A Discourse Concerning The Antiquity And Origin Of The Points, Vowels And Accents That Are Placed To The Hebrew Bible (Part 3)
Chapter 5
What Ibn Ezra, and other Jews, do say of the Masoretes skill, that they did not suppose them to be the authors of the points, is proved.
(1) The testimony of Ibn Ezra examined.
We come now to the second thing to be discussed: and that is what Ibn Ezra, and the rest of the rabbis, do say of the Masoretes of Tiberias, in commendation of their skill and accuracy in the pronunciation of their tongue, and about the punctuation. And here we are to enquire, whether what they speak concerning them, does belong to the Masoretes, as authors, or correctors and restorers only of the punctuation.
The testimonies which Buxtorf collects, in commendation of the Masoretes accuracy, are these: first, Ibn Ezra says, in his book Tsakooth (fol. 136. Col. 1) where speaking of long kamets, he says, the men of Tiberias – also the wise men of Egypt and Africa – knew how to read kamets gadol, And in fol. 135. col. 1, and says that wise man before-mentioned, (namely: Rabbi Judah Chiug, the first Hebrew grammarian) that the men of Tiberias read sheva mobile, if yud follow after it, with the vowel chirek, as יְחִיְהו יִרְמְיָהוּ, iichesiahu iermiahu: and if kamets gadol follow sheva, as in בְרִכָהָ שְׁמָרים, it is read as pathak short, as barakah shamarim, etc.
In his book Mozenaiim (fol. 221, col. 2), he says: “Rabbi Judah the Grammarian, whose rest is in Eden, says, that daleth in the word דעּו, deu, is read as if with shurek; because it has after it a guttural letter with shurek, and so is דִעֵה, deeh; or דִִעִי dei; and so are all like unto it” – and they say that so the men of Tiberias did pronounce.
Ephodeus (Grammar, C5 fol. 35 col. 2), speaking of the true pronunciation of the Hebrew tongue, and that it is unknown at this time, he says: “And Rabbi Jonah (the next grammarian to Rabbi Judah) has already written, that resh has certain peculiar properties, according to the way of the men of Tiberias; for they are more clear (or elegant) in the holy tongue, than all the Hebrews.” The same he repeats in chapter 32.
Balmesius, in his Grammar, under letter F (3 p.2) writes thus: “And the Tiberian readers read it like the pronunciation of aleph with shurek; but I know not the reason why they so read it;” speaking of vau in the beginning of a word before a letter, with sheva mobile marked, which should be pronounced with shurek, but here has no other sound than a gentle aleph.
And of this pronunciation of vau as aleph, Ibn Ezra says, (fol. 135. Col. 2) Bsakooth, so have we received of our fathers, one age after another, that it should be so pronounced. So Kimchi in Miklol (fol. 62a).
Again, Balmesius says, in letter F (1 p.1), speaking of the letters ח and ע cheth and ain, in the end of words, he says: “For many grammarians which I have seen, lean upon the readers of Tiberias, who pronounce it as if there were aleph. For example: they read מִזְבֵּ֖חַ misbeach; as if it were written מִזבֵאַח.”
In the book entitled Keneh Binah (fol. 33a), and in all the variations (or different pronunciations of the points) which are oftentimes pronounced in different ways, the men of Tiberias are clear, more accurate and skilful צחים ובקיאים, than all the Hebrews that are in other countries.
In the book Leviath Chen, whose author is Rabbi Immanuel, son of Yekutiel איש בניונטי Benevontine (cap. 3. fol. 5): “And although there does not appear any difference in our present reading between koph and caph with dagesh, and between teth and tau daggeshed, and between vau and beth raphated; the men of Tiberias, which were in those days, were more expert in our language than all the Jews: they made a difference between them; and so they made a difference between the reading of pathak and kamets, and between segol and tsere, and between kibbuez and shurek.”
