Scripture, especially in such a sense, and are called the hapax legomena, or ein lo chober bemikra, which we cannot know the meaning of without their help; and herein they are singular, though they lament the loss they have been put to about them; see Kimchi in his preface on Miklol. Also Kimchi in his preface on Sepher Sherashim, tells a story, how they knew not the meaning of that word a besom, in the prophet’s sweeping with the besom of destruction, until in Arabia, a rabbi heard a woman say to her daughter: Take the besom, and sweep the house. So Joel 2:8 הַשֶּׁ֛לַח, a sword. To conclude, There are very many such words but once used; which, as they cannot be known by the Bible alone, so neither can the sense of the place be known wherein they are, until they are first known; and this is in many places.
(3) Many phrases, and various ways of speech, are very dubious in the Old and New Testament, which are well illustrated and explained by the rabbis, as Joel 1:20, Jonah 1:5, Judges 12:7, Genesis 2:2, etc. And in the New Testament, Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:19 & 11:11 & 10:25, John 3.5.
(4) Many rites and ceremonies, ordinances and customs but slightly mentioned in the Scripture, are fully explained by the rabbis; as circumcision (Genesis 17 & 1 Corinthians 7:18) becoming uncircumcised again; so Anathema Maranatha, (1 Corinthians 16:22); so the frontlets (Deuteronomy 6:8), phylacteries (Numbers 15:38, Matthew 23:5), their zizith: fringes; so the Passover and Lord’s Supper (Matthew 27:34), korban (Matthew 15:5), 39 stripes (2 Corinthians 11:24); so for the manner of their sacrifices, which typify the grace of the gospel, and the like.
(5) To be able to answer and convince the Jews, requires good skill in their writings, and thereby great advantage may be made of their own concessions; as the apostle doth frequently practice in his epistle to the Hebrews, where he often argues from their concessions. And they had need know the Jews’ principles, who would expound that epistle.
(6) Many difficult and very obscure places of Scripture, whose explication is sought for in vain among other commentaries, are clearly explained by the rabbis, as Numbers 3:39 compared with ver. 22, 28, 34, 43, 46, 49. see Pref. Cartwright, and Menasseh in Concil. Quaest. 3. on Numbers. And indeed the books of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, and so on, are in many places so elliptic that render them inaccessible to any that are not well acquainted with the language. And in explaining these difficulties, the rabbis are most excellent, having spent all their time therein, as for instance in Numbers 24:17, it is said, “The star that shall arise out of Jacob, shall destroy all the children of Sheth.” Now Noah was of Sheth’s posterity, and thereby all the world since the flood are Sheth’s children. But it is hard to think, Jesus Christ will destroy all mankind, good and bad. Abarbinel in Mashmiah Yeshuah (fol. 7) says the word is unwall, not destroy; and says the sense is, that the governments of the nations shall be unhinged, that the Lord’s rule over all nations may be established.
So in Deuteronomy 32:36, the Lord says he’ll help his people when he sees that their power is gone, and there is none shut up or left. Now what is meant by none shut up or left, Abarbinel (ibid. fol. 6 & 7) shows, where he says, that the word shut up, ought to be read ruler; and the word left, is to be read helper; and proves the sense of the word is, That when God sees his people are brought so low, that they have no ruler to head them, and no helper to defend them, then God himself will arise for their help.
So Matthew 27:9: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet about the thirty pieces of silver,” which was not spoken by Jeremiah, but Zechariah (11:12). The Talmudists divide the Bible into three parts; namely: (1) the law, (2) the prophets, (3) the ketuvim, or hagiography (see Masoret Hammasoret, pag. lat. 40). The first of the latter prophets, the Talmud makes to be Jeremiah; and the Masoretes, Isaiah, and when they allege a thing out of any of the prophets in that volume, as the twelve minor prophets, they say, So says Jeremiah; though not Jeremiah, but Zachariah says it. For so the Masoretes, who put Isaiah first, say such a place is in Isaiah, which is not in Isaiah, but in some other of the prophets that are in that volume, which begins with Isaiah: As for instance, The seventh Keri u lo Ketib, baim, is twice said to be in Isaiah; which it is not, but in Jeremiah 31:38. See the Masora on the first word of Deuteronomy, and on Lamentations 3:13.
So Luke 24.44: “All that is written in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms.” And why the Psalms only, and no more of the hagiography? Because, as Elias observes, some place the Psalms first in the hagiography, and so the whole volume is intended thereby, see Otho Lexicon Rabbinico-Philologicum, p. 261, Lightfoot, Kimchi’s preface on Jeremiah.
