Chapter 12: The Ezraitic Reformation

The necessity of the Babylonian captivity for the reformation of the church — The heads of the Ezraitic reformation — The Great Synagogue restored — Its origin; its work — The Feast of Tabernacles restored, pleasing to God — The sole rule of ecclesiastical reformation — Repudiation of polygamy — The accuracy of the biblical text — The origin of the Hebrew points.

I. That God had not cast off all care for the church carried away into captivity was both evident from the outcome, and He Himself had given assurance of it to the godly through His promises. Indeed, to a most merciful Father, that brief exile was punishment enough for the greatest of crimes. The condition of that people during it was far different — vastly different — from what the condition of that same people now is, being most utterly cut off from God. For at that time they were not destitute of the written word, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the prophetic ministry, or of the most certain hope of return. But as we have said, it was impossible for that church to be recovered to good fruit without a total interruption of its solemn observances. For since the temple was holy, the city holy, and the whole land holy, and the priests all of one particular family, and the sacred administrations bound to one place, and the greater part of the priests and people corrupted and stubbornly persisting in apostate defection, a removal from the catholic seats of the church was necessarily to be prepared in advance for its reformation. But when the appointed time of captivity had been completed, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah — historical — and of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi — prophetical — testify that the returning people, under the auspices of godly princes, priests, and prophets, undertook the most complete reformation of the church according to the standard of Mosaic Theology.

II. Now of this reformation, which we shall call Ezraitic from its primary author, there were six more solemn parts, namely: 1. The restoration of the temple; 2. The institution of the Great Synagogue; 3. The most diligent examination of the copies of the sacred books; 4. The assiduous preaching of the word of God; 5. The solemn excommunication of the Cutheans; 6. Separation from the mixed people.

III. Those matters that pertain to the restoration of the temple, since they have been sufficiently disputed by others on account of certain chronological difficulties, and do not properly pertain to our purpose, it seemed best to pass over.

IV. We set down the second part of the Ezraitic reformation as the institution of the Great Synagogue, which is remembered with celebrated fame among the Jews. The Hebrew phrase — "the men of the Great Synagogue" — is the most customary circumlocution of these reformers. Whoever wishes to know more about it, besides the Jews themselves, may consult: Martin. Raymund., Pug. Fid., part ii, cap. iv.; Petrum Galatin., Arcan., lib. iv, cap. vi.; Bodin., de Repub., lib. vi, cap. viii; Baron., Annal., T. i, A.c. xxxi. 10, 11, xxxiii. 19; Lorin., ad Numer. xi. 16; Casaubon., Exercit., xiii. 5; Cappell., Vindic. pro Casaub., lib. iii, cap. ii.; Cunee, de Repub. Heb.; Constant. l'Emper., in Titu. Mid-

V. The Sanhedrin of seventy-one members had been instituted by Moses in the wilderness, which, compared to the lesser assemblies of judges, is commonly called the Great. Some affirm that it served only the wilderness era, and did not endure in the land of Canaan once judges or kings had been established; but Selden, the most vigorous defender of these Sanhedrins, rightly shows that they are greatly mistaken in this — though he does not deny that it had been interrupted many times. The returning people restored this Sanhedrin in the first place. There are, I confess, those for whom this most eminent part of the Ezraitic reformation is disagreeable, and who regard what is said concerning it as Jewish fictions; while they themselves are meanwhile ready to believe whatever the lying Talmud dares to invent in its traditions, provided it serves the interests of the opinions they cherish. But as we have said, the origin of this Sanhedrin of seventy-one members was sacred, proceeding from an express commandment of God. Those who dream that those great men and prophets returning from captivity — most thoroughly instructed in the law of God, burning with zeal for reformation of every kind — did not restore that assembly, without which they could neither preserve order nor authority, will find no rival in me. For they are not found to have fallen short of their duty in other matters in such a way that we would suspect them of negligence in this institution of the highest utility and necessity for the governance of the people. VI. Furthermore, this assembly of reformers was called the "Great Synagogue" par excellence, not from the number of its members, which was precisely determined, but on account of the dignity of the persons who constituted it.

348 THE JEWISH CHURCH, THE EZRAITIC REFORMATION. [Book 5. Indeed, the greater part of the confessors were men who were inspired, prophets, and amanuenses of the Holy Spirit. The church had never seen an assembly of this kind since the days of Moses; no one therefore ought to find it surprising if it brought back into sacred practice those things which, though instituted by God from the very beginnings of the church, had lain despised and neglected; and if, relying on divine authority, it ordained certain things concerning the sacred Scripture itself for the use and benefit of all the faithful to the end of the world. The reformation of the church comes closest to its original institution. It was therefore necessary that all these prophets and men of God should be, as it were, a single Moses; for a great and arduous work lay upon them, by which the ruins of many generations were to be repaired. It is pleasing to add one or two examples of the utmost diligence in restoring all things exactly to the standard of Mosaic Theology.

VII. Let the first example be the restoration of the Feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8:14, 16-18): "When they found written in the law that Jehovah had commanded through Moses that the Israelites should dwell in booths at their feast in the seventh month, ... the people went out ... and made themselves booths, each on his roof, or in his courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and also in the square at the Water Gate. And when the whole congregation of those who had returned from captivity had made booths and dwelt in the booths — for the sons of Israel had not done so from the days of Jehoshua the son of Nun until that day — there was very great rejoicing." That is, although they had observed the feast of the seventh month, they had not, however, dwelt in booths since the days of Jehoshua. But you will ask, what need was there to revive an antiquated institution which Samuel the prophet, David the king, and Josiah — the greatest of the reformers before the captivity — had omitted? Was it not mere excess of curiosity to look in the reformation beyond the Davidic era, in which the religious observance of divine worship had most flourished? But God did not so regard it. For in order to testify that that duty of theirs was pleasing and acceptable to Him, He immediately through the prophet not only extols that feast with great praise, but moreover celebrates in its name the spiritual worship of the gospel to be introduced (Zechariah 14:16-19) — so that the godly reformers might thereby learn how greatly it was valued before God, setting aside all other considerations, to attend severely and accurately to the standard of Mosaic Theology in their work.

VIII. We shall presently show that this synagogue also expelled from the boundaries of the church the unlawful intermarriage with Gentiles that had scarcely been avoided in a holy manner since the days of Solomon; but they also went higher still. For men instructed with the spirit of prophecy set themselves against the most ancient custom — never truly approved by God — of taking multiple wives and of dismissing those whom they had joined to themselves by lawful bonds on trivial pretexts, a custom which had prevailed throughout the whole nation from antiquity (Malachi 2:14-16): "Jehovah has testified between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did He not make one, though He had a remnant of spirit? And why one? That He might seek a godly offspring ... For he hates divorce, says Jehovah, the God of Israel." This is a remarkable testimony against polygamy, such as does not exist elsewhere in the whole Old Testament before the captivity. I confess that the earlier words of verse 15 are ambiguous — the Hebrew phrase which interpreters render variously: "Did not one do it?" "Did he not make one?" And in Greek: "Did not another make it?" For the Hebrew word, being masculine in gender, seems unable to denote a woman. But it does not have a feminine form derived from it. For the root of this word is not from the form which would yield a feminine, but from another, as R. D. K. teaches in the Michlol. It is therefore no wonder if this form is sometimes used in the feminine gender, as its neuter sense indicates (Zechariah 11:7); the following words also admit no other meaning. The Targum of Jonathan trifles with something or other about Abraham alone. But the words are clearly to be interpreted either of the single woman created in the beginning, as our Lord Jesus Christ Himself — the best author and interpreter of Scripture — appears to render their sense; or of the counsel of the one God to join one male and one female in lawful matrimony.