Again (C18 fol. 19 Col. 1) where treating of the pronunciation of the letter resh, he says, in the reading of this letter resh dageshed and raphated: “The men of Tiberias were expert (bekiim: skilful) in those days, and in that time.” And in fol. 105. Col. 2, treating of the difference that is between various letters and vowels in verse, he says: “And we are not skillful in the difference of their sound (or pronunciation) like the men of Tiberias, who were of old time more clear or skilful in the language than all the Hebrews, even as the best grammarians have testified concerning them.”
Rabbi David Kimchi in michlol, fol. 108. Col. 2. Treating of the letters begadkephat, says, that the author of the book Yetzirah, has written resh with them: for he says there are seven letters that double, as begadkephrat; but the pronouncing of resh raphated and dageshed, we do not hear or sound: but I have found (says Kimchi) in a book of one Eli, the son of Judah Hannasir, who says that:
“The sign or difference between resh dageshed or raphated, or hard and gentle, belongs only to the sons of Mesia, which is Tiberias; for they speak them in their talk, and read them in reading the Scripture; and it is in the mouths of men, women and children; it departs not from them, and without any difference they read and speak resh: where it should be pronounced hard, there they use to speak or read it with dagesh, and where it should be gentle or soft with rapha,” etc.
Rabbi Yehudah Mulcatus, in his commentary on the book of Cosri (P2 S80 fol. 130a), on those words of the author Cosri: or to hasten the reading, he says these words: “Teach the properties of right reading, which were known to him, although they are now strange to us; as also many the like are in the reading of the men of Tiberias, which is different from our reading.” See Buxtorf’s Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuum (Part 1 pp.24-25).
From all these testimonies, it appears, says Buxtorf (p.25) that the men of Tiberias were no otherwise famous among the Jews, who were but 500 or 600 at most after them. Then:
First, for their skill at decently reading and pronouncing the Hebrew tongue.
Secondly, and also for their study and care to preserve the true reading of the Scripture.
For if they had believed them to have been the authors of the points, doubtless they would not have passed over that with such negligent silence, as not to speak a word about it, when they speak of them, and of their commendation.
Nor can their being praised for skill and accuracy in the punctuation, suppose them the authors of it, for none need be told, that the inventors of any art are well acquainted with their own invention; and it is a slender encomium to say of such, that they understand their own invention: for if they should not well understand their own device, how should others? Or who else should?
Of their skill and accuracy, Jerome seems to have knowledge, alluding thereunto on Genesis 49:21, and that he hired a Jew of Tiberias to teach him to read. And as neither he nor the rabbis ascribe the invention of the points to them; so the pointed Bible of Hillel, in being long before their time, proves the contrary. And so much for the second thing; that is, what Ibn Ezra, and the rest of the rabbis say in commendation of the skill and accuracy of the Tiberian Masoretes, in the pronunciation of the Hebrew tongue; and whether what they say of them, does belong unto them as authors, or as correctors of the punctuation.
Thirdly, the third thing to be proven is 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, as may be seen not only in the places before alleged; where he reproves those who charge the punctator with error and says: “He has pointed right in every place.”
And not only in his comment on Exodus 34:5, but also in other places, he expresses the same esteem of the authority and perfection of the punctuation, as for instance: in his book (Tsakooth, p. 179), where he brings Hosea 4:10: They left off to take heed; he there says: “If we should say so, we should thereby accuse hammappesik happesukim the punctator, that he did not know the reason of the accents; but far be it from us so to do: chalilah, chalilah.”
And in his comment on Exodus 6:28, where our translation ends that verse, as also Deuteronomy 2:16. with a comma, the sense not making a period, about which matter he says: “It is to be admired that the orderer of the parashas should here divide into two verses, that which by the sense seems to be but one: and the like is done in Deuteronomy 2:16. We do not know why it is done; but it is like baal hahapesakoth, the punctator, did know the reason why he did so; for his knowledge is larger than ours.”