So Psalm 118.27: “Bind the sacrifice with cords unto the horns of the altar:” as Kimchi says, it is, “Bring the lamb that is bound with cords, the blood whereof is sprinkled on the horns of the altar:” but never is sacrifice bound with cords to the horns of the altar. So in Romans 9:3, the apostle’s wishing himself cursed from Christ for the Iews, is supposed only to be the common expression of affection used by the Jews to persons departed: Anu Cipperoti kai: “Would we were an atonement for thee” (Masecat Sanhedrim 2.1). So to bind or to loose, is no more than to forbid or permit. The kingdom of heaven, the days of the Messiah, to walk with Christ in white, alludes to their searching the persons of the priests: If they were perfect, and approved for the priesthood, they were sent forth apparelled in white; if not, they came forth in black, see the last chapter of Masecat Middoth. So, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments;” alluding to the rulers of the temple, who went the round at night; and if they found a priest asleep on the watch, they beat him, and burnt his garments: see Middoth (chapter 11), also the good eye and the evil eye; alluding to those that gave bountifully or niggardly in their offerings. So Isaiah 12:3 to the Feast of Booths, Psalm 116:13 to the Passover; and the like.
(7) Hence, seventhly, the commentaries of the rabbis have been a great help to all that translate or expound the text: As Munster says in his preface on the Bible that: “No-one can well explain the Scripture, without the commentaries of the rabbis.” And Jerome says that he therefore hired a Jew to help him in the difficult places, (which he durst not attempt without). And the best commentaries amongst Christians, are those who have plowed with the rabbis’ heifer. What were the critics on the Bible, but men best skilled in the rabbis? As Munster, Mercer, Fagius, and the rest.
(8) Many parts of the history of the New Testament are well explained by the rabbinical writings; as 2 Timothy 3:8: Jannes and Jambres, mentioned by Jonathan’s paraphrase on Exodus 7:11 and the like.
(9) Many Proverbial Speeches are best explained by them, even of the New-Testament; as Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Matthew 10:25 & 7:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, etc.
(10) Many names of places, sects, moneys, weights, measures, even in the New Testament, are best explained from their writings. They have indeed many traditions very foolish, but still they know their language best, and their own affairs.
(11) The law of Moses – moral, judicial, and ceremonial – is fully explained by them only, as to many laws.
(12) To conclude: As they are helpful to explain the text; so is the knowledge of the rabbis very needful to defend and maintain the purity, perspicuity, and divine authority of the text itself, as to the true copy, the character, the points, vowels, and accents, and the like. Without some knowledge of the rabbis, persons will find themselves very unable to judge of the arguments themselves that are used on such subjects. Nay, they’ll be little the better for the very places of Scripture we most frequently allege, because they most commonly respect the Masoretic Bible, which we have not room to explain to those who know nothing of these things. If therefore such subjects are fit for divines to understand, then must the knowledge of the rabbinical writings be so likewise.
It is peculiarly incumbent on the ministry by their office, to defend the doctrines they teach, by the Scriptures: but if they are unable to defend the Scriptures, the only evidence and proof of their doctrines, the Christian religion, with the doctrines thereof, must fall to the ground. And yet this position – that the present Hebrew Bible, and Greek Testament, in the words, letters, points, vowels and accents we now enjoy, is the same uncorrupted Word of God which was delivered of old by the holy penmen of it to the church – this, we say, cannot well be defended against all opposers, without the rabbinical knowledge we speak of.
And so much for the need of this knowledge. We shall only give some directions about this study.
(1) First, he must well understand the Hebrew Bible, in the first place, who would know the rabbis, before he look after them. And for this, if he has no Latin, he must get William Robertson’s First and Second Gate to the Holy Tongue; his Key to the Bible: Jessey’s English-Greek Lexicon, etc. But we suppose most have the Latin tongue, and such have grammars and lexicons enough, as Buxtorf’s Epitome; his Thesaurus; his Lexicon, and many other authors, especially Bythner’s Lyra Prophetica in Psalmos: Leusden’s Compendium Biblicum, Arius Montanus’ Interlinear Bible, etc. Let him read the Hebrew Bible much.
