A Discourse Concerning The Antiquity And Origin Of The Points, Vowels And Accents That Are Placed To The Hebrew Bible (Part 7)
Chapter 14
The absurdity of the opinion that the Masoretes pointed the text in A.D. 500 discovered from the evidence there is that the masora which the Masoretes made, was long before A.D. 500.
The Masoretes, or authors of the masora, must by all means be accounted for the authors of the punctuation; and yet it will not be allowed that the points were invented before A.D. 500. After the Talmuds: we shall therefore prove that the masora itself, or the principal parts of it, were before the Talmuds, being owned as such in the Talmuds themselves.
Now as to the parts of the masora, the antiquity whereof we are to examine, we agree with the account that Elias himself gives us thereof in Masoret Hammasoret, page ו, who tells us that: “By the Masoretes the Scriptures are preserved so well, that no change can befall them in time to come in the least: and hence they are called a hedge to the law, which otherwise had been lost: these Masoretes, he says, numbered all the verses, words and letters of every book of the Bible; and hence were called sopherim, or numberers; and hereby they found that vau in the word gihon was the middle of the law; as to the letters, darash in darash Moshe was the middlemost word: and he put on him the breastplate (Leviticus 8:8) was the middle-most verse in the law: and the like was done of every book of the Bible, (or twenty four books) as also they numbered the verses, words and letters in every parasha, or section of the law, as well as the whole law, which had 60,045 letters. Also, they reckoned how oft every letter in the alphabet was found in the Scriptures: as for instance, א aleph was found 42,377 times in the Bible, ב beth 38,218 times, ג [found] 29,537 times, and so of the rest.”
Now we shall prove that the parts of the masora here mentioned, were long before the Talmuds, and yet the authors of these parts of the masora, are here called the Masoretes by Elias himself.
First, as to the name of the masora; that is, not only mentioned by both the Talmuds, but spoken of, as being as ancient as Ezra’s time, in the Jerusalem Talmud, in megilla, cap. 4. And in the Babylonian Talmud, in Masecat Nedarim (C4 fol. 37) in explaining Nehemiah 8:8. And caused them to understand the reading; that is, the masora, say both the Talmuds: that is (says Elias) by oral tradition the masora was then used. Not so (says Rabbi Azarias), they speak of what was written, and not of tradition. Again, the common saying of the Talmuds shew the name of the masora was then known; namely: “There is a mother to the Scripture, and there is a mother to the masora.” And as to the work of the Masoretes, Elias supposes (chapter 2) that they made the verses. And yet the Mishnah itself, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, mentions the verses; as in Masecat Megilla (chapter 3), it says: “He that reads in the law, must not read less than three verses; and in the paraphrase, not more than one.” And as the Talmud on megilla (C3 fol. 32) says: “What verse Moses did not make a verse, we must not make a verse.”
Secondly, again, as to the parts of the masora, their readings ittur sopherim, keri u lo ketib, thus says the Talmud in Masecat Nedarim, fol. 37. Rabbi Isaac says, the reading of the scribes, and ittur sopherim, and the keri u lo ketib, and the ketib u lo keri, is a constitution of Moses from Sinai.
Thirdly, but the main work that Elias ascribes to the Masoretes, was the numbering the verses, words and letters of Scripture; and telling which is the middle verse, word and letter of the law; and the like. Now of these the Talmud makes mention most plainly, in Masecat Kedushin (C1 fol. 30), it is thus written: “Therefore roshonim, the ancients, were called sopherim, numberers, because they numbered all the letters which were in the law; and these said that vau in the word gihon, is the middlemost letter of the law (Leviticus 11:42), that darash (Leviticus 10:16) is the middlemost word of the law, and hitgalach (Leviticus 13:35) is the middle-most verse in the law, etc. The ancients knew well the letters full and defective; and that the verses of the law were 5,888.”
The Talmud indeed often refutes the masora, as Elias confesses in Table 1 Speech 5. But then the masora must needs [have been] in being. The Talmud takes notice of the great and small letters, which is also a part of the masora; as on Sopherim (chapter 9), it says, ל is great, Deuteronomy 29.28. “What argument,” says Buxtorf, “can be plainer than this, the name, and work, and parts of the masora, were long before A.D. 500?” Therefore they were not first made, A.D. 500. As Elias thinks: indeed he allows them to be by tradition before, a thing most absurd and impossible, but not written until after the Talmuds, A.D. 500.
Now we say, if the Masoretes pointed the text, they were these Masoretes who wrote the notes about the number of the letters, words and verses of the Bible, of the ittur sopherim, the keri u lo ketib, the reading of the scribes, the letters greater, or lesser than ordinary, the letters and words full and defective, and the like; all which the Talmuds plainly say were made by the ancients, their ancestors, long before their time, or else the punctuation was made by other Masoretes than these the Talmud speaks of: if the punctuation was made by these men, then it was made long before A.D. 500, even as ancient as Ezra – for so ancient is this masora esteemed by the Jews to be. Elias his fancy, that this masora was orally preserved from Ezra’s time, until A.D. 500 is refuted by Rabbi Azarias and Rabbi S. Arcuvolti.