Hence he advises us to follow the punctator always, as in his book Mosenaim (fol. 19b): “And before I expound unto thee all these things already mentioned, I must admonish you, that you should go after baal hataamim, the punctator: and whatsoever exposition is not according to the exposition of the accents, do not agree to it, nor hearken to it; and do not mind the words concerning the ten verses that one of the geonim says do belong to the verses following, or coming after them; for they are all right, and they are distinguished or divided according as the sense requires.”
And on page 198 (Col. 1) disputing against some, he says: “And moreover, if their words were true, lo hajah baal hateamim maphsik beathnak, besoph bemillath vejiphol, etc, [then] the baal hateamim, who is hammappesik, the punctator, would not have made the stop or pause with athnak in the end in the word vejiphol in Genesis 45:14.”
So pag. 200B: “He knows the secret of baal hateamim, the punctator. And elsewhere, says Buxtorf: “He says it is of great moment to keep the way of the accents.”
Now that Ibn Ezra does not suppose the punctator, or punctators, to be the Masoretes, appears by this: that he treats the Masoretes quite otherwise than he has done the punctator.
For, first, when he speaks of the Masoretes, he does not call them, baal hateamim and hammappesik, the punctator; but he calls them, the wise men of the masora; the men of the masora; and baal hammasoret, the author of the masora.
And secondly, he often differs from, and opposes the Masoretes, but he never opposes the punctator. And that he often differs from the Masoretes, appears by these instances:
In Tsakooth (149), concerning the word וְהִנֵּהוּ, vehinnehhu (Jeremiah 18:3), which the keri reads, divided into two words, וְהִנֵּה-הוּא, vehinneh hu, with aleph added: as he reckons by the Masoretes, he says, this is not defective of aleph (that is, lacking aleph), for it is one word, though the men of the masora do say it is defective.
And (fol. 150. Col. 2): Ve taam anishee hammasoret eno taam: “And the reason of the men of the masora, is no reason.” So (fol. 190) he says concerning a masoretic observation, ein tserik: “There is no need for it.” And so of others (fol. 191.2, fol 192.1), and elsewhere.
In the end of the preface prefixed to the great Bibles, thus he says, speaking of the fifth way of expounding Scripture, which he follows himself: “And I will not mention the reasons of the men of the masora, why this word is written full, and why the other word is written defective; for all their reasons are allegorical, their reasons are only good for children; for sometimes the writer writes a word full, which he does to make it plain; and sometimes he writes a word more obscurely, by the defect of a letter, for brevity sake, etc. But their reasons are only good for children.”
So that we see he contemns and often opposes the Masoretes; but we showed before, he honors, and always follows the punctator. Therefore, we conclude that Ibn Ezra does not suppose the Masoretes to be the punctator or authors of the punctuation.
Capellus (Vindiciae B1 C1 S10) objects, there might be two sorts of Masoretes: first, the Tiberian punctators; and long after them, those that numbered the letters, and counted the keri uketib.
Response: (1) Neither Ibn Ezra, nor any other Jew, make any such distinction. (2) A posse ad esse non valet consequentia. (3.) It would injure the former Masoretes; for he opposes and despises the Masoretes in general; and if the punctators, whom he reverences so much, were Masoretes also, he would no doubt have excepted them particularly. (4.) Capellus has hereby lost his cause, by supposing the authors of the punctuation, or shapes of the points, were long before those that numbred the letters, seeing the Talmuds, made before A.D. 500. do call those that numbred the letters, the ancients, as being long before their time; whereas Capellus his opinion, is, that the authors of the points were not until after the Talmuds.
Capellus (Vindiciae C1 S12) says: “If the Masoretes restored and corrected the punctuation, our faith is human; if built thereon, as much as if they invented it.”
Response: Not so, for no more is required to preserve the text uncorrupt, from age to age, than human care and industry, under the conduct of divine providence; but the giving forth of the Scripture, and the ascertaining the sense of Scripture, requires divine assistance, and evidence of divine authority.
Capellus objects (Section 13, ibid. Vindiciae): “The Masoretes had few pointed copies to correct by, or many: if few, how did they come to differ? And if many, they were either about great matters, or small: if about great matters, then we stand on human authority; if about small, then it was not worth their labor.”