And then for the rabbis, take this brief account and direction. The ancient Chaldee paraphrasts are most of them translated, and thereby easy to learn; the ancient Kabbalistic writings, as the Zohar, Bahir, etc. are both most difficult, and least useful. Their oral law, or traditions, were collected, after the destruction of the temple, A.D. 150. by Rabbi Judah the Holy, as they call him. This they prefer before the Scripture, and suppose it was orally delivered by Moses to Israel, and unlawful to be written; but when Jerusalem was destroyed, they were constrained to write it, lest it should be lost; but yet it was so written, as that none but themselves might understand it. This book is called Mishnahioth, comprising all their religion with the Bible: it is divided into two parts; each part, into three seders, or books; each seder, into many masecats or tracts: each masecat into chapters and verses.
A brief account of the contents of the Mishnah, and all the parts of it, is given by Martinus Raimundus, in his Prooemium to his Pugio Fidei, a very learned and useful book; which also gives an Account of the Tosaphot, the Gemara, and the commentaries thereon; which compleat the Talmuds, both that of Jerusalem, A.D. 230. and that of Babylon, 500 years after Christ; which Gemara is but a commentary and disputation on the Mishnah, which is the text of the Talmud. There are several masecats or tracts of the Mishnah, translated, as the nine first masecats, namely: Berakoth, etc. So also Masecat Middoth, by Le Empereur, Sanhedrin and Maccoth; by Cock, Megillath; by Otho, Codex, Yoma, and others: But as the very learned Ludovicus de Campeigne du Veil observes: “He that would know the Mishnah, must learn Maimonides.” This Moses Maimonides, physician to the king of Egypt, about 500 years ago, wrote his Iad Chaseka or Mishneh Torah; wherein he has comprized the Substance of the Mishnah and Talmud, in a pure, pleasant, plain and easie style, if compared with the Mishnah and Talmud; and yet he that has read him, may with ease and pleasure understand all the Mishnah. And then for the Talmud, There is Clavis Talmudica, Cock’s Excerpta, etc.
This Maimonides, of whom the Jews say: “From Moses the Lawgiver to Moses Maimonides, there was never another Moses like this Moses.” Several of his tracts are translated also, as Yesudee Hatorah, the first masecat of all: and Deoth, Aboda Zara, the (1st) entitled De Fundamentis Legis, (2) Canones Ethicae, (3) Idololatria, (4) De Iure Pauperis, (5) De Poenitentia, etc. But most are translated by the excellent Ludovicus De Campeigne Du Veil; as, De Sacrificiis, one of the fourteen books which he has divided this work into; and De Cultu Divino, another of the fourteen books, comprising several tracts. Also his tracts about unleavened bread, about the Passover, about a fast, etc. As to other rabbis, several are translated, as Cosri, etc. and that on various Subjects; as logic by Rabbi Simeon, physic by Aben Tibbon, with Maimonides’ Epistle against Judiciary Astrology. So of arithmetic and Intercalating the month, by Munster, and that of Maimonides, by Duveil; with many other books, as Ietsirah, Bachinath, Olam, etc. And of history, as Seder Olam, Zutha and Seder Olam, Rabba, Tsemach, David, etc.
And as to rabbinical commentaries, the best and chief are Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, or Isaac; Rabbi Ibn Ezra; Rabbi David Kimchi; all these upon the Proverbs are translated by Antony Giggeius upon several minor Prophets, by Mercer; namely: on Hosea, Ioel, Amos, etc. on Joel and Jonah by Leusden (as also a masecat on the Mishnah, called Pirke Abbot). Kimchi on the Psalms is likewise translated. These rabbis lived about 500 years ago, and do excellently explain the text, where grammar and Jewish history are necessary.
But several of the above-mentioned books being scarce, we shall be ready to translate and print in two columns, the one Hebrew, the other English, either any masecat of the Mishnah, or any hilcoth or tract of Maimonides, or the Commentaries of the rabbis on any part of the Bible, if our bookseller receive encouragement; which with Buxtorf’s Great Lexicon Talmudicum, and his book De Abbreviaturis, would no doubt enable one that has read the Hebrew Bible, to understand the rabbis.
This is all the direction we have room to give here, and therefore conclude with our hearty wishes, That our young students may be mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24, 2 Timothy 3:15-16) and thereby they will, by the grace of God, become able divines; according to the old proverb: Bonus textuarius, bonus theologus.
The PROEM [PREFACE].
Containing the Cause, Occasion and Method of the ensuing Debate.
In this introduction we shall take notice of three things; wherein are contained the cause and occasion of the following discourse, with the method of proceeding therein:
(1) The weight and moment of the subject in controversy.