But if the Masoretes who pointed the text were not these ancient Masoretes the Talmuds speak of, then they were either those that made the notes on the anomalous punctuation, and upon the rest of the things that are the subject of the Masoretic observations which compose the present masora, or else they were some others. But they were not these Masoretes neither; for we have at large proved that those who made the notes on the punctuation, were long after the punctuation was made: and that those who made the other notes on the other parts of the masora, did only observe what they found the text to be; but placed nothing to the text, their only design being to prevent any from so doing in time to come.
If therefore the Masoretes pointed the text, they were other Masoretes than either of these before mentioned: but other than the one or the other sort of Masoretes already mentioned, we neither read nor hear of; and until some other can be found out, we conclude the Masoretes – in A.D. 500 or since that time – did not point the text. And so much for the discovery of the improbability of those persons pointing the text, to whom the invention of the punctuation is ascribed.
Chapter 15
The absurdity of the opinion that the text was first pointed A.D. 500 further discovered from the evidences of the points, vowels, accents and verses being long before that time; and the instance of a pointed copy of Rabbi Hillel, A.D. 340. And from the account we have of these things in the Zohar, Bahir, Mishnah and Talmuds.
We shall conclude this first part with the evidences of the mention that is made of all the parts of the punctuation, in the ancient writings of the Jews that were before A.D. 500. And the instance of a pointed copy of Rabbi Hillel, of great antiquity.
(1) We shall begin with the book entitled Habahir, made by Rabbi Nechoniah, fifty years before Christ (see Buxtorf’s Thesaurus, A.D. 1609, pp. 66-67. Juchasin, pag. 20. Tsemach David, part 1. Pag. 35. Rabbi Azaria de Rossi Meor Enaim, cap. 59.) the words of Bahir are these: “The points in the letters of the law of Moses, are like unto the breath of life in the body of a man.”
(2) And in the book called Zohar, made by Rabbi Simeon Ben Yochai, a hundred years after Christ. (see Buxtorf, ibid. And Bibliothaeca Rabbinica on רשבי. Juchasin, p. 42, Rabbi Azaria de Rossi, Meor Enaim in Imre Bina, C59) the words of Zohar are these: “Not one letter is able to signify one thing or another without the points. All the letters without the points, are like the body without the soul; when the points come, then the body stands in its station.”
And so in the tikkunim, or explications of the Zohar, says Rabbi Azaria (ibid.) “And in the preface of tikkunïm, it is said, the accents are as the breath, and the points as the spirit, and the letters as the soul, the one come after the other.”
And this, as Rabbi Azaria (ibid.) observes, is not meant of the sounds only, but of the shapes of the points, vowels and accents, as he there gives instances. See more of the ancient kabbalistic writers expressly mentioning the very names also of the points, vowels and accents in Buxtorf’s Tiberias and De Punctorum Origine (pp.53-59), together with the answer to the impertinent cavils of Capellus, as to the antiquity and integrity of the books Zohar, Bahir, and the pointed copy of Hillel, who objects that it may be that they have forged titles of antiquity in order to advance the price in the sale of them.
Response: And it may not be so, but if it may be so, that does not prove it was so. Nor does Capellus produce any thing that renders the antiquity of these books so much as suspected, for the antiquity of these books is universally owned by the Jews. Those of them who write about these things, plainly declare their antiquity to be what we say it is.
(3) The Mishnah, about A.D. 150 takes notice of the verses in Masecat Megilla (C3), and says: “he that reads in the law, must not read less than three verses; nor more than one verse in the Chaldee paraphrase.”
(4) The Jerusalem Talmud, about A.D. 230, in Megilla C4 on Nehemiah 8:8: {And they read in the book, in the law of God}: “That is, the Scripture distinctly; that is, with the targum or Chaldee paraphrase, and gave the sense. These (say they) are the accents which they placed, samu taam, they put the accents to it; and some say these are the pauses; others say these are the beginnings of the verses.”
(5) The Babylonian Talmud in Masecat Nedarim (C4 fol. 37) and in Masecat Megilla (C1 fol. 3) on Nehemiah 8:8, they say likewise: “And they read in the book of the law of God, that is: the Scripture, distinctly, that is: with the targum, and gave the sense, these are the verses; and cause them to understand the reading, this is the stops of the accents; and others say these were the masora, for they were forgotten, and they then restored them.”
And in Masecat Nedarim (fol. 37. Ibid), Rabbi Isaac says: “The reading of the scribes, and ittur sopherim, and keri u lo ketib, and ketib u lo keri, is a constitution of Moses on Sinai.”
First, says Rabbi Isaac, the reading of the scribes, as erets shamajim mitsraim; that is, the scribes taught the people how they had received from Moses to read these words, and the like; one way in one place, and another way in another, as sometimes arets, sometimes erets, etc. For as Rabbi Nissin says, erets is changed, by reason of athnak, into arets; and so of shammajim mitsraim, etc.