Response: (1) They themselves say that nothing can be certainly spoken of those times, by reason of the darkness of the history thereof, and therefore they should not press us in this point.
(2) How many pointed copies were then, we matter not; but that there were very great and many differences in the copies, we deny: the providence of God watching over his word to preserve it to the end of time. The superstitious care of the Jews, and the religious care of the Christians, would not consist with it; but some small difference might be suffered in order to quicken the diligence of those whose duty and concern it was to preserve it, which might be well worth their time to correct, and justly deserve the praise of posterity for the same.
Capellus objects that: “They must destroy all other copies besides that which they corrected; and this was impossible to be done.”
Response: No more need for this, than for to burn heretics, and destroy all that differ from us: no, truth is light, the shining whereof dispels darkness; and so is their copy universally embraced as the standard.
Capellus (Vindiciae C1 S17) says: “How do we know that the Masoretes did correct the copies, seeing there is no history of it? And if they did correct them: (2) It might be fallacious, and stuffed with many things in favor of their own nation. (3) Who can believe that these men always chose the best and most genuine sense, and never made a mistake, either by error, negligence or design? (4) Who can believe that our present copies are the same as those which the Masoretes corrected?”
Response: They most need to answer these questions themselves, who say they are the authors of the punctuation: we allow them no more than to be examiners or correctors of it; which their superstitious care of the text, and the general esteem of the Jews of those Masoretes, is enough to evidence the truth of, as much as we need to lean on them for.
But how do they solve these doubts? Why, they say the punctuation yields generally a genuine and right sense. If therefore this be strong enough to satisfy those who make them the authors of the punctuation, that they were able and faithful in pointing the text; much more may it be a sufficient satisfaction to those who allow them no further hand about the punctuation, than barely to examine the copies, and follow the most and best approved in their time. These are the faint efforts of persons engaged in a desperate cause.
And thus we have proved at large, that Ibn Ezra is not of the opinion that the Masoretes pointed the text; and all that he says about the points, and the punctuation, proves the contrary: as also all that Ibn Ezra, and the other rabbis, say in commendation of the skill and accuracy of the Tiberian Masoretes, proves no more than that they were skilful and faithful correctors, or collaters and examiners of the copies of their time; and does not at all belong to them as authors, or inventors of the punctuation.
We are nextly to consider what other rabbis – Elias and his followers – bring to countenance their opinion; though not one of the places they allege speak one word about the Masoretes of Tiberias, much less of their being the inventors of the punctuation.
Chapter 6
The testimonies of Cosri, Rabbi David Kimchi, and Tsak sephataim, considered. Inferences from the silence of the Jews, and the insufficiency of the evidences for the novelty of the points.
(2) The testimony of Cosri considered.
Elias in Masoret Hammasoret (ה2 Col. 2) says: “Thus says the author of Cosri, without doubt it was kept in their hearts, (that is, the points from the time of Moses was) with pathak, and kamets, and sheva, and chirek, and the accents, etc. And they put seven kings and accents, which were signs to express those sounds which they had received of Moses from Sinai. And what do you think of their ordering the Scripture first with verses, and after that with points, and then with accents, and then with the masora, with the observation of the words that are full or defective, until they had numbered the letters?” Etc.
Now, quid sibi vult Elias? What does Elias infer from hence? Why, says he: “Behold, it was not his mind that Moses wrote them.” We grant it: what then? Why says Elias: “Oh that the author of Cosri had explained to us who he meant, when he says: Vesamu! And they put, or placed them (namely: the points), whether he meant the men of the Great Synagogue, or the Masoretes! But I think he meant the Masoretes,” says Elias.
But why he thinks so, he does not say. Well, be it so, the Jews think otherwise: and we think otherwise, that he meant the men of the Great Synagogue, both by the sense of the place in Cosri, and by the exposition of Muscatus upon the place.