(2) The many circumstances that render its consideration at this time necessary and seasonable.
(3) The method and order of managing the same.
First, as to the weight and moment of the matter in controversy, it is small in quantity, about no more than a point or tittle; but great in quality, about no less a cause than the keeping or rejecting of the Bible. For:
(1) The Old Testament being originally written by the holy penmen of it in the Hebrew tongue, in and by the same God has made and preserved the whole revelation of his will, from the beginning, unto the coming of Jesus Christ; and it has been received as the only foundation, rule and standard of all translations, by Jews and Christians.
(2) The Hebrew Bible is so received, and does so reveal the mind of God according as it is at present pointed; for without points, it is either mute, and speaks nothing, or else speaks whatever men please to have it say, or is most dubious, having differing and contrary senses. Hence the Jews say of it that: “The points are to the letters as the soul is to the body (the one without the other has neither life nor motion), and as garments to a person, without which none can come forth in public.” And so are vowels to consonants; with them they may sound and signify; without them they cannot. And as they say, “He that reads without points, is like one that rideth a horse without a bridle, and does not know where he is going.” And as Marcus Marinus Brixianus says, in his preface to Arca Noae: “There would be more confusion in this one book without points, than was at Babel.”
The oracles of Apollo were not more dubious, nor any Lesbian rule more crooked. It would be a mere nose of wax, whereby men may make quidlibet ex quolibet, what they please of any thing in it. For the vowel letters, היוא Ehevi, are omitted in innumerable places, where their presence is indispensably necessary, if there were no points; the like is no where found in any language or book besides.
And in many places where they are used, they are to signify quite contrary to what they import, as א for ו, etc. And yet the matter is most sublime, consisting of divine revelation; the style more elliptical, concise, and abstruse, in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, etc. and in many places, without any connexion of antecedents and consequents, as in Proverbs, etc, that there is left no means to understand the mind of God in it without points. On this account, the papists tell us that we must fly to the infallibility of their pope; and the atheistic profane sort say, that we may live as we list, there being no certain rule of faith at this day amongst us.
Now the opinion under debate leaves the Bible in this confused condition, by assigning the Invention of the points to such an origin as render them fitter to be blotted out of the Bible, than kept in it any longer, as being the work of the blind, hardened Jews of Tiberias in A.D. 500. For it is impossible that the whole pronunciation of the Bible could be preserved so long as a thousand years from Ezra, until A.D. 500 under that calamitous state of the Jews, whilst the tongue ceased to be vulgarly pronounced or known amongst them – the rabbis themselves (the only supposed preservers of it) lamenting they had so lost it in this time, that they found great difficulty to explain the hapax legomenon, or words that are but once used in Scripture; of which there are many, as Kimchi’s Preface to Miklol, and to Sepher.
Shereshim declares, the most being kept by the Mishnah; which was unlawful, in their opinion, to have been written, being their oral law of unwritten traditions, but only to prevent its being quite lost by the calamities of those times. How then was it possible to keep, from age to age, the true sound of all the points, vowels and accents of the Old Testament, without the shapes, when multitudes of them cannot be distinguished by their sound at all? And no memory of man is able so much as once to receive the very pauses or notes of distinction, nor yet the very anomalies of the punctuation; nor can the greatest rabbi, by all his skill and custom to read by points, be able to point an unpointed Bible truly, from end to end, without a copy before him.
[1] Therefore, to suppose that for a thousand years before they had the shapes of the points, they could infallibly and perfectly preserve all the pronunciation of it by oral tradition, or use and custom, is to build castles in the air. And therefore Dr. Broughton says of this opinion (p.169) that: “Elias Levita lies for the whetstone, when he says that the Jews of Tiberias and their ancestors, were so cunning, that from age to age, they remembered how Moses pronounced all the fourteen vowels; as though God would have a dull people to torment their souls with the memory of sounds.”
[2] But secondly, if that were possible, that the pronunciation might be so long preserved true, even until A.D. 500, what trust or belief is there to be had in these Masoretes, not only for their ability at this time, but especially for their fidelity, which at best could be but human? Nay, what evidence is there that these Masoretes of Tiberias, A.D. 500 were the inventors of the points, if they could be trusted? For no history says so of them; the Jews universally deny it of them, Elias only excepted. The work of the Masoretes, which is the Masora, proves the contrary.