IX. The words, moreover, with which the prophet treats the subject of divorce are not altogether free from ambiguity, ver. 16: Jerome renders: "If you have hated her, put her away, says the Lord." The ancient English version: "If he hate her, let him put her away" — which reading the royal translation retains in the margin, yet interprets the words in an entirely different sense: "The Lord says that he hateth putting away" — in accordance with the mind of the Holy Spirit. For since the words are set down elliptically, that sense which, without arbitrary supplements, is nearest to the foundation, is to be embraced. Therefore the word is placed absolutely, and God testifies that He hates this sending away.

X. In this manner were laid the first foundations of the reformation of the Jewish church upon its return from captivity. Seeking out with the utmost faithfulness and diligence God's own original institutions, however much they had been made obsolete and consigned to oblivion over so many centuries, they adhered to them most scrupulously.

XI. We have mentioned in the foregoing place the careful preservation of Holy Scripture. It is the greatest treasure of the church, to which, under God's care and the administration of the Spirit, it owes its continued existence on earth. This is the sole law of the entire reformation, and therefore the first thing to be attended to with care. No one can justly doubt that Ezra and his prophetic colleagues had carefully preserved ancient copies in their possession. They applied the greatest effort to transcribing these most accurately, and to removing errors that could not impossibly have crept in from other copies during the period of the dispersion. Some attribute the beginning of the collation of all these to the Masorah. In the whole work, moreover, they made use of the most present inspiration and guidance of God. But that Ezra

— neither to have wished to change the ancient letters, nor to have been obliged to, nor to have been able to, nor to have had any need to, we have already demonstrated. There is also another fiction which has, more than it ought, gained credence among some great men: namely, that the entire Holy Scripture was lost, and that Ezra restored it from memory and committed it to writing. A most absurd falsehood, and at the same time a blasphemy! God forbid that anyone should hereafter cast this reproach upon His care, providence, and love toward the church! XII. Most learned men consider the invention of Hebrew vowel points to pertain to Ezra's careful work on the biblical text. I assent to their opinion to this extent, that I regard it as most probable. For after the prophetic ministry had ceased in the Jewish church, it is a matter of reverence to think that no others whatever could have undertaken that work. Whether, therefore, we say that the vowels were coeval with the letters themselves, or were devised by Ezra, it amounts to the same thing, since both positions ascribe a divine origin to them. There are, however, those who hold that the entire Hebrew vowel-pointing is a post-Talmudic rabbinic invention. What I think in this matter, since the plan of my work requires me to state it, I hope I may set forth without giving offense to anyone here or elsewhere; although another attempt on this front did not turn out so successfully, by which, all unknowingly, I frightened away the clucking hen from the egg she had just hatched.

DIGRESSION. On the Origin of Hebrew Vowel Pointing.

I. It is the opinion of great men that Ezra and his colleagues, assessors of the great synagogue, invented the Hebrew vowel pointing while they were making careful provision for the Holy Scriptures, since before that time the Jews used only the twenty-two consonantal letters in writing. I am not willing, for my part, to oppose the opinion of those who hold that the vowels were coeval with the letters, nor to persist in that view obstinately; since even those who consider the origin of the vowel points to be ascribed to Ezra maintain plainly that it was of divine origin. The opinion, therefore, whose defense we undertake in this digression, is that the Hebrew vowel pointing which we now use by the benefit of God should be assigned to no one after the time of Ezra; or, what amounts to the same thing, that it had a divine and infallible origin. For there are some who think that certain post-Talmudic rabbis devised it; and they not only think so, but also consider that those who hold otherwise deserve to be met with insults. Yet the monstrous arrogance they employ does not frighten me from subjecting their opinion to examination. For the anger and high-sounding words which some display — acting as if they were pleading the cause of truth, with minds puffed up with disgust and an excessive opinion of themselves, or inflated with the leaven of partisan zeal — are things which one who has not learned to despise, or at least

to disregard, will, in these embittered times, be compelled to abandon all hope and concern for defending the truth.

II. When this divergence of opinions was first entered into by learned men, it seemed to be of very little moment how the dispute was resolved. Elias Levita is almost the only one among Jews who inclines toward the opinion of the novelty of the vowel pointing. But since he had established that the oral law — which that most superstitious nation adores as a shadow or a cloud — had always existed, merely being committed to writing by the rabbis, he was untroubled about its divine authority. Perhaps it was equally indifferent to him whether it was considered to have originated from God Himself or from masters who nearly occupy God's place. Those Christians who first embraced this opinion could not foresee in their own thoughts what evils would arise from it. But since the audacity of some in profaning the Holy Scriptures has ceased to be tolerable and advances further every day — lest at length, outrageously, nothing sacred should remain in the sacred texts — it seems to be the concern of all who are held by due reverence for the divine word to guard most scrupulously every detail of Hebrew truth. For we see that from this one error — concerning the rabbinic and arbitrary invention of the Hebrew vowel points — very many evils have poured themselves out upon the church of God, threatening the most serious ruin to sacred truth. Hence some assert that the individual words of Holy Scripture must be considered and weighed apart from all connection with other words, as so many, I suppose, hieroglyphic signs; others, that the Holy Scriptures have been corrupted by the Jews in this arrangement or fixing of vowel points which we now use — among these is Bellarmine, De Verb. Dei, lib. ii. cap. li. Johannes Morinus maintains that the sense of the Hebrew text cannot be perceived by us without the aid of the vowel points; and therefore, since the points owe their origin to the effort of uncertain men — fallible in all things, plainly false in some — that Hebrew text cannot be the rule and norm of faith, Exerc. lib. i. cap. ii. Gregory of Valencia therefore wishes it to be corrected according to the standard of the Latin Vulgate version, tom. i. disput. v. quest. 38. Another person — whom I do not name, both out of respect and for other reasons — thinks that rabbinic invention is not so perfect that it cannot be improved. Another holds that the vowel pointing can be altered by anyone at his own pleasure, provided that a more convenient sense of the words is elicited by that alteration. Cappellus adds that very many differences between the Hebrew text and the ancient versions, especially the Greek of the LXX, took their rise from this — that the latter was made before the invention of the vowel points, and accordingly followed that reading which was then in use, from which the Masoretes often departed in their vowel pointing. I fear, however, that through this opened door, still greater monstrosities of opinion may be expected from the curious and itching minds of this age, especially if diligence should be added to audacity. How this dispute was conducted not long ago among learned men, especially Buxtorf and Cappellus, is known to no one who wishes to be informed of these matters

— about these matters. What has recently been said by some others is almost entirely borrowed from those men. Indeed, I am sufficiently well-informed that certain persons would not have pressed forward so heavily armed with the testimonies of the rabbis on behalf of the novelty of the vowel points, had not the most illustrious Buxtorf so thoroughly burned his calf, that what he had adduced by way of objection against himself they converted to their own use.

III. It is now two years and more since I wrote and published some things in our vernacular tongue on this question concerning the origin of the vowel points. These were received by a certain person in the manner befitting one who feels it pertains to his honor to display the greatest contempt for others. It would be easy to strip that little crow of the borrowed colors in which she trusts and by which she arrogates everything to herself, if that matter were now being pursued. But our present purpose does not allow it. Nor would the work now in hand — growing to an unexpected bulk — permit me to pursue in this place all the things that, as I resolved from the beginning, pertain to untying this question and deciding the controversy. Therefore, briefly touching on the principal grounds of reason on which I continue to rest in the opinion concerning the divine origin of Hebrew punctuation, and submitting the chief objections by which some contend to oppose it to examination, I shall press on to those things that remain to be said concerning the Ezraic reformation.