First, as to the sense of the place, the author of Cosri says in the place alleged that: “The punctuation was certainly made by men divinely assisted, or it had never been so universally received as it is, and else men of like ability might be able to do the like. And it was done with admirable wisdom, for it appears that in the fixing of the points and accents, there is such an order therein, that cannot be done but by divine assistance, which is far otherwise than our wisdom can attain unto, in every respect,” etc.
Now all the Jews acknowledge that none have been divinely inspired, and infallibly assisted, since the time of Ezra, that prophecy ceased: and therefore Cosri must needs mean the time of Ezra by vesamu: and they put them. And secondly, so Rabbi Judah Muscatus, upon the place, vesamu: and they put them, does expound it, where he says: “It appears to me that by this indefinite speech, he means the men of the Great Synagogue; for unto that time the antecedents and consequents, or what is spoken before it and after it, does agree.”
And thus we see the father-in-law, Cosri, is of the same mind with his son-in-law, Ibn Ezra, that the points were as ancient as Ezra’s time.
(3) Rabbi David Kimchi’s testimony examined.
Elias in Masoret Hammasoret, (ד7 second), alleges what Kimchi says in Miklol (pp.69-70): וּמְּתקַּנִי הַנִּקוּד: “And the orderers of the pointing have put a difference between the third person singular of the preterperfect tense of niphal, and the participle benoni singular. For their reading is the same, namely: niphkad, alike in both; and they have pointed the middle radical letter of the preterperfect tense with pathak, and the participle benoni with kamets.”
Now all that is hence objected is that if Kimchi had thought that Moses or Ezra had pointed the text, he would not have spoken in the plural number: Metakkenim, the orderers; but in the singular.
Response: (1) That does not follow; for he might mean Ezra, in conjunction with the men of the Great Synagogue collectively.
(2) Other places of Kimchi shew what his opinion is herein; though, as Buxtorf observes, the Jews speak of Ezra, and the Sanhedrin, in the singular or plural number indifferently. Ezra is called the head of the scribes; and Ibn Ezra, speaking of the 18th tikkun sopherim on Numbers 12:12. He calls them there tikkun Ezra.
But to find Kimchi’s mind plainly, we shall view the places where he speaks his thoughts about it, as:
First, in his preface on Joshua; where speaking of the keri and ketib, he says, it appears that these words were found thus [...] that in the former captivity the books were lost, and the wise men were dispersed; and they that knew the law, were dead: and the men of the great Sanhedrin, who restored the law to its old estate, they found some difference between some copies; and they followed the agreement of the majority of copies, according to their knowledge; and in the place that they could not well understand clearly which was the rightest and truest, there they wrote one, and did not point it; or else they wrote it without, and did not write it within.” That is, in the line; and so they wrote one way in the line, and another in the margin.
“Now,” says Buxtorf, “In that Kimchi says of the men of the great Sanhedrin, that restored the law to its pristine state, that the one of these words that have a different reading, they did not point. Does it not plainly follow then, in his opinion, that they pointed the other? Or else how was the not pointing the one, a mark to distinguish it from the other? And so by consequence the points were then in use.”
Capellus (Vindiciae B1 C1 S27) says: “What if he say Kimchi here contradicts what he says elsewhere?”
Response: Then he should prove it: but this he does not attempt to do.
He objects: “The words {and they did not point it} are not necessarily to be understood of the great Sanhedrin.
Response: But they are necessarily to be understood of them; for none else are spoken of but them only.
Capellus, after all his cavils, says: “Sed esto fuerit & Kimchi, & Ibn Ezra, & auctor Cosri, in ea sententia esdram auctorem esse & inventorem punctorum; id nihil officit sententiae meae eorum enim testimonia eo tantum adduxi, ut probarem mosem non esse eorum auctorem:” “But be it so, that Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, and the author of Cosri, were of that opinion, that Ezra was the author and inventor of the points; that nothing hurts my position; for I brought their testimony to this intent only: that I might prove that Moses was not their author.”
Response: And this we do not here debate: in vain then are all his cavils, and all the evidences for the time, place and persons, when, where, and by whom the points were invented; for they have no other, and no other does Elias bring to prove the Masoretes of Tiberias pointed the text. And yet Capellus (Arcanum, C1 S2-3, C2 S2, C3), and after him Walton (Prologomena, 3rd consideration, p.228), stick not to affirm that Elias has proved this.
And therefore, whilst our hand is in, we’ll produce one place more out of Kimchi, to shew his mind about the authors of the points; which Elias has curtailed, to signify the sound, and not the shape, but very unfairly: the place is in Miklol (pag. mihi 96).
“For also our rabbis of happy memory,” says Kimchi, “when they say, that it is necessary to give a space between words that are joined together, (that is, apt to sound as one word, though they are two) as gnal-lebabeka, be col-lebabekem; they do not speak this, to make a stop or pause, so as that makkaph should not be put between the two lameds, as it is put. But although that he do read them with makkaph, yet he should put such a space between them, in pronouncing them, that it may sound as if he read two lameds: for behold, becol-lebabkem, becol is pointed with kamets, because of makkaph; and if it were read without makkaph, it should be pointed with holem. But this our rabbis, of happy memory, do not say; as if thereby they intended to change the vowels which were given to Moses on Sinai.”
So that here he speaks of the shapes of the points, cholem, kamets, and makkaph: and says, they were given of Moses on Sinai, and must not be changed therefore.
(4) The author of Tsak Sephataim considered.
The last testimony of Elias, is in these words of the author of Tsak Sephataim: “We must know that the punctuation was given at Sinai; not that the tables were pointed, but as the holy blessed God spake the holy tongue, those that heard it, did understand all the motions and sounds, little and great, even exactly as they were pronounced out of the mouth, whether it was hard or gentle; so they could discern out of the mouth of him that read, between a kamets and a pathak, between e tsere and e segol, and between o cholem and o kamets kataph; and between v with vau, and v without vau; and i with yud, and i without yud, etc. Masoret Hammasoret, ה2.
Now seeing neither Elias, nor yet Capellus, do infer from hence, either that Ezra did not point the text, or that the Masoretes in A.D. 500 did point it, we need say no more about it, and therefore shall draw our conclusions from the premises.
The inferences from the silence of the Jews, and the insufficiency of the evidence for the novelty of the points.
First, then, we say, if the punctuation were invented and placed, A.D. 500. Or since to the text, by the Jews, as they say it was, then without doubt the Jews would have frequently taken notice of it, being a thing so much for their honor.
But there is not one Jew that takes any notice of it, Elias only excepted; and all those he alleges, appear to be silent in the case.
Therefore the points were not invented, and placed in the text by the Jews in A.D. 500 or since that time.
This argument they cannot refuse, seeing it is of the same kind with what they rely most upon: for they say, if the points were before A.D. 500. Then certainly the Talmudick Jews would have taken notice of it; and therefore we may well say, if the points were since A.D. 500, the succeeding Jews must needs have taken notice of it; which they have not done, though the commentators and grammarians had better ability, and more frequent occasion so to do, than the Talmudists had of Ezra’s punctuation.
Again, we will not believe the points were placed by the Masoretes of Tiberias, A.D. 500. Or since that time; because the evidence thereof is insufficient, and mute. For that opinion does not deserve to be embraced, the evidences whereon it is built being destroyed, and discovered to be insufficient, and totally silent in the case.
But such is the opinion, that the points were invented by the Masoretes of Tiberias in A.D. 500. For all the evidence that Elias and his followers bring to prove the time, place and persons, when, where, and by whom the points were invented, is no more than a few expressions of the rabbis, in commendation of the skill and accuracy of the Masoretes of Tiberias, in the pronunciation of the Hebrew tongue, and in examining the punctuation; which say not one word that the Masoretes invented or placed the punctuation, or that the Masoretes they speak of lived A.D. 500.
And thus have we finished the first thing that we undertook to discuss; having at large examined the evidences that are brought for the novelty of the points, and proved them to be against their late and novel invention.