And as Rabbi Solomon Jarchi [Rashi] says, the scribes taught them how they ought to read the words without the vowel-letters being added in all places; as erets, without writing aleph between resh and tsade: and so shamajim, without writing aleph between shin and mem – and all this (says the Talmud) is a constitution of Moses from Sinai.
And as it is impossible that the sounds of all the punctuation could be preserved without the shapes of them were written to the text: so Rabbi Azarias in Meor Enaim C59 shows that what the Talmuds speak on Nehemiah 8:8 is all of it about what was written, and no part of it was spoken about what was kept by oral tradition. As:
First, the book of the law which they read, that was mikra: the Scripture, distinctly, with targum, or the Chaldee paraphrase, which (says he) was then written. And so (says he) were the points, and accents, and masora, which they there speak of, was then written, as well as the Scripture: and the Chaldee paraphrase was written, and not kept by oral tradition only, as Elias fancies: a thing most absurd and impossible.
Capellus objects that [Rashi], Rabbi Azarias, etc, are modern rabbis, but what says Rabboth and the ancient writers?
Response: They cannot expound the Talmud, which was made long after they were dead; but the ancient writers speak plainly enough of the points, as Bahir, Zohar, etc. And why may not the Talmuds speak of the shapes of the points? There is not one place of Scripture (says Buxtorf) in all the Talmud, any otherwise read than our present punctuation reads it: which could not have been had not the Bible been then pointed, for the sounds could not be kept without the shapes, as we have already shown in the preface. And as they themselves say, the Septuagint and Chaldee differ from our copy, because they had no points; and we may as well say the Talmud universally agrees with our punctuation, because they had points, which they could not have done without.
And as to the Septuagint, etc, they differ from the letters and words, as well as about the points; and therefore Capellus reckons their copy differed from ours in letters, as well as points: but these things we may examine hereafter, the punctuation is all we are now concerned about. And hereby all those objections of the silence of the ancient Kabbalistic writings, and of the Talmuds about the points, are obviated (see Pugio Fidei, p.92 of the former edition, and p.111 of the last edition). See also Buxtorf. Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuum. Part 1. Cap. 5, & cap. 6.) we shall only add the instance of a pointed copy of Rabbi Hillel, which was before A.D. 500 – as ancient as A.D. 340.
It is said in Juchasin (fol. 132. Col. 1): “in the year 956, or 984, there was a great persecution in lions, and then they brought out from thence the 24 books called the Bible, which Rabbi Hillel wrote, and by them they corrected all their books; and I have seen a part of them that were sold in Africa, and in my time they had been written nine hundred years. And Kimchi says in his grammar that the Pentateuch of it was at Toletola, in Spain, in his time.”
Objection: it is not said here it was pointed.
Response: But it is said Kimchi speaks of it in his grammar. And Kimchi, speaking of it, says it is pointed; as in Miklol (fol. 93. Col. 1). He says that Rabbi Jacob, the son of Eleazer, writes, that in the book of Hillel, which is in Toledolid, the word tideru תִּדְּרוּ, in Deuteronomy 12.11 is found without a dagesh lene in daleth, that is, daleth raphated. So on וְדָרְשׁוּ vedareshu in Psalm 109:10, he says that the word vedareshu is read with broad kamets, like [וְשָמְרוּ] veshameru, and so we have received the reading of it: and in the book of Hillel, which is kept at Toledolid, the Masoretes make this note upon it, namely: this is nowhere else found with katuph kamets: and so Nagid writes that he found it likewise in the masora so written with katuph kamets.
So in his Book of Roots, Sepher Sherashim, on the radix [root] שום about the word תְּשׂוֹמֶת: tesomet, there mem is with segol, contrary to rule, and is as if it were with pathack: and in the book of Hillel, which is in Toledolid, it is with pathack.
So Mercer, on Proverbs 24:14, on the word דְּעֶה: dech, he says: “In a manuscript it is written with tsere; but in the margin it is noted, that in Hillel’s copy it is written with segol.” The same says Rabbi Moses Bar Nachman, in his commentary on the book of Yetsir, or Yezirah.
Capellus objects, it may be Hillel’s copy was not so ancient as is pretended. But gives no reason why we should suspect its antiquity, which is generally owned by the Jews, as Juchasin and Kimchi (see Buxtorf Tractatus de Punctorum Vocalium et Accentuum 2.7). So that the points were before A.D. 500, being found in Hillel’s copy, A.D. 340. And mentioned in the Bahir, Zohar, Mishnah and Talmuds.
And hence we conclude the first part of this discourse, that the text was not pointed by the Masoretes, A.D. 500. Or since that time at Tiberias, or elsewhere.
And thus have we collected what others have written, and our selves observed about the novelty of the points; the like we intend about their antiquity in the second part, but more briefly, if possible.