The absurdity of this opinion is compendiously expressed by Dr. John Owen, in his Considerations on the Prolegomena to the Polyglot Bible (p.243): “Of all the fables that are in the Talmud, I know none more incredible than this story: that men who cannot by any story, or other record, be made to appear that they ever were, in rerum natura; men obscure, unobserved, not taken notice of by any learned man, Jew or Christian, should, in a time of deep ignorance, in the place where they lived, amongst a people wholly addicted to monstrous fables themselves, blinded under the curse of God, find out so great, so excellent a work, of such unspeakable usefulness, not once advising with the men of their own profession and religion, who then flourished in great abundance at Babylon, and the places adjacent; and impose it on all the world (that receive the Scriptures,) and have every tittle of their work received, without any opposition or question from any person or persons, of any principle whatever; yea, so as to have their invention made the constant rule of all following expositions, comments and interpretations: Credat Apella.”
And as Dr. Lightfoot says in his Centuria Chorograph (chapter 61 p.146) “If you can believe the points of the Bible to proceed from such a School, believe also all their Talmuds. The pointing of the Bible savors of the work of the Holy Spirit, not of wicked, blind, and madmen.”
To conclude: the unpointed Bible has not that plainness, perspicuity and agreement with it self, which is indispensably necessary to render it meet to be a rule of faith and worship; and the present punctuation would deservedly be rejected, if it had no better origin than to be the invention of some post-Talmudic rabbis. It is therefore of the greatest moment, to discover the improbability and absurdity of this novel opinion, which so directly tends to the overthrow of the divine authority of the Scriptures. And though some of the patrons of it do not themselves reject the Bible, yet they well know others of them do on this account: So that we must defend the divine origin of the points, as we desire to maintain the divine authority of the Bible. And so much for the weight and moment of the matter in controversy.
Secondly, as to the seasonableness of debating this controversy at this time, there are six circumstances that in conjunction attending it, do render it seasonable. The first is the place of it: that it is brought home to our own door. We do not concern ourselves with the controversies of foreign countries; but our own nation is the stage where this opinion of the novelty of the points has been more publicly espoused, than would have been suffered in any other Protestant state. And therefore, secondly, it does not creep in corners, as in other places; but has received the public approbation of the nation, so far as to be solemnly espoused in the English Polyglot Bible. Wherein, thirdly, we have not faint motions of it, but powerful and mighty efforts by the most learned among them. And this, fourthly, is attended with answerable success, the generality of the springing youth embracing it. And fifthly, yet not content with this victory, success, and credit in England, the patrons of it have of late put forth their greatest strength afresh for the promoting of their cause, in the vindiciae of Ludovicus Capellus, lately published in Answer to Buxtorf’s De Origine Punctorum.
And, sixthly, notwithstanding this opposition to the truth, by the great champion for the novelty of the points, and its suitable success, yet there has been no answer returned to this treatise as yet, that we hear of. And it is fit it should be answered, lest this vindiciae do as much mischief as the former treatise, entituled, Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, whereof this last is a defense, that being justly accountable for the success this opinion has had in England, as by a brief narrative of the rise, progress and issue of this controversy amongst us will appear. In short, it is this:
One Elias Lovita, a learned grammarian and Iew, about the beginning of the Reformation, fell upon this conceit: that certain Jews at Tiberias in A.D. 500 placed the points as they had received them by oral tradition. This he defends in his Masoret Hammasoret, Preface 3d. But herein he is contrary to all the Jews, either in his time, or before, or after him: And therefore he was answered by them, as in particular by Rabbi Sam. Archivolti, in his Arugath Habbosem (c. 26). And also by F. Azarias, in his Meor Enaim in Imre Birtah (cap. 59). And out of the rabbis, by Buxtorf the Elder, in his Thesaurus Grammaticus, printed in 1609, and in his Tiberias, 1620.
Thus amongst the Jews the errors ended where it began, even in Elias himself, none being left of his opinion amongst them. But it will not so end with Christians; several Reformers – whether moved by the authority of Elias the famous doctor and master of the Hebrew tongue of their time; or else, it may be – at first not well examining of it, embraced it. This advantage the papists lay hold on with both hands, for they find their accounts in it, and improve it accordingly.
Amongst Protestants, Ludovicus Capellus becomes the main and greatest champion for the novelty of the points, and ex professo defends the same in his treatise entituled Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, published by Erpenius, the Author for some Reasons concealing his own Name at the first. This book was fully answered, and the truth amply defended by Buxtorf the Younger, in his treatise entitled, De Punctorum Origine & Antiquitate, published in A.D. 1648. But at length, in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta, we have this opinion of Capellus, which did but slily creep before, publicly owned by Dr. Walton, the compiler of that Bible, and defended with Capellus’ arguments; whereby Capellus is deservedly answerable for the success of this opinion, by its station in the Polyglott Bible upon his shoulders.
Hereupon, Dr. John Owen writes some Considerations on the Prolegomena aforesaid; and by the way, answers the heads of arguments brought for the novelty of the points. But hereunto Dr. Walton returns a reply, entituled, The Considerator Considered, A.D. 1659. But in the Year 1661. Dr. John Owen in his treatise De Natura Theologiae, doth concisely defend his opinion of the divine origin of the points. The like does Mr. William Cooper defend the antiquity of the points, in his Domus Masaicae Clavis, 1673: And so does Wasmuth, in his Vindiciae S. Hebraeae Scripturae, 1664.
And thus stood the cause for some time, until now at last Ludovicus Capellus’ Vindiciae comes out, in answer to Buxtorf’s treatise, De Origine Punctorum; as also his former treatise, Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum is reprinted with it, together with other critical discourses, in a large folio, published in A.D. 1689. and dedicated to the then Archbishop of Canterbury, the rest of the bishops, and all the clergy of the Church of England: By which dedication is made as bold a challenge, and earnest invitation to the defense of the truth in controversy, as could well he made; and, together with the foregoing considerations, render it seasonable at this time, as the weight and moment of the subject do make the present defense thereof necessary.
Thirdly, as to the method of the ensuing discourse, we have divided the same into two parts.
In the first part, we examine the evidences for the opinion that the points were invented in A.D. 500 or since that time by the Masoretes of Tiberias or others, and discover the improbability thereof.
In the second part, we prove and maintain the antiquity and divine origin of the shapes of the points, vowels and accents, against the cavils and objections of Capellus, and others.
But the first of the two is what we begin also, for several reasons:
(1) First, because we are in possession of the present punctuation, as being of divine origin, and have peaceably enjoyed it in all ages to this time, all translations amongst us being taken out of it: it is our inheritance, and therefore unfit to call the antiquity of the points into question, until we first see sufficient evidence, or at least great probability that they were a novel invention, which if of so late date, may be more easily proved than what was 1,000 years before that time: And the rejecting or answering of the arguments for their novel invention, is a proof of their antiquity, and divine origin; for the points were placed either since A.D. 500, or between the time of Ezra, and A.D. 500, or else by the time of Ezra. But we shall here prove in the first place, that they were not placed since A.D. 500, and there are none that pretend they were between the time of Ezra and A.D. 500. Therefore the points were placed by the time of Ezra, which is all we contend for.
(2) Secondly, the old foundation must be removed before a new structure can be erected. Many have been so prepossessed with so high a conceit of the novelty of the points, that it would be bootless to prove their antiquity, until the improbability of their late invention be discovered: for they admire that any learned or judicious person should believe their antiquity (although all the Protestant states and churches in the world (except what has been lately suffered in England) do religiously maintain it.
Scaliger says that: “Nothing can be more foolishly spoken, that to say the points were coeval with the letters” (Ep. 243). Grotius, on Matthew 5:18 affirms that: “It is nothing but pertinacious obstinacy in any, to deny that the Scriptures [tended] to be written without points after Ezra’s time.” And Schickard, in his Iure Reg. Heb (2.41) asserts that he greatly wonders that any can seriously believe the antiquity of the points. See Considerator Considered, pag. 234, 235. So that until the absurdity of their beloved opinion be manifested, it is in vain to prove the other whilst they disdain to consider it.
(3) Our antagonists spend their greatest strength in opposing our opinion, to render it but Improbable; and it is but quit with them, to shew the improbability of theirs; and more fair, seeing it is easier for them to prove a fact done but 1,000 years ago, than for us to prove what was done at 2,000 years’ distance from the present time.
(4) This discourse being principally designed to answer Capellus, Dr. Walton, etc. who take this method, first defending their own opinion, and then replying unto the arguments for ours, it is convenient to follow them herein, and keep their order so far.
And for these reasons, we observe the method here propounded, and begin with the first general head, which is: the discovery of the improbability of the opinion that the shapes of the points, vowels and accents of the Hebrew Bible, were first invented and placed to the text in A.D. 500 or since that time, either by the Masoretes of Tiberias, or others; and for the reasons aforesaid, we shall largely insist hereon, according to the best of our poor ability, and that small reading which frequent avocations [diversions] from study on necessary occasions would permit.