IV. First, therefore, we argue from universal usage and possession. The possession of so great a treasure is not easily to be abandoned. The whole church of God holds this punctuation of the scriptures of the Old Testament as its own property. That a great benefit is contained in it, the adversaries of our position will not deny. No monument exists anywhere among the nations of any manuscript copy more ancient in its punctuation. No legitimate prescriptive claim can therefore be brought against this possession. Whatever is said on the opposing side consists of conjectures. It is indeed true that there are very many manuscripts, and that from all past antiquity copies once existed written without the points. But that none exists contemporary with the time in which the advocates of the novelty of the points feign them to have been invented — this, I think, they themselves will admit. The possession is therefore legitimate, and the prescriptive right properly established by antiquity. Among the books of Selden, which are now preserved in the Bodleian Library, there is a most ancient Pentateuch, most beautifully copied in two volumes; with verses alternately in Hebrew and Chaldean, so that the Targum is attached throughout to the text. At the first glance at the book I immediately detected that the vowel points had been added and inserted long after the writing of the letters. The manner of writing and the color of the ink attest this. But it can be shown by very many indications that this manuscript was written no earlier than several centuries after the rabbis' fictitious invention of the punctuation. Although this argument is not in itself sufficiently valid to decide this whole controversy, yet if the weightiest grounds of reason on the contrary side are not brought forward, it will be found to have force more than sufficient for repelling objections. That grammatical trifles, the silence of one or another ancient writer about the points, sophistical cavils, the most uncertain conjectures, and other things of that sort are sufficient to eject the church of God from this possession — whoever will concede this is, in my judgment, too easily persuaded in a cause that is not his own. The arguments customarily brought forward to overthrow the divine origin of the points are therefore not to be weighed in an equal balance, neither inclining to this side nor that, against those that fight for it; since on this side also hangs the weight of this possession, which ought to be dislodged from its place before the opposing reasons are reckoned to proceed at an equal pace. In other matters, there are few who labor under such sloth and negligence as to allow themselves to be thus circumscribed and expelled from their inherited goods. Let each man do what he will; for my part I shall certainly not yield this possession except unwillingly and under the compulsion of arguments.

V. 2. The very nature of the thing clearly shows that it is from heaven, not from men. The Spirit breathes everywhere in it. From beginning to end of the sacred books, consistent with itself, self-coherent, everywhere sincerely and infallibly determining the meaning of the letters, this punctuation indicates and declares the mind of the Holy Spirit. Those on the opposing side will never produce a single instance to the contrary that carries any weight. This shines forth most clearly in the most obscure prophecies, which conceal the most profound mysteries — in the understanding of which all Jews are blinder than moles, and have been so ever since the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. I trust that grave and learned men would not wish to sell, for the price of the most uncertain conjectures, that light which the punctuation brings to innumerable places of sacred Scripture, unless they were afflicted with a certain perverse obstinacy. That certain accents are superfluous and useless, that the silent shewa is often added without purpose and multiplied without cause, and other such petty quibbles which Cappellus suggests in the reformation of grammar in favor of his hypothesis — these are so frivolous and inept that I marvel that learned men have been able to insist on them and ever bring themselves to accept them. That learned men will know the proper rationale for every single point in sacred Scripture — this, I think, they will not claim. Certainly I know those who have told me, in their published writings, that certain points in the Hebrew punctuation are wholly useless and certain accents superfluous; but who told them the same I do not know. Nor is there any inclination in me, in so great a cause, to lend faith and authority to grammatical trifles and the bold conjectures of puffed-up men. Others say that Hebrew punctuation is not so perfect a work but that it can be corrected, emended, and rendered more perfect. But there is more than one reason why I should judge them as too elated by their own opinion, or as knowingly and willingly carrying themselves more magnificently than their merits warrant, in order the more disdainfully to contemn others. Come then; if they are men, let them try their strength. We shall immediately see how far bronze differs from lupines. They shall never equal that man and his wisdom who produced the punctuation, even if they burst themselves trying. Let them proceed by specific instances, or it will be of no profit to pour out empty words, of those who are at home neither here nor there. Whoever shall seriously weigh this work will find it perfect, divine, most absolute — like the other works of God, to which nothing can be added and nothing taken away. To one who would emend or [illegible]

354 On the Origin of Hebrew Punctuation. (Book 5.) To one who would emend or correct it I shall say: Will you also annul my judgment? (Job 40:2.) Nor indeed can I sufficiently wonder what has come into the minds of learned men, that they should ascribe to some ignorant rogues — destitute of all resources both spiritual and of secular learning — a work of this kind, to the emending of which in any single point the entire nation of the learned has always been unequal, and still is.

VI. 3. In this question, which is one of fact, the testimonies of the Jews themselves are of no small weight. All of them here agree in the same judgment, namely, that the origin of the punctuation was divine. Elias Levita himself, who was almost the only one among his people who dared to ascribe the designation of open sounds by means of points to the post-Talmudic Masoretes of Tiberias, nevertheless everywhere maintains that it was a part of the oral law handed down by God Himself on Mount Sinai, and that it had been preserved no less sacredly and inviolately than if it had been committed to writing from the very beginning. But the majority of them, and the most learned, consistently assign this writing to Moses or Ezra. Whoever wishes to see this proved by testimonies should consult the most learned dissertation of the distinguished Buxtorf on the origin of Hebrew punctuation, and Joseph de Voisin in his most erudite preface to the Pugio Fidei of Martin Raymond. When I had said elsewhere that the testimonies of the rabbis carry great weight in this cause, and that they ought therefore to be considered competent to have invented the punctuation itself, this was objected against me. But most unjustly: the absurdity of that comparison betrays itself. For some can bear witness that a thing was done divinely — at least that neither they nor their fathers did it — who are in reality wholly unequal and unfit for doing the thing itself. But to dismiss the testimonies of the Hebrews, they say that the controversy is not about the sounds of the vowels, but only about the signs. For they acknowledge that the Hebrews always had the same vowel sounds which they still use, and that thus the language was never destitute of vowels. That the observation of this distinction is of such great moment for deciding this whole controversy, someone not long ago judged it to be, so that he attacked me with unbridled spirit because, in narrating this controversy, I had thought no account of it needed to be taken. But I could not suppose that the question being discussed was whether all Hebrews were utterly dumb until the time of the Masoretes of Tiberias. For if they were destitute of vowel sounds, they were also dumb, and could never utter a single complete word. For that nothing can be pronounced through the letters themselves without open vowel sounds is known to those who have not yet washed their ears. That the Hebrew language had vowels in this sense — not only before it entered anyone's mind to express them by marks or figures, but even before a single consonant letter was written or inscribed — whoever shall attempt to prove this by reasons and arguments, has a cause, without doubt, in which it is easy to be eloquent. Meanwhile it is the origin of the points, not of the sounds, that we are investigating. But since the advocates of the novelty of the points judge it to be in the interest of their cause that this distinction between sounds and figures of vowels be carefully weighed in the agitation of this question, come, let us concede that the Hebrews before the invention of the points were not dumb, but spoke after the manner of other men. But what assistance they can carve out of this for their cause still remains to be seen by us. VII. 4. The supreme utility, if not the absolute necessity, of the points and accents for the proper understanding of the sacred text — since I have expounded this elsewhere — I am unwilling to rehearse at length here. I leave this to the judgment of all who have ever seriously used the Hebrew language in the study of sacred letters. Rabbi Bechai, on section Noah (Exodus 13:17), brings forward an excellent testimony from the book Bahir to this end — namely: The points with the letters of the law of Moses are like the soul of life in the human body. But if that heavenly light, which is generated for truth from the fixing and restricting of the meaning of the words which the Holy Spirit uses, is to be reckoned the product of human ingenuity and will, what great evils will immediately spring from that, and what prejudices to faith, no one can easily conjecture. The memory of the attempts of some, whom this supposition has driven out, is altogether unwelcome. Hence we have seen some boasting, without horror and most just indignation, resting on doubtful, uncertain, indeed most inept conjectures — those who, in order to display themselves as skilled craftsmen in composing learned conjectures, are prepared to cast away all reverence for God and men — the uncertainty and obscurity of the Hebrew text, and correction to be instituted through the versions, and even conjectures, if only one would use them modestly, according to their own judgment. Still worse things are forced upon us by the itching and ambitious minds of this age. Let the vowel points be removed, all the distinctive accents, and let the bare letters remain, or rather let them remain thus stripped bare, with no distinction applied throughout any book, each word separated from the rest by some point as among the Samaritans, or at least an imaginary one — how great an Iliad of evils, how great scandals and dangers would immediately flood the church would be apparent at once. But that all these things can be thus removed and discarded, indeed perhaps ought to be, if the entire punctuation is the handiwork of uncertain men, of Jewish rabbis — no reason of any weight can be brought forward. They say, however, that the letters which they call mothers of reading, and the letter Vav, before the invention of the points were either vowels or were used in the place of vowels, by the benefit of which readers could easily remedy all those inconveniences that seem to accompany the absence of vowels; and that the points also were not set by the Masoretes of Tiberias according to their own will or pleasure, and that therefore the punctuation does not rest on their authority. But I would first gladly know whether those letters alone which they call mothers of reading, which now appear in the sacred text, were employed for that end, or whether they were also added and inserted in all other places in which the sound of the word requires their presence. If they say that only those were formerly used which still adhere to the text, and in those places and words in which they remain — it is clearer than noonday light that they could not supply the place of vowels nor compensate for their deficiency; since there are innumerable words in which they do not appear at all, and sometimes where they are present they do not serve correct pronunciation, if any trust is to be placed in the present punctuation; for it would necessarily follow that a single Aleph would render almost all open sounds by itself, which everyone sees would be as ridiculous to imagine. But if they shall say that these vowel letters were formerly multiplied in the text, and written throughout according to the standard of the sound of the words — I should like to know who those persons were who dared to pluck out and discard so many thousands of letters inscribed in sacred Scripture by God Himself and the prophets, or when we should suspect this was done? Neither the religion nor the superstition of the Jews allows us to ascribe so bold a deed to them. It is not characteristic of the same men both to count scrupulously how many times each single letter occurs throughout the entire Bible, and to discard so many thousands voluntarily. Therefore this fiction is not willing to heal the wound that the novel opinion concerning the points inflicts upon the light of truth and the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Moreover, that the Hebrew text was expressed with Greek characters by the aid of these vowel letters — which is also pretended — is proved by no reasons or testimonies. That bare assertions, suspicions, and conjectures should be allowed any place in so great a cause is not fair. One could have learned the pronunciation of the Hebrew language from the usage of the Jews, or from the points themselves, so that for representing the Hebrew text in Greek characters one had no need of that fictitious and most imperfect aid. Then again, that the Masoretes of Tiberias did not punctuate the Scriptures according to their own will — which is the other part of the answer set out above — is something that Jews, relying on the foolish tradition of the oral law, can maintain with some modesty and show of probability; but others cannot, namely those who acknowledge that oral law to be a fiction of superstitious men. There is, however, one who, in defending the novelty of the points, asserts twenty times, and not without insults toward those of the contrary opinion, that these Masoretes punctuated Scripture according to the received and common reading which properly expressed the mind of the Holy Spirit, and not according to their own will. Let us see, therefore, what sound reason underlies this that could persuade anyone to regard that fictitious punctuation of the Masoretes as of any value. The Masoretes, they say, attached the points to the Bible according to the reading received and in common use at that time. Among whom, I ask, was that reading received, which is established as the standard for attaching the points? Among those very Masoretes themselves, of course. For at the time when they say this deed was done, it is uncertain whether there were any Christians who understood the Hebrew text. The Masoretes, therefore, punctuated the Bible according to the reading received among themselves. That is the hope. Although we have shown elsewhere that they were the worst of rogues, if there were any, perpetually using the boldness of fabricating whatever they pleased; let it be granted, however, that in this undertaking it was expedient for them to be honest. What then? That received reading exhibited the genuine meaning of the Holy Spirit, to which they attended in attaching the points. But who, I ask, were the judges and arbiters of that meaning? The Masoretes themselves, without doubt. Therefore the Masoretes attached the points not according to their own will but according to the reading received among themselves and the meaning which they judged best and true. If I were to deny this, how, I ask, would the adversary prove it? Will he show that they acted in good faith in other matters? He will never do so. Will he bring witnesses? He has none. And Seneca teaches us that a historian has never been compelled to take an oath. Let us therefore proceed in equity and fairness, and concede what cannot be proved. But these things are not mutually contradictory: they could have used their own judgment in discerning the true reading and in investigating the meaning of the Holy Spirit, and yet have had no form or standard of punctuation, and thus be arbitrary judges of the work they undertook — unless no one is to be considered to act according to his own will unless he acts perversely. That strict judgment is one thing and arbitrary judgment another, Marcus Tullius affirms in the oration for Roscius. But the laws would nowhere have constituted arbitrary judges if it were necessary that whoever determines anything by his own will must determine it without judgment. For when we permit something to the will of others, we do not mean that in passing sentence on us and our affairs they should indulge their own inclinations with no regard for what is fair or right. When I said, therefore, that the Masoretes attached the points to the Bible according to their own will, I understood nothing else, nor could I have understood anything else, than that they carried out this work using and trusting their own judgments. Thus the knowledge, skill, judgment, and integrity of the Tiberian rabbis — all of which I would not purchase for a rotten walnut — are, according to this view, the sole foundation of the present reading of all Hebrew manuscripts. For there is no mortal who has learned the use of manuscripts that are still written without points, except by the aid of the points. But you say that, relying on tradition and not on their own judgment, they reproduced in their punctuation the reading received from their fathers. But how faithful they were as guardians of traditions, how skilled as compilers and purveyors of most inept fables, indeed horrible blasphemies, under the name of most ancient traditions — as if they had counted it a glory to have utterly overturned all traces of truth — I am unwilling to say at greater length here, since the matter is manifest and will be spoken of later. Therefore, from that tradition — since they themselves, even if they were not to be promoted, had nevertheless constituted themselves by their own authority as guardians and preservers of it — we are not yet freed from having to rest on the faith of one of those rogues in the reading of the entire Hebrew text. They say furthermore that the true reading of the text was preserved not so much by oral tradition, after that language ceased to be vernacular, as by the very writing of the text itself, which always remained intact. But this also seems to me remarkable; for it does not admit of easy explanation how the true reading can be preserved in the writing, through that writing which cannot be read. For I should gladly know, since the letters without [illegible]

358 On the Origin of Hebrew Punctuation. [Book 5.] the use of open sounds or vowels cannot be pronounced, and may signify anything according to the will of the one who joins those sounds to them, how the distinction of vowels and their legitimate use can depend on them. But it is not pleasing to dwell longer on these things, lest I should again fall in with disputants of this kind who would consider that the pernicious consequences, which the invention of rabbinical punctuation — the patronage of which they have undertaken — would bring in, are to be imputed to those who are confident of the divine origin of the points.

VIII. 5. Furthermore: the force and authority of the opinion concerning the ancient and sacred origin of the points are strengthened by the uncertainty and vacillation of the authors of the contrary opinion in assigning their origin. They are unwilling to say that Ezra invented the points; who then is the author of the work? When did he live, and where in the world? To what end did he undertake the work? By whose command, persuasion, or authority? Whom or how many did he have as master workmen, arbiters, and judges of the work? What did those whose interest it most greatly was that the work be carried out to the last detail think or determine concerning the work undertaken and completed? All these things they either openly profess to be ignorant of, or it is easy to prove that they are. The work is said to have been the common undertaking of the Masoretes of Tiberias. So, of course, said Elias Levita. Some determine that it was completed in the fifth century after the birth of Christ, others in the sixth, Morinus in the seventh or eighth. But what if I were to say that those Masoretes of Tiberias never existed, and that the authors of this opinion, in order to fabricate that the points were devised by those Masoretes, first fabricated the Masoretes themselves? Could they convict me of falsehood from any approved history, from the monuments of past events? I am quite sure they cannot. I acknowledge indeed that around the year 350, when Jerome was in Palestine, the Jews had an obscure and inglorious school in the city of Tiberias. Whether it lasted there until the time to which the inventors and fabricators of this imaginary work are compelled to assign it is uncertain, indeed improbable. For such was the condition of that people at that time that they could not safely remain for long in any considerable number anywhere within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which they had so often shaken with slaughters, seditions, and wars. In the very place where they are said to have completed this work, not long before they had been afflicted with a great disaster by Gallus, the legate of the Emperor Constantius. From that time, whether any trace of a Masoretic school remained in Tiberias is immediately uncertain. Furthermore: everything in which there was ever any knowledge or learning among the Jews was cultivated more diligently at that time in the east, around Babylon, where they had occupied quieter habitations, than in Palestine. While the western rabbis had been almost as mute as fish for a century or two, out of the east came that great and most consummate work of fables and trifles, the Talmud, which is called Babylonian. That a few obscure, ignoble men of no name or worth should have undertaken and completed so great a work without the knowledge of other celebrated men of the same profession, and without consulting them — this is for those to believe who are ready to give easy credence to everything that yields to the advantage of their cause. Furthermore: whoever has greeted any Jewish writings even from the threshold knows that all Jews are, and have always been from the final rejection, the most insolent heralds of things gloriously achieved, as it seems to them, by themselves and their own people. In this arena they have always taken care only that they do not pass over true things in silence, while they shamelessly put forward falsehoods, fictions, and unprecedented claims everywhere with the utmost impudence. Yet concerning this most divine of inventions, than which that people has never produced anything equal or comparable, there is among them the deepest silence for several centuries. After a thousand years, Elias finally came forward, who suspects that certain Masoretes of Tiberias devised this work. Was there no one who could have committed to writing for posterity the origin of that divine artifice among the inventors themselves, especially since its glory and usefulness were so great that nowhere in the world — whether Christian or Jew, learned or unlearned — has anyone been found who was willing or dared to contradict its use or its perfection in any part, in the whole, or in the smallest point? Is it credible that the fame of so great an endeavor, exulting in its prosperous success, should have been entirely extinguished within the brief space of a generation among a people most tenacious of all traditions even about trivial and worthless matters? I confess that I do not have enough credulity in my treasury to bestow faith on such portentous conjectures.

IX. That the punctuation of the Bible is a most excellent invention, no one, I think, will deny. It must plainly be said that nothing like it will ever arise, nor has anything like it ever arisen. The church has received an immortal benefit in its use. There are learned men who hold that it is absolutely and indispensably necessary for the true understanding of sacred letters. Without the points, says Marcus Mann in his preface to his Hebrew Lexicon, no certain doctrine about this language can be transmitted; since everything can be read in different ways, so that there would be greater confusion of this one language than that of Babylon. And Rudolphus Cevallerius, in Rudiments of the Hebrew Language, chap. 4: As for what remains concerning the antiquity of the vowels and accents, I subscribe to the opinion of those who affirm that the Hebrew language, as the most perfect archetype of all other languages, was plainly written with them from the beginning; since those who think otherwise not only make the authority of sacred Scripture doubtful, but in my judgment utterly overturn it, inasmuch as without vowels and marks of distinction it has nothing certain and firm. Franciscus Junius is of the same opinion, in his Animadversions on Book 2, Chapter 2, of Bellarmine's De Verbo Dei; where, following John Isaac, a Jewish Christian, he compares one who undertakes to read the Scriptures without the points to a one-eyed horse. I will not repeat what Jerome said about the writings of Jovinian, after someone else about those of Plautus: No one but the Sibyl will read these; but I can apply that poet's saying — he who has obtained a reputation obtains a standing — so on all sides do difficulties present themselves in the bare letters. And noteworthy are the remarks of Engelbertus Engles in his preface to the lexicon of Valentin Schindler. There are, he says, many most learned and most distinguished men, who, because certain Jewish rabbis long after the

360 On the Origin of Hebrew Punctuation. [Book 5.] letters of the alphabet, assert that the points were invented by men, and think that vowels did not exist at the same time as the consonants of the Hebrews; but if the few places of Scripture enumerated from many are more carefully considered, it will become clear that the points either arose together with the 22 letters, or that Scripture was formerly like wax, flexible now in this direction, now in that. And if the points were invented by men, it follows necessarily that Scripture in our time has not divine but human authority. Hence that saying of Aben-Ezra, in the Balance of the Holy Language: Whatever exposition shall not be according to the rationale of the accents, do not acquiesce in it, nor give ear to it. He has similar statements in other places; I will add only what he has in his Commentary on Exodus 20:1: Know that words are like bodies, and accents like souls; but the body is like a garment to the soul.

X. The far greater part of the theologians who have been trained in this arena holds the same view. Some of the Papists do indeed freely concede that the Hebrew text, with the vowel points removed, can be understood either not at all, or only with great difficulty and very imperfectly. Then, certain great men who, in their writings, touched on this matter in passing while engaged with other subjects — having by no means weighed all the considerations pertaining to this cause — were too hastily drawn to a position on it; and these men, seizing their concessions for their own purposes with the utmost boldness, triumph over the sacred Hebrew truth with astonishing audacity, as though it were useless and scarcely or not at all intelligible. There are even those who fling a grave charge against those who most firmly believe in the divine origin of the vowel points, on the grounds that, according to the opinion of those who assign that origin to the rabbis, the pointing could, and perhaps should, be removed — as though they were doing injury to the Holy Scriptures, and attempting that from which much of the clarity of the text would be taken away. By the same reasoning, some Socinian might say that I deny Christ ought to be worshiped with religious worship, because I deny that He ought to be so worshiped unless He were that supreme and only God — while the Socinian himself is fully persuaded that He is not that supreme God. In this matter, therefore, we have all learned men as supporters; namely, that the use of vowel points and accents is of such great moment for perceiving the true and genuine sense of Holy Scripture, that with them removed, nearly all things would be thrown into a wondrous confusion and rendered uncertain. It is indeed true that those who have attained to the true reading of the text by means of the pointing, and who retain knowledge of that sense which the pointed words and the passages distinguished by accents express, are able to make much progress in the study of the Scriptures by the aid of other means. But let us suppose that these points had never been devised, and let us utterly cast away all the sense and understanding that we have drawn from Holy Scripture by their benefit, whether directly or through the labors and studies of others; let us approach the bare letters with minds empty of preconceived opinions — and we shall immediately see into what great difficulties, uncertainties, and darkness we are plunged. For since every person's own judgment would be established as the standard for the pronunciation of words, the reading of sentences, and all pauses and distinctions, who would prevent the entire community of scholars from immediately falling into endless and ruinous disputes? That unique word of God — once the glorious prize — would become an apple of discord. Whether proud and luxuriant minds, swollen with the conceit of knowledge or laboring for a reputation in learning, would leave anything unmoved and beyond doubt in it, is quite uncertain; indeed, it is nearly most certain that they would leave nothing of the sort. Upon this pointing rest all those means by which we learn this language, and even many aids for those already advanced in its solid knowledge. If all these are cast away — and not just this or that conjugation as pleases Cappellus, since the rationale is the same for all — without whose help and benefit not even the Jews themselves, who are wholly devoted to the study of this language, would have anything certain to rest upon, then the door will most certainly be thrown wide open — not merely a broad window, but a great gate — to endless disputes. For is there almost any man of somewhat greater learning who would not feel shame, and who would not be weary of his own sloth, if he could contrive nothing new which, by his own judgment and testimony, would contribute to correcting the true and genuine reading of Holy Scripture and to properly fixing and establishing the distinctions of sentences? And shall we suppose that no one would immediately be found who, to show himself a more excellent craftsman than another, or more skilled at composing learned conjectures, would tear down his work? He must indeed be a stranger to all literary matters, and especially to criticism, who thinks otherwise. But there is no need, they say, for the present reading or pointing to be changed in any respect. I say, however, that in order for any work to be held so sacred that no one has the right to change it in any respect or to introduce anything new into it, this must arise either from the excellence of the work itself, or additionally from the supreme and inviolable authority of its author. Where only the excellence and rationale of the work is alleged, it is fair that that excellence and rationale be accurately and diligently weighed, in order to establish that they are not alleged in vain. But once an examination has been instituted, it is entirely lawful and free for the examiner to reject whatever seems less congruent with right reason. And there is nothing to prevent this from being done in this cause. They say that this system of pointing is most excellent, and therefore should not easily be rejected in any respect. Very well; but it is not exempted from free examination on account of its excellence — not in the least; indeed, where through its alteration a truer reading or a more suitable sense can be drawn out in the judgment of the examiners, then since it is subject to examination by its own merits, not only will such alteration be lawful but even necessary. And it is clear that this must be said of all sentences, indeed of every single word. Come, then, let the critics try their strength, exhaust the full power of their art here, bring here wagonloads of annotations, devise new readings, new senses — the most faithful guardian of sacred truth, namely the received reading, has gone — it has perished — it has boarded ship —

362 ON THE ORIGIN OF HEBREW POINTING. [Book 5.] — reverence for the received reading. Many things, I admit, are brought forward by the advocates of the novelty of the points in answer to the argument drawn from the impossibility of learning that language and attaining the genuine sense of Scripture in many places, with the benefit of the pointing removed. Johannes Morinus confesses that the matter is truly so, and that an accurate knowledge of this language is altogether impossible; and he ridicules those who think that the Masoretes by their pointing preserved the correct pronunciation of the language. It is true that the Hebrew language, compared with other languages, contains very few words. But it is not thereby made easy to learn or readily acquired. For although the words or expressions are few, yet many have the same signification; and there is almost none that does not admit of several meanings, and very many admit a great number. The same letters exhibit various and often entirely different significations. This is well known. The word rendered "Salomo" means both "Solomon" and "perfect" and "recompense" and "garment." Innumerable examples of this kind can be drawn from any vocabulary and concordance of this language. While it was indeed a vernacular tongue, spoken daily by a vast multitude of people, it was not very difficult to properly grasp the force of each word and to retain it by use. But when it ceased to be in common use, and there was no person for whom it was his native and vernacular tongue, and it was preserved in its entirety in one book alone, it is altogether impossible that its correct pronunciation could be maintained except from a consideration of the text of the book itself. Some urge that the Greek language at one time lacked accents, and was yet sufficiently clear to the understanding. But whoever concludes that Greek accents are to be compared with Hebrew vowel points and accents appears to have insufficiently grasped the use or function of either in the respective language. The Greek language has such breadth that nearly everything in it is redundant. Moreover, the regular variation of its words and their mutual dependence in construction are so great that the accents contribute little or nothing to the intelligibility of speech. There are very few words which, consisting of the same letters in certain tenses, are distinguished in meaning by accents. In Hebrew all things are different: the variation of words is minimal; the dependence in the course of speech is rare and abrupt; ellipses are most frequent; the ambiguity of words is nearly infinite. And yet even in Greek, where a word is genuinely of doubtful meaning for lack of an accent — which does not happen often — it is not difficult to go astray. Let the well-known error of the great Jerome serve as an example. Eusebius wrote in his Chronicle, at the year 1326 A.M.: EPIMENIDES CLEANSES ATHENS. Jerome translated it, "Epimenides overthrew Athens," instead of "purified it" — since it was uncertain whether katharei or kathairen should be read; but the matter is known from history, for Epimenides did not overthrow but rather purified the land of Attica with sacrifices. Moreover, what some suppose — that even Aristotle himself missed the true sense of a proverbial saying which he mentions, taking it to mean "wicked" with the accent on the last syllable — is without doubt wrong, since the proverb means "wretched and laborious" with the accent on the first syllable. For the terms rendered "wretched" and "blessed" are properly opposed to each other; the terms rendered "wicked" and "blessed" are not at all. The same reasoning holds, and the same also is the signification of the word meaning "wicked" and of the word meaning "one who leads a wretched life" — each rendered by the superlative form; hence that question posed from an ambiguity at Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, Book 8, by Stratonicus: "Who are the most wretched of those in Pamphylia?" — since the life of the Pamphylians was both wretched and infamous for acts of brigandage. Indeed, that even the greatest men have sometimes been deceived about the sense of words, when an ambiguous word occurs with no distinct accent, even though an attentive consideration of the entire passage seems to require precisely one sense — let Marcus Tullius himself serve as an example, the most learned of all men born in Greek and in Latin. In the first book of the Tusculan Disputations, chapter 42, he reports the words of Leonidas to the Lacedaemonians who were about to fight against Xerxes, confident that they would without doubt die in battle, as follows: "Go on with brave spirit; perhaps we shall dine among the dead." The Greek word in question means "breakfast" and also means "the best or bravest in war," derived from a related root. But Diodorus Siculus, Book 11, chapter 9, says that Leonidas commanded them to "breakfast quickly," saying "Breakfast!" or "Take breakfast now!" — that is, "Eat your breakfast promptly." This sense is required by the logic of the antithesis — namely, "as those who will sup among the dead." But Cicero, not attending to the antithesis and taking the word as if it were derived from the word signifying "a brave man," translated it "Go on with brave spirit." There are other examples at hand, but a poorly constructed comparison will not permit me to dwell on them longer. You will perhaps say that the pointing also rests on authority to this extent, that it would be wrong to abandon it altogether. But all its authority it has from its authors, and from nowhere else. In order, then, to come to the point we are aiming at, we shall briefly consider who, according to the opinion of those who oppose the divine origin of the pointing, its authors were.

XI. Those who deny that the Bible was pointed by Ezra, as we have said before, assign that work with one voice to certain Masoretes or Jewish rabbis of Tiberias. In designating the time, they hold contradictory opinions. They conjecture that certain Masoretes lived at Tiberias after the completion of both Talmudic works, which they establish as antecedent to this devising of the points; for they cannot prove it by any adequate argument or testimony. That the Jews had a school in that place some centuries earlier, we admit; but we say that it was abandoned and desolate at the time when the Babylonian Talmud was compiled. But let us grant — since the learned men would very much wish it — that certain Jewish rabbis, more or fewer, lived at Tiberias at that time; who and of what character they were, and what is to be attributed to their learning, judgment, and integrity — taking nothing away from their reputation in an injurious manner — let us briefly consider.

XII. I do not wish to repeat here what I have written elsewhere about the state, condition, and dreadful hardening of the Jews after the destruction of the second temple and the final rejection of that nation by God. Let us satisfy the present purpose by setting forth those things which, being known to all, cannot be denied by anyone. The greatest privilege of the Jews was once that they were entrusted with the oracles

364 ON THE ORIGIN OF HEBREW POINTING. [Book 5.] — of God, as the apostle relates in (Romans 3:2). But they had long since fallen away from this; for the word has no longer been committed in any way to their care or faith. For by divine covenant the word had been entrusted to their fathers (Isaiah 59:21); and when they fell away from that covenant through unbelief and ceased to be the people and church of God, they became nothing more than unfaithful possessors of the word itself. Together with the lawful right to the use of the word, they also utterly lost the Holy Spirit, who was promised in that same covenant. What is to be expected in or concerning the word of God from those to whom it has in no way been committed, and who are destitute of the Spirit, would be easy to show, were they not themselves a dreadful example of it. Approaching the most holy word of God with unwashed hands, with impure conscience and mind, they defile all sacred things — themselves defiled by all; for, as the apostle speaks of these very persons in (Titus 1:15), "to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience are defiled." Moreover, they were so far from perceiving the true meaning of the Holy Spirit in the word, that they stubbornly, obstinately, and most pertinaciously set themselves against the whole truth that is uniquely contained in those books which they daily handled. Whatever in all of Scripture pertains to the glory of God, whatever pertains to their own salvation — all of this was to them an object of utmost hatred and abomination. Indeed, from the time of Rabbi Judah the Prince, who composed the Mishnah, and thereafter, they cultivated with the utmost superstition a certain new religion, entirely alien from that prescribed to their fathers, that is, from Mosaic Theology; and diametrically opposed to the Christian religion, which that other served. For, continually oppressed by the dreadful curse of God on account of their rejection and killing of His most holy Son, the Savior of the world, they sought in vain to free themselves from the bond of that curse and its punishment by new crimes; meanwhile, they were stupidly and beyond all belief most ignorant of all the liberal arts and sciences, of all history, and of all things useful in human life. That the greatest of their teachers were a class of men that was inept, frivolous, delirious, given to magic, idolatrous, superstitious, unlearned, and depraved — this both Talmuds teach; and they were so occupied with devising monstrous fables that they appear to have descended into the arena as competitors in lying, each striving to surpass the other. Whoever has persuaded himself that Biblical pointing proceeded from such most shameful, vain, foolish, lying, accursed, and God-hated little men, and that it was immediately received and employed by all Jews and Christians without any prior examination or any hesitation whatever as the standard for all reading, both private and public, and for all expositions and interpretations — such a person shall have his credulity entirely to himself, with no rival from me.

XIII. I know indeed that most learned men have employed other and more numerous arguments in this cause; for my part, it is sufficient to have briefly indicated those which carry such weight with me that I neither can nor wish to depart from the position that is fortified by their authority. The learned men who have undertaken the defense of the rabbinical origin of the pointing also have the arguments they put forward for their position, which remain to be considered.

XIV. In the first place, they enumerate the names of certain great men by whose authority the opinion that asserts the novelty of the points is considered the stronger. But a hundred years ago or thereabouts, it would have been impossible for anyone to use this argument. It is scarcely a century since this bold conjecture became widely known; nor does it have such stability that there is not hope it will vanish in a shorter space of time. Although I am one who would more readily yield to the authority of learned men than almost anyone, yet there are not just one reason why I should not labor much here over an argument drawn from the testimony of certain individuals. For since there is no lack of celebrated men of no less great a name, and of no less distinguished reputation in literary matters, who could most easily be set against those cited, the prudent reader will judge that no resolution of this dispute can follow from a conflict of, so much as men, as testimonies. Moreover, I find that learned men do not always use the requisite diligence in citing their authorities. Let those serve as an example who praise Valentin Schindler as though he were in agreement with the opinion of the rabbinical invention of the points; whereas in the entry for a particular word he shows that he judged the points to have been even more ancient than the age of Ezra. Some express doubt; others settle this dispute in passing while occupied with other matters; those who have undertaken the defense of that opinion as their chief purpose are very few indeed. And I think that several of these — who by their own merit earned a great name in theology and in the church of God while they lived, and who still enjoy that name among grateful posterity — if they could have foreseen to what end certain persons would use their words, would not have pronounced anything in this cause without having carefully weighed the force of the arguments.

15. Second, they say: “The ancient Hebrew letters were Samaritan; but the Samaritans never had vowel points; therefore neither did the ancient Hebrews.” Reply: If the learned men did not lack arguments for confirming their position, they would doubtless not rely on conjectures of this most uncertain kind. We have proved above that the ancient Hebrew letters were those very same ones that are still in use among the Jews. It is also entirely uncertain whether the Samaritans in former times used vowel points in writing. Postellus affirms that they did. Nor is there any reason for anyone to wonder that this foolish people lost the use and skill of that excellent art. Furthermore: grant that Ezra rejected the ancient letters and introduced new ones, either devised by himself or borrowed from elsewhere — by what reasoning, I ask, does it appear to follow from the introduction of those new letters that he also did not invent the points? But since this argument has at length been abandoned as weak and useless by those very persons who formerly used it, there is no reason why I should pursue it further.

16. Third, they say, “That the Jews in the synagogues read the book of the law without

[reconstructed: continued from previous block:] written with points, which they affirm they preserve — not merely venerating it, but claiming it represents the autograph of Moses. They say also that Israelites are found in China, in whose most ancient books the points do not appear, even though some of those books were written six hundred years ago. From this they conclude that not Moses or Ezra, but the post-Talmudic rabbis devised the art of Hebrew pointing. We have shown elsewhere how slight — indeed, of no weight at all — this argument is in this case. We will here only run through the main points of reply. We say, therefore, first, that this practice of the Jews is universal, that is, common to the entire nation in all synagogues everywhere, is proved by no adequate testimony. It matters nothing to us what a few western Jews do in their synagogues, since the practice of the great majority is entirely unknown to us. Second, neither has anyone yet shown that this practice is ancient; most of those synagogal customs are superstitious and idolatrous, very many are novel, and all are post-Talmudic. Third, the Jews themselves — at least the great majority and the most learned among them — constantly deny that they intend by that practice to teach that the ancient scriptures were not pointed, since they themselves adhere to the opinion regarding the divine origin of the entire pointing system. Fourth, although this synagogal book does not have points, it does nevertheless have the cantillation marks, which those who use this argument will no more concede were from Moses than the points themselves. Either, then, the codex — or rather the custom of certain Jews — does not prove that the points are not coeval with the letters, or it proves that the cantillation marks are likewise not coeval with the text. Fifth, those who most boldly seize upon this synagogal practice of the Jews for their own purpose say that the rabbis devised the points for a twofold reason: first, that the reading of the sacred text might be made more expeditious and as easy for others as for themselves; and then, that some who were less learned might by their aid read the biblical text in the synagogues. They therefore themselves concede that pointed codices were formerly customarily read in the synagogues. Indeed, it is most certain that in antiquity the Jews who were Hellenized used the Greek translation of the law in the synagogues, so that nothing certain can be gathered from this modern custom of certain people. Sixth, the Jews themselves give other reasons for this custom; some of these we have reviewed elsewhere from Azariah's Imre Bina, ch. 59. But whoever carefully weighs those twenty-one rules which the masters decree must necessarily be observed in transcribing the codex to be used in the sacred synagogal services will easily perceive that they do not without reason employ an unpointed codex, since an accurate observance of all those rules in writing out the points is plainly impossible. The chief — if not the sole — reason for this custom seems to consist in the following: that no one should presume to read the law publicly in the synagogues until he is so well skilled that he can exactly observe all the points, both the vowels and the accents, when reading codices in which they are not written. For those who recite this book not only distinguish all the vowel points by pronouncing them with the greatest care, but also chant each word according to the modulation of the accents. There is yet another reason — perhaps the truest of all, which we have also indicated elsewhere — for this custom, which may be gathered from what Johannes Morinus most truly states in his Samaritan Grammar, ch. 25. Scripture of this kind is subject to far more meanings than that which sets out words with their own vowels, and is therefore far more fertile for the mystical interpretations which can be learned from tradition alone by oral transmission. Finally: even granting that they say they wish by this book to refer to the autograph of Moses — which some of them pretend was written after the manner of a single voice, without any distinction of words — it by no means follows from this that Ezra did not point the scriptures. And so this practice of the Jews contributes nothing at all to settling this dispute.

XVII. Fourth, they adduce the testimony of Elias Levita, who lived in Germany around the year 1520. He not only openly affirms that the post-Talmudic Tiberian Masoretes invented the points, but strives to prove this by several arguments. What then, I ask? Therefore that opinion is most true. How so? For what reason should one Elias carry greater authority with us than very many others who are far his seniors in age and no less celebrated in learning? It would be easy to overwhelm his testimony not merely by the number but also by the weight of the others. But, they say, there is no lack of a reason why the authority of the one Elias ought to prevail over that of all other masters of the same profession who hold the contrary opinion. And what is that reason? The Jews, they say, always eagerly ascribe to themselves and their own people everything that in any way redounds to the honor of their nation. To that end they lie shamelessly everywhere. Therefore no credence is to be given to these men speaking in their own cause. But since Elias embraces that opinion which greatly detracts from antiquity and therefore from the honor of the points, he must be thought to have been compelled by the force of truth alone to adopt it. But the matter stands very differently. After the rabbinical name arose, nothing was ever done either by these men or by the entire nation that could be compared with this splendid invention. What, I ask, could be imagined more magnificent for the honor of the nation than that some of them were endowed with such wisdom and knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures that they were able, and with such holiness and faithfulness that they were willing, to discover and produce the biblical pointing system — a work by universal consent the most consummate and most useful that has ever come to light since men were born? I would venture to say that all the opponents of the divine origin of the points would most readily concede that the entire Jewish nation, from the day they were rejected by God, never undertook or accomplished anything that is to be compared with that invention. I would not deny that some of the masters, after they applied themselves to the Peripatetic philosophy recovered by the Saracens for the light and use of men, ceased their foolishness and wrote things that can be read with some profit. But that all the earlier Mishnaic and Talmudic authors compiled nothing but ravings, dreams, deceits, and lies — all learned men agree, and the matter itself bears witness. The pointing system

368 ON THE ORIGIN OF HEBREW POINTING. [Book 5. has been attached to the sacred scriptures with the highest judgment, conscientiousness, love of truth, and knowledge — there is no one, as far as I know, who denies this. There is therefore nothing that redounds equally to the honor of the entire nation and of the Tiberian masters, nothing that would equally enslave all Christians to the rabbis, as that fiction of Elias concerning the rabbinic invention of the pointing system. And indeed it is highly probable that Elias was led to that opinion for no other reason than because he clearly understood that, once it was admitted and established, all students of the sacred scriptures would be obliged to acknowledge that they are bound to those Tiberian rabbis by an immortal benefit.

XVIII. They add further the testimony of Aben-Ezra, whose greater antiquity and authority they invoke. He, however, in his commentary on Exodus 25:31 has these words: I saw in the books that the sages of Tiberias examined, concerning which certain of their elders swore that they had carefully considered three times every word, every pointing, and each fully and defectively written form, and behold, the letter jod was written in the word in question — but I did not find it so in the books of Spain and France, nor in those from overseas. Readers will easily perceive that those who produce testimonies of this kind are suffering from a serious shortage of evidence — testimonies that are so far from supporting the opinion they wish to maintain that they plainly confirm the contrary. They say, I grant, that the Tiberian sages examined those codices in order to know whether the pointing exactly corresponded to the true pronunciation. But nothing of the kind occurs in the author himself. He only affirms that they examined those codices in order to know whether they were written with exactness. Nor was the question he is addressing about any point at all, but about the letter jod, which he shows ought to be present in the word in question as appears from the careful examination of those codices. He says, then, that certain scribes of those codices — in order that the authority of those which he himself had seen, in which the jod was written in that word, might be more clearly established — swore that they had carefully examined every form, every word, and the entire pointing; that is, according to the standard of those ancient exemplars which they had in their possession. Nor does it follow from this that they invented the points any more than the letters themselves, since they subjected every form, every word — that is, all the letters — no less than the pointing to examination. Therefore R. A. E. reports nothing else about those Tiberian elders than that they swore that they had most diligently examined the writing of those codices — one of which he himself had seen — consisting of letters and points.

XIX. Fifth, some press the silence of both Talmuds on the subject of the points — though not so the distinguished Vossius, who contends that no mention of them is made in the Mishnah; he admits that mention is made in both Talmuds. Now two things are assumed in this argument: first, that both Talmuds are entirely silent about the points — for if they are mentioned in even one single passage anywhere, the entire force of this testimony will immediately vanish; and second, that from the silence of the Talmuds it necessarily follows that the use of the points was unknown at that time.

XX. First, then, learned men deny that any mention of the points is made in the entire Talmudic work. But since it is all too probable that some of those who use this argument have by no means read through those enormous volumes so diligently that they can safely pronounce that they are entirely silent on the subject of the points, they point to certain passages in which, if the points had been known or in use at that time, it could not have been — by their own admission — that they would not have been mentioned. Although I would by no means concede that the points had not yet been devised, even if it were most clearly established beyond all controversy that no mention of them is made in the Talmudic work — since it is most certain that there are very many matters pertaining to the doctrine of the Hebrew language about which there is the deepest silence in that work, so that I could pass over this entire argument without the slightest loss or prejudice to the truth — yet since there is no lack of testimonies drawn from both Talmuds which prove that the pointing system was known at the time when those works were published, it is clearer than light itself that this argument is altogether feeble and entirely without force. There is no need for me to transfer here the passages which the most learned Buxtorf produced in his Tiberias, and which his most learned son solidly defended against the Cappellian objections. Let the reader consult what Rabbi Azariah collected in Imre Bina, 59, from Talm. Hierus. Megill. ch. iv., and Talm. Babylo. Megil. i., fol. 3, and in Nedarim, fol. 37.

XXI. But they press further, that no mention of the points is made at a time when it would evidently have been necessary, if only the art of pointing had been devised at that time; for when the Talmudic doctors wished to distinguish the various meanings of those words — which clearly signify different things according to the diversity of the vowels that can be attached to the letters or pronounced with them — they say nothing at all about vowel points, but by repeating the words themselves they show that they signified the distinction by pronunciation, which they were unable to note in writing. For how easy it would have been for them to indicate that this word written or pronounced with kamets, or with tsere, or with holem, or with hireq signifies this or that, if only those points had been known to them at that time? Reply. We concede that the vowel points were not formerly distinguished by artificial names. These names were assigned to them by grammarians at their discretion, long after the fact; the same thing happened in other languages as well. The Masoretes very often call tsere simply kamets; sometimes kamets katon, since those names were not yet distinguished. Segol is also called by them patach katon, and kibbuts is called shureq. The primary names given them were the open sounds they denote. Although, therefore, the Talmudic doctors may perhaps not have been able to designate the vowels by those names by which the later age of grammarians distinguished them from one another, nothing nevertheless prevents them from being considered to have known how to write their forms. Furthermore, how can it be proved that the Talmud was written without points? The Jews constantly assert that the Mishnah, which is older than both Talmuds, was pointed in ancient times, although those codices have appeared nowhere for many centuries —

370 ON THE ORIGIN OF HEBREW POINTING. [Book 5. — until one was recently carefully edited in Amsterdam. But the entire force of this argument depends on the claim that points were not used in writing at that time; which is begging the question. Furthermore, the distinguished Buxtorf showed long ago that the sequence of discourse in those passages where the various meanings of those words are discussed is such that no addition of points is needed for assigning the distinction.

XXII. Sixth, Cappellus draws an argument against the antiquity of the pointing from the number of the vowels and accents, which he says is laborious and useless. There are fourteen vowels; many of them — at least some — are said to be useless, since there are not that many distinct sounds in human speech. Then they say that no account can be given of a great many of the accents, since they signify nothing at all, distinguish nothing, convey no meaning, and are no help or aid in learning the language or in reading. The points of both kinds, both the vowels and the accents, therefore appear to have been a rabbinic contrivance, and not well suited to the purpose which they serve. There are those, however, who think they can reach the same conclusion from a consideration of the number and variety of the vowels by exactly the opposite means. For they say that those points represent all the open sounds or vowels so exactly and accurately that they seem to be a more artfully devised invention than one that should be ascribed to the first inventors of the letters, whose concern was only to express what was necessary. Thus in the judgment of some they are superfluous and useless; in the judgment of others, they are accurately fitted to the vowel sounds; but in neither group's view — for plainