A Discourse Concerning The Antiquity And Origin Of The Points, Vowels And Accents That Are Placed To The Hebrew Bible (Part 2)

In this installment of Dunton’s discourse on the Hebrew pointing, he frames the question, and introduces evidence from 12th century rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra attesting to the antiquity of the pointings and the role of Ezra in penning them - evidence which was distorted by opponents of the points such as Ludovicus Capellus and Brian Walton, according to Dunton.

This is part 2 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.  

Chapter 1

The question stated. The four different opinions about the first period of time whereunto the invention of the points is assigned, are enumerated. The three several opinions of those who suppose the points were a novel invention, related: the two last examined.

The question under consideration is concerning the time when the shapes of the points, vowels, and accents were first invented and placed in the Hebrew Bible.

There are two periods of time particularly fixed unto the one or the other, of which all parties do in some respect ascribe their original.

The one is, the time of Ezra; the other is, A.D. 500. The one makes them of divine the other of human origin and authority.

So that the question is: whether the shapes or figures of the points, vowels and accents which are joined to the text of the Hebrew Bible, were invented and placed to the text as early as the time of Ezra, or else not until the Talmuds were finished, A.D. 500?

(1) Those that place them to the first period, namely: that say they were as ancient as the time of Ezra, are all the Jews, one (only Elias) excepted, though they differ as to the positive precise time of their first invention, as Rabbi Samuel Arkuvolti reckons them up. For: [1] Some say they are coevous with the letters. [2] Others, that they were given to Moses on Sinai with the oral law, and kept by tradition until Ezra’s time. [3] Others say that they were placed to the law, and the rest of the Scriptures, as they were first written. [4] But all the rest, except Elias only, say that Ezra, and the great Sanhedrin of his time, first invented and placed them in the text. So that in this they all agree: that by the time of Ezra, at the latest, they were invented and placed to the Scripture; and thereby they own their divine origin and authority, as do the generality of Christians likewise.

(2) Those that place their origin to the second period, affirm that they were not invented before A.D. 500. Though they also differ as to the precise time of their first invention: about which they hold three different opinions:

[1] That they were begun and ended, simul & semel in A.D. 500. As Elias says was his opinion, in Tob Taam Lettar Page Tsade (chapter 2): “I think that those who found out the points, found out also the accents, and placed both of them to the letters at one time.” Which in his Masoret Hammasoret (preface 2), he declares was about the year 500. The evidences which he brings for his opinion, and the testimony he produces out of Ibn Ezra, Cosri, Kimchi, and Tsak Sephataim, shall be at large examined in the following chapters, and the improbability and absurdity of his opinion fully discovered afterwards in its proper place. A brief relation of the two other opinions, and examination of them (by the way), is the work of this chapter, and they are these:

[2] The second different opinion about their novel invention, is that of Ludovicus Capellus, who supposes that they were begun in A.D. 500, and ended A.D. 1030 by Ben Asher, and Ben Naphthali (Arcanum punctuationis Revelatum, cap. 17). But for this opinion he brings no testimony nor reason, as Buxtorf observes (Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuum p.267): “Hanc vero cum in libris & authoribus nullis reperiret suopte marte, & ingenio eam hoc pacto nobis procudit.” And all that Capellus pretends to allege is only what Elias Levita mentions out of Maimonides on another account, about Ben Asher’s copy, the Jews leaning upon it, because he spent many years in correcting of it: the words of Maimonides are these: “And the book that we lean upon in these things, is a book that is known in Egypt, comprising the 24 books of Scripture, which was in Jerusalem many years ago, to correct books by it; and all lean upon it, because Ben Asher corrected it, who was exact therein many years, and corrected it many times as he transcribed it; and and on him I lean in the book of the law, which I have written after his manner.”

This Elias repeats, and adds: “And so we lean upon his reading in all these countries; and the men of the east lean on the reading of Ben Naphthali; and the differences between them are only about little accents, as metheg and makkaph, and munach, and pashta, single and double: and the divisions about the points, are only about holem and kamets, katuph and kamets, gadol and pathak, and sheva, and kateph pathak; and so of dagesh, and raphah, and milhill, and milrah,” etc.

But does Elias suppose these in whole, or in part to be the authors of the punctuation? Nay, he says the quite contrary is evident in the words immediately before these of Maimonides: and thus says Elias: “But as to the divisions that are between Ben Asher and Ben Naphthali, being only about points and accents, there is no doubt but that they were written after the points and the accents were founded” – and this (says he) is easy to understand (Masoret Hamasoret, Preface ד), as indeed it is; for the differences being about the several parts of the punctuation, both points, vowels, and accents – all those parts must needs have been before in being, or they could not have been the matter of division or difference between them.

Objection: What made Ben Asher so long about it, if he only corrected it?

Solution: (1) The nature and weight of the thing, to make it a standard; by which, to try all copies of their only rule of faith, wherein it was needful to observe exactly, and compare faithfully, by the best copies, every letter, point and accent of the Scripture; and after that, to write it over, until that there neither wanted, nor yet abounded one letter, point or accent of all the Bible; was a work wherein many years might be taken up, without supposing him to be the author of any part of the punctuation, because he was long in exact correcting of it. So that here, as Elias leaves Capellus; so also the testimony does not help him at all, and others he has none.

(2) As Capellus leaves Elias about the sense of Maimonides; so they differ greatly in the method and order wherein they suppose the several parts of the punctuation were invented. Capellus conceits they were 500 years in compiling, after this manner: (1.) they distinguished the verses by two thick strokes, for soph pasuk; (2) next to that, they placed the five long vowels, a, e, i, o, u; (3) then the pauses, or great stops, by the accents; (4) then the lesser stops, etc. 

But he brings no testimony to prove it, and it is no more than his own single conjecture. Now Elias says they were all made at one time, A.D. 500. And that in another manner: for Elias says, that next unto the placing of the period, they placed the colon, or athnack and then the sakeph. And it was necessary (says Elias) that they should do all this before they placed the points, because that many of the points are changed, by reason of athnac and soph pasuk [end of a verse marked by the cantillation point:׃], such as אָ צֵ to אָרֶץ, etc.

And indeed, on this account, Capellus’ opinion is absurd; for the vowels could not be placed before athnack, and the other accents (which change the vowels one into another) were fixed.

And that the points cannot be 500 years in composing (namely: from A.D. 500 until A.D. 1040, as Capellus thinks they were) the nature of the Masoretic notes, and the time unavoidably to be allotted for the same, do evince.

For the Masoretes have made their notes on the anomalies of all the parts of the punctuation: so that the whole of the punctuation must needs have been finished long before their time; who yet must needs have been before the time of Ben Asher; because the grammarians succeeded him, and take no notice of any Masoretes of their time; which they could not have omitted, if there had been any such critics in grammar-learning among them, as the Masoretes were. And yet it is as absurd to suppose these Masoretes to be before Ben Asher, as it was to suppose them since his time. Because:

They would have then been contemporary with the authors of some part of the punctuation, and before the authors of the last part of the punctuation: which is most absurd, as shall be made to appear from the nature of the Masoretic notes, which do manifestly shew that the whole of the punctuation was long before those observations: for else we must suppose there were several sets of Masoretes that did successively arise after every set of authors of each part of the punctuation, as it was gradually invented and placed. But this we cannot imagine, because:

(1) The first set of Masoretes must then have been so near the authors of that part of the punctuation which was invented before their time, as to have been able to know the reasons of the anomalies; which if they had known, no doubt but they would have mentioned them, there being no way like it to restrain posterity from altering of them: which was the main end of all their observations, so to keep them even as they found them: and the same may be said of every set of Masoretes successively.

(2) Then the first set of Masoretes must have been authors of the punctuation itself, rather than bare annnotators upon it, being much more fit than after ages so to be: for if they durst only observe the anomalies of that part of the punctuation which was before them; how then durst any who came after their time become authors, who had no more, nor yet so much skill and ability for the same? For the succeeding authors must place the parts of the punctuation, of which they were the authors of the shapes thereof, according as they had received the knowledge of the force, sound or pronunciation thereof, from these Masoretes, who were their predecessors, who yet did not dare attempt any such things themselves.

(3) If the Masoretes were of such distant and differing ages, there would then be a proportionable difference in their style and dialect; and those who made notes on the first part of the punctuation, would have been known by their style, dialect, or authority, from those who made their notes on the last part of it. 

But there is no mark or means left whereby we can discern who were first, or who were last, by any difference of style, dialect or authority, in any one part of the Masoretic notes, from another part of it: so that these Masoretes could not be before the whole of the punctuation was finished, nor yet since Ben Asher’s time; and therefore the punctuation must needs have been finished before Ben Asher’s time, which holds good against the third opinion, which is, that they were begun and ended by Ben Asher. As also does what Elias has said before about it: and therefore no testimony being brought by any for this opinion, and few or none at this time contending for it, we need not enlarge upon it.

But seeing as Capellus would be accounted to be, for the main, of Elias’ opinion, though he differs from him in these particulars, as to the time taken up in composing the punctuation, and the like; yet seeing he pleads for his opinion with all Elias’ arguments, which Elias brings for his own opinion, and chides Buxtorf for stating his opinion, as if it were different from that of Elias, seeing he agrees with him, that they might be begun by the Masoretes, A.D. 500. Therefore we shall examine the arguments and objections of Capellus more at large, together with the opinion and arguments of Elias, which we shall begin to take in hand in the following chapter.

Chapter 2

The evidences for the novelty of the points considered, in the examination of the opinion of Elias Levita, and of the testimonies produced by him and his followers, Capellus and others, for the same; in general.

Whereas there is no testimony produced by any, for the proof of the time, place and persons, when, where, or by whom the points were invented or placed, A.D. 500. Or since that time, but only those expressions that Elias Levita has gathered out of Ibn Ezra, Cosri, Kimchi, Tsak Sephataim, etc, as he supposes, in favor of his opinion, that the points were invented, simul & semel, A.D. 500, and then placed by the Masoretes of Tiberias.

It will be convenient therefore to examine the evidences for the novelty of the points, under this opinion of Elias, seeing they were first brought by him for the proof of his own notion. 

But we must distinguish between the arguments which are brought, or objections made against the antiquity of the points; and the evidences for the ubi, quando et à quibus: when, where, and by whom precisely they were invented, for most of the strength of Capellus, and others, is placed in making objections against the antiquity of the points, which we intend to consider in the second part: and such are the objections: (1) of reading an unpointed copy of the law in the synagogue: (2) the Samaritan, and other eastern languages, being without points; (3) the Septuagint and other versions, not following the present punctuation; (4) the silence of Jerome and the fathers; (5) the silence of the Kabballistical writers; (6) the silence of the Talmuds, the Mishnah, and gemara, about the points; (7) the novelty of the names of them; (8) the redundancy, superfluity and anomalies of the punctuation, and the like, do only conclude a bare conjecture against their antiquity, but do not so much as touch the time, place and persons, when, where, and by whom positively the punctuation was invented and placed; which alone is our present enquiry. 

Nay, indeed, they tell us they do not insist much, when, where, and by whom the points were invented, whether A.D. 500, 600, 700, or 800, whether by the Masoretes, or others at Tiberias, or elsewhere, so it be granted the points be not of divine but human origin (see Considerator Considered, p. 219; Capellus Arcanum & Vindicia, in the preface); and yet do say that Elias has proved they were invented, A.D. 500 by the Masoretes of Tiberias (prol. 3. §42)

But we say we will not be so served; for before we quit the punctuation, we will know when, where, and by whom it was invented within this last thousand years, then we will yield it. But if they cannot prove this, we will abide by our own: for if it were invented so lately, they might be able to shew us when, where, and by whom it was invented, and placed to the text; for it is impossible the whole world of Jews and Christians should universally receive it, without taking notice when, where, and by whom it came. So that will they or nill they, we must examine what they can say to this point, when, where, and by whom the points were first invented, and placed to the text. Now if they were placed since A.D. 500, it must be done by the Jews; they would never have received it at the hands of Christians, had any been able to have done it.

This must then have been best known to the Jews; and none of them would have done more, to gather up the evidences hereof, than Elias, the first and last of this opinion among them. This he has done as well as he could, which we shall now examine, seeing his followers have added nothing to what he has produced in this matter: which amounts to no more than some dubious expressions of four rabbis about the punctuation, namely: Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Cosri, and Tsak Sephataim; and what they say in commendation of the skill of the Masoretes of Tiberias. Now we shall examine the quotations out of the four rabbis, about the punctuation, and we say in general:

(1) We deny that any one of these rabbis do speak one word for the novelty of the points: but if they did all four speak positively for it, what could be thence concluded more than this, that four Jews were of this opinion, contrary to the universal belief of all their own people.

(2) Our adversaries say the Jews are not fit to be heard, when they speak in the praise of their own nation; for they are partial to their own glory. But nothing could be said more to their own honor than this, that they were enabled by the Lord to perform so great, so useful and admirable a work as the present punctuation is; even then when the Christians said they were under the curse of God for crucifying Christ. 

The time of Ezra needed not the honor – it had as much besides as this was, there being several books of Scripture then written by men divinely inspired. But the poor ignorant Jews, A.D. 500 – despised of all the world, and rejected of God for their unbelief – lacked such an encomium. So that by their own argument, their testimony is to be rejected; because it is in their own cause, and for their own glory, of which they are too ambitious.

(3) But we deny that Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Cosri, and the author of Tsak Sephataim, do suppose the points to be a novel invention. For: 

[1] First, we shall produce plainer testimonies out of these very authors, wherein they plainly express themselves for the antiquity of the points.

[2] Secondly, we shall prove they have wrested those places they have collected; and that the genuine sense of the authors, in those very places they have alleged out of them, is very consonant unto, and does well agree with what the same authors say elsewhere for the antiquity of the points.

We shall begin, in the first place, with Ibn Ezra; who, by Elias and his followers, is esteemed instar omnium; none being, in their opinion, so fully of their mind in this matter.

Chapter 3

In the consideration of Ibn Ezra’s opinion, we shall, first, produce plain testimony out of him, for the antiquity of the points. And then, secondly, discover the frauds and violence which Elias and his followers have used to wrest his words; in the places they allege out of him.

First then, we shall produce what he says for the antiquity of the points; and to this purpose we shall translate a full testimony out of his book, entitled Mozenee Haleshon Hakkodesh, towards the beginning of it, as it is delivered by Buxtorf (Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuumine, p.13). The words are these, or to this effect, namely: 

“The words of the Lord are pure words, or sayings, preserved by the hands of holy men, one generation after another. For they were sanctified from the womb; they heard the holy words at the mouth of him who is most excellent in holiness; and they were interpreters between him (namely: the Lord) and between Jacob. The holy people and these were before the building of that holy house (namely: the temple) and when it stood upon its basis, or foundation; and after it, until the vision and prophecy was sealed up. But after a few years, about the time of the building of the holy house the second time, at that time the spirit of the Lord, the spirit of wisdom and understanding rested upon the men of that house that were called anashee keneset haggedolah: the men of the Great Synagogue, or Sanhedrin, to explain all that was sealed up in the command.

And the words that are translated by the mouth of the just men from the mouth of the former and latter prophets, (that is, delivered by oral tradition, from hand to hand) also they were rendering a reason (or restoring the accent meshebe taam, Proverbs 26:16), and taught their posterity, chephets colinian, the sense of every word or thing; al jad taamee hamikra, by the hand or means of the accents of the Scripture: and the kings and the ministers they taught their posterity; and the closed sections, and the open sections: and what continues, carries on the sense (in opposition to the pause), and the verses or pauses that stop the sense; and they were eyes to the blind; therefore we go in their steps, and follow after them, and lean upon them in all the expositions of Scripture. 

And after the captivity of our fathers from the holy city, the Lord stirred up the spirit of his saints; and the chief of them was our holy rabbi (namely: Judah) to compose what was noted in loose writings of the commands of our God, and that is the Mishnah; whereunto nothing may be added, nor may any thing be taken away from it. Also after them, came other holy princes, and pious heroes, and they are the men of the Talmud (namely: the Gemarists) and they went on in their paths (namely: of the masters of the Mishnah,) and they took up the stones out of the high-ways of the testimony, and they removed every stumbling-stone out of the paths of the Lord. And after this, stood up in Israel, according to the good hand of our God upon us, two great rows, or orders, (Nehemiah 12:31) the one keeping the walls of the sanctuary of strength (Daniel 11:31, founded by the hand of our God) that no stranger may be able to destroy it. Now this sanctuary, is the holy books of Scripture; and the men of this row or order, are the men of the Masora, or the Masoretes, who separated all the mixed multitude from the holy people (alluding to Nehemiah 13:3, and meaning what is human from what is divine, in correcting the copy) and they numbered the men of the sanctuary, from two or eleven, to the end that no stranger might draw near to the gates of righteousness. Blessed be the Lord our God, who has put such a thing as this in the heart of the rest of the kingdom of his priests, to beautify his house, which is a house of wisdom; as Solomon says, Wisdom has built her house. And the second row, that goes over against it, and I go after it (Nehemiah 12:38). Are those that are expert in war, alluding unto Song of Solomon 3.8. In the law, or about the law; and they are the grammarians.” 

Thus far Ibn Ezra.

“In this place,” says Buxtorf, “Ibn Ezra does elegantly and discreetly expound in what manner, and by whom the holy word of God was preserved from the beginning, quite down to the time of the grammarians; and what was done in every age about the preservation thereof, and by whom it was done.”

For, first, he says, the true and genuine sense of the word of God was preserved (without points) by holy men, such as Moses, and the prophets, unto the time of the second temple, and the time wherein vision and prophecy were sealed up.

Secondly, after the building of the second house, about the ending of prophecy, or the prophetic gift and ministry, God raised up other holy men, to wit, the men of the Great Synagogue (that is to say, Ezra with his council), who preserved the word of God, which was brought to them by oral tradition. This holy Scripture they did by other means than tradition, with great care and study deliver down to posterity: but how they did this, and what in particular it was that the men of the Great Synagogue did about the preservation of the Scripture; this he does teach particularly, and by parts.

For, first, he says, that this was done, al jad taamee hamikra, by the means of the accents of the Scripture.

Secondly, by the kings and ministers, that is the vowels. The kings he calls afterwards seven, namely: holem, shurek, chirek, pathak, segol, kamets, tsere: and the ministers:  sheva, mute, mobile, and compound. And he does not mean the accents which the grammarians divided into kings and ministers. (see Balmes, chapter 3, of the points, more of this).

Thirdly, by the doctrine concerning the sections that are close, open, or continued; hasetumim, vpetuchim, vdebikim.

Fourthly, by hapesukim, the verses, or the distinction of the Scripture into verses; by these helps he says they are like eyes to the blind, and in their steps we go, in reading and expounding the Scripture at this time: he says, we everywhere lean on their exposition of the Scripture, and therefore not of the Tiberian Masoretes.

Thirdly, in the third place, after the men of the Great Synagogue, he proceeds to the masters of the Mishnah, and to them he chiefly ascribes the true explication of the precepts of God.

Fourthly, he makes the Talmudists, or Gemarists, succeed the masters of the Mishnah; and to these he ascribes the illustration and explication of the doctrine of the Mishnah, and their disputations.

Fifthly, he says, by the good hand of God to Israel, he raised up two other orders of men, laboring profitably for the preservation of the Scripture. The first order he ascribes to the Masoretes; but unto these he ascribes no invention, either of the points, or of the accents, or of the distinctions. But he principally commends these, for two things.

First, that they did separate everything that was strange (that is, foreign or human) from the books of Scripture, if any thing had by hap crept into it.

Secondly, that they numbered the words and letters of the books of Scripture, that so there might be no way left whereby the text could be corrupted in time to come. And agreeing to this, is what he writes of the Masoretes, in his book entitled Yesudei Morah: “Truly there is a reward to the works of the Masoretes, who are like those who keep the walls of a city: for by reason of them, the law of the Lord, and the holy books of Scripture, do stand in their form, without any addition, or diminution.” 

This is the sum and substance of Ibn Ezra’s words: from whence it appears (says Buxtorf) as clear as the noonday:

First, that he did not make the Tiberian Masoretes, but the men of the Great Synagogue (the head of whom was Ezra) to be the authors of the invention of all the points, accents and distinctions: for he reckons up the Tiberian Masoretes long after the authors of the points, accents and distinctions. Nor is there left any room for that exception, that he speaks only of the power and force of the points and accents: for his words are too manifest, and the order of his speech will not allow this; for he shews what was done in every age, for the preservation of the Scripture: but if he had spoken here of the oral explication of the Scripture only, what then did the men of the Great Synagogue do, other than those before them? Did not they do this, and for this were commended by him? And if he thought the Masoretes invented them first, why did he not expressly ascribe it to them, when he made mention of them? 

In vain therefore does Capellus, in his Vindiciae, make the objection that the sound, and not the shapes, were meant by him of Ezra, when he knew Buxtorf had already answered it. 

Moreover, Capellus says, Ibn Ezra is as much for him elsewhere, and so no witness against him.

Response: This we deny; but if he were, he is for us here, and therefore can be no witness against us; we can spare him, having all besides him for us, better than they can, who have not another for them.

Secondly, he says, why did not Ezra as well write the oral law, as point the text?

Reply: because the Scripture is the only rule of faith, and so esteemed by them; but the oral law was but human tradition, of no account then. However it was afterwards admired; and it then became needful to point the text so that it might be plain, seeing they had in part forgotten their tongue in captivity, and was never since restored to be vulgar.

Capellus asks, why might not Ezra deliver the sounds of the points to Israel, as well as the oral law, by tradition?

Response: We deny the oral law was delivered by Ezra to Israel; but if it were, as the Jews imagine, yet was there not that need to write one as the other: they could keep their oral traditions, notwithstanding any alteration of their language; but so could they not preserve the true punctuation of the language, when it ceased to be vulgarly spoken or understood. But when through their many dispersions they were in danger of losing their traditions, then they wrote them; as Rabbi Samuel Arcuvolti declares in Arugath Habosem, who says also, it was necessary that the points were placed in Ezra’s time, though it had been unlawful before; because the sound could not be preserved longer than that time without them.

Capellus (Vindiciae 1.1 §11) objects: Was not Ezra enough, with a prophetic spirit; what need of the Sanhedrin?

Response: (1) The Sanhedrin was instituted. (2) Others were prophets, as Haggai, etc. And why must they be excluded? (3) This is the general opinion of Jews and Christians, that Ezra, and the prophets did act in conjunction with the great Sanhedrin, in the reformation of the church, as they were commanded. But of this more elsewhere may be spoken.

Capellus (Vindiciae 1.1 §9) says: “What Ibn Ezra says of Ezra, is no more than is due to any skilful grammarian.”

Response: Not so, for:

(1) First, as Cosri says, it is a work divine, and requires divine aid, to give the true sense of Scripture infallibly and truly.

(2) That might be done by Ezra, by human ability, whilst the language and the text was rightly read and pronounced, that could not be done, after the tongue ceased to be vulgarly understood, without divine aid: and therefore, though it were no more than human skill, yet none since Ezra could be supposed to have that, and therefore it might well enough belong to him on that account.

So that here is an express testimony of Ibn Ezra for the antiquity of the points, notwithstanding all the exceptions made by Capellus against it.

Chapter 4

The several places of Ibn Ezra wrested by Elias and his followers, considered: their genuine sense declared.

We are now to discover the fraud and violence used by Elias and his followers, to wrest the places of Ibn Ezra, in the places they allege out of him, in favor of their opinion; and to shew, that what he says in those places, does well enough agree with what he has elsewhere said for the antiquity of the points.

The first place we shall take notice of, is in his book, entitled Tsakooth alleged by Elias, and after him by Capellus: wherein Ibn Ezra says: “There are many interpreters, who charge the author of the distinction of the text into verses with error therein, but they do not speak what is right, and Rabbi Moses the priest is one of them,” etc. “But I admire at this greatly, how the author of the stops or verses should err, ve aph ki im hu Ezra hasopher: seeing as he was Ezra the scribe.” The novelists read it: and if he were Ezra the scribe. “This in general,” he says, “that there has arisen no man so wise as the author of the pauses since his time; for we see that throughout the whole Scripture he has made the stops no where but where they should be placed.” Thus far Ibn Ezra.

Here Elias owns that Hamaphsik, the author of the stops, is meant the punctator; but he wonders why he is called so in the singular number, being elsewhere in this book mentioned in the plural. But this Buxtorf denies is any where mentioned in the plural in this book, though the matter is small, whether the one, or the other; for the singular might mean Ezra, as the head of the Sanhedrin; and the plural might mean Ezra, in conjunction with the Sanhedrin.

Elias infers from this place that Ibn Ezra did not believe the points were given by Moses on Sinai.

Response: We grant it: for we say it was his opinion that Ezra placed them: and that opinion does well agree with this place.

Capellus objects, it is too mean a commendation of the author of the points, to suppose he meant Ezra, when he says, there has been none so wise since him, and that it was done perfectly right.

Response: it is praise enough for Ezra or Moses either, to say, that none has arisen like him: and, that the punctuation is exactly according to the mind of God, and in all the parts of it true and right. And as to others, who charge the punctator with error, he reproves them for the same, seeing (as he says) that Ezra the scribe made it.

Capellus infers hence, that some, as this Rabbi Moses, etc, had no such esteem for the points, and did not think they were made by Ezra.

Response: First, but Ibn Ezra is not of that mind, which is the thing that is to be proven, for he reproves it in them, and they lack witnesses who seek after those who are convicted of error therein. But they might charge the punctator with error, and yet allow Ezra to be the author of it, by supposing, as Capellus himself does, that there might be crept into the text some mistakes, through the length of time, and humane frailty of the scribes, who wrote the Bible from the copies that were before them: and it is more likely, that both Ibn Ezra, and these persons, owned Ezra to be the author of the points, because he makes that an argument, seeing Ezra made it, or if Ezra made it; either way shew it was a received principle among them, and therefore goes not to prove it, but improves it, and infers from it, as a thing acknowledged, especially by those he reproves.

Secondly, that Ibn Ezra does call the punctator hamaphsik, and means Ezra thereby, appears by what he says elsewhere, as on Esther 9:27, on the words keketabam, according to their writing: “The sense is that the volume of Esther should be read even just as it was written, without points; and that because Ezra the scribe, hiphsick hapesukim, distinguished the verses, which was not done until many years after the writing of this volume: therefore, our wise man, of happy memory, commanded, that he that reads this volume of Esther, should not stop at the end of a verse.”

Hence Buxtorf observes: “He saw the volume of Esther unpointed. Now in this place, he expressly names Ezra the hammappesik, or pauser, or punctator: and in other places it is manifest, that the hammappesik, or maker of the verses, was also the maker of the points, vowels and accents: which Elias himself allows, saying: vpeerush hammappesik mi shesam happesikat hattaamim: and the meaning of hammappesick, the pauser, the punctator, is he that places the pausing of the accents.”

Hence Dr. Walton and Capellus are mistaken, who suppose that by hammappesik, no more is intended than he that placed the two thick strokes, or divided the text into verses; which they allow to be much more ancient than the points, vowels and accents: for, as Buxtorf observes: 

“Ibn Ezra, in Tsakooth, does often use the verb hiphsik, not only to distinguish the verses by two points or strokes, but also to distinguish verses by distinguishing accents and pauses: as he says in Tsakooth: “Before the words last alleged, behold we see that he (namely: hammappesik the punctator) has put the accent in the word sham (Genesis 21:33).” 

This joins that with the word shem that follows; but in Exodus 34:5, there hiphsiko he makes a stop (that is, makes an athnak) which distinguishes it from the following words. So that hammappesick the accentator, or punctator, is the same with baal hattaamim: the author of the accents or punctuation. For so Ibn Ezra – in his commentary on this very place Exodus 34:5 – calls him there baal hattaamim, the author of the accents; who is here called hammappesik, the punctator.”

Capellus (Vindiciae 1.1 §5) would suppose hammaphsik to be he that placed the sounds and force, but not the shape.

Response: But firstly, Elias plainly affirms that it is he that placed the shapes: and so does Capellus himself allow the same elsewhere, namely: in his Arcanum (1.2 §5). He says there that: “None may think because it is said maphsick in the singular number, the punctator; therefore it was Ezra, and not the Masoretes, that pointed the text,” says he, “Ibn Ezra does elsewhere call them maphsikim, the punctators, in the plural, in his book Mozenaim.”

So that here he allows maphsik to be the placer of the shapes, where he can but bring it to the Masoretes of Tiberias.

Capellus objects: “It is not said, which was not done until many years after the writing of Esther; but, which was done not many years after the writing of Esther.”

Response: First, it matters not which way it be read, as to the point in debate; it is brought to prove that Ezra was the maphsik, the punctator; which it proves plainly whether way it be read, long after, or not long after; Ezra pointed it after both senses allow.

Capellus would fain suppose the sound might be kept by tradition, or custom, to the time of the Masoretes. But this we have elsewhere showed cannot be.

Secondly, the rest of the places alleged by Elias and his followers, out of Ibn Ezra, for the novelty of the points, are principally two that commend the skill and fidelity of the Masoretes of Tiberias, about the punctuation. We shall therefore:

(1) First, consider the scope of the places themselves, to find thereby whether he esteemed the Masoretes to be the inventors, or reformers and correctors of the punctuation. And,

(2) Secondly, we shall consider what Ibn Ezra, and others say, in commendation of the Masoretes of Tiberias; wherein lies all the strength of the evidence that Elias or his followers do bring for the precise time, place and persons, when, where, and by whom it is supposed the points were first invented: and we shall here consider, whether what is spoken in commendation of them, do belong to them as inventors, or as restorers, or correctors of the punctuation.

Thirdly, we shall shew that Ibn Ezra does not ascribe the invention of the points to the Masoretes because he often differs from them, and opposes them; but always follows the punctuation, and enjoins all others so to do.

First then, we are to consider the places themselves, and the scope, and true meaning of them.

The first is this, taken out of Ibn Ezra’s book, Tsakooth (p.138 col. 2) alleged by Elias Masoret Hammasoret (prefat. 3, p. ה 6). The words are these: “And this is the custom of the wise men of Tiberias, and they are the foundation; for from them were the men of the Masora, and we have from them received all the punctuation.” 

The place more at large is this: “The punctators,” says Ibn Ezra immediately before the words alleged, “are used to point sheva under tau, in the word עָשִׂיתְ: asit, which is the second person feminine, that it might not be confounded with the masculine.”

Then he brings an objection, saying: “If any one objects, what need was there to place sheva there? For seeing that kamets was not under the letter tau, was it not easily understood that there was to be a quiescent sheva, because it was the last letter of the word (for the last letter of every word that is without its own proper moveable vowel, sheva, belongs to them, whether it be expressed or not).”

Now the answer to this objection contains the words of the quotation; namely: and thus the wise men of Tiberias have used; or thus is their manner or custom: and they are the foundation; for from them were the men of the Masora, and from them have we received all the punctuation. 

He goes on further, and says: “Perhaps they did so, that no man might think that the punctator had forgotten, (that is to point that tau) and doubted about it (that is to say, how he should read it).” 

This is the place at large; we are now to examine the sense and meaning of it.

First then, he says that there were certain punctators that had a custom to place sheva under tau, at the end of a word. Then he tells who these were that did use so to do; and they were not all the punctators, but those of Tiberias, the same also who were the Masoretes; ergo, there were others who did not use so to do, (though not of the like esteem for skill herein as the Masoretes), therefore, thirdly, he shows what value this Tiberian punctuation ought to be of with us; which is by him expressed to be of such worth, as that we ought to follow them in all things, as being the most diligent of the punctators.

What Capellus objects here, is, that Buxtorf translates מעקדים, there are some punctators: and thence inferrs, there were other punctators than the Masoretes.

Response: He does not translate the word, nor does he infer from that word; but what he says there are some punctators, relates to the scope of the place; and from the same he draws this inference, as very well he may; as might easily be plainly demonstrated, were it worth while to enlarge upon the point. But to proceed:

Fourthly, he shows the end why the Masoretes did thus: which was this, lest the reader should think that here was something wanting, and might stick in doubt how it should be read: “Lest,” says he, “any one should think that the punctator had forgotten something.” This certainly he does not say of the same Tiberian Masoretes, but of some other former punctator: for if he had meant the same Masoretes here, he should have said, shelo jakshob adam ki shakachu; that no man might think that they had forgotten; and not shakach: that he had forgotten. 

So that Ibn Ezra did not reckon the Tiberian Masoretes to be the authors of the punctuation, but the correctors and the preservers thereof in its origin purity, as we may perceive by the scope of the place.

The second place, the sense whereof is to be considered, is what Ibn Ezra says in his commentary on Exodus 25:31 on the word תֵּעָשֶׂ֤ה, teaseh raiti sepherim shebedakom chokmee tiberia, etc: “I have seen the books which the wise men of Tiberias searched, examined, corrected, and swore their fifteen elders that they had thrice considered every word, and every point, and every word that is written full or defective, and behold, yud is written in the word תֵּיעָשֶה: teaseh; but I have not found it so in the books of Spain, France, or beyond the seas,” etc.

Now as to the sense of this place, what is more plainly spoken by these words than this, that they had three times searched or examined the pointed copies? Therefore the pointed copies must be in being before their time, which they took and examined others by, and not their own invented shapes of the points examined, as Dr. Walton supposes: “For Ibn Ezra,” says he, “saw the book which the Tiberian Masoretes badaku, searched or examined.” He does not say: which they made or invented. Of these books he says: “They swore the fifteen elders; that they had thrice considered every word, and every point, and every word that was written full or defective.” 

Here we see their consideration was as much on the words as the points; and of the words written full or defective, as either; and they can be no more thought hereby to be the authors of the punctuation, than of the letters and words, and of the words full and defective; for as much is said of the one as of the other. If therefore they only searched, examined, or tried the one, they did no more to the other.

Again, what is it that Ibn Ezra found in these books thus examined by the Masoretes of Tiberias? Why it is this, that the letter yud is there written in the word תֵּיעָשֶה, teaseh, which he did not find in other copies, in Spain, France, or beyond sea. Can we hence suppose that Ibn Ezra did reckon that the Masoretes were the inventors or authors of the letter yud? Or of the placing it to the word? No one will say we can. No more can we suppose it of the points, not yet so much, seeing the instance alleged is a letter, and not a point. 

So that the only thing that appears by his words, is, that he accounted the books or copies which they had examined by the best they had, to be the most exactly corrected, and therefore fittest to be the standard: and on this account he might well say of them, they were, עקר, the foundation or standard; for we still keep to their copy, and all our Bibles now have yud in תֵּיעָשֶה teaseh, as the Masoretes have, without supposing them to be the authors of any part of the Scripture.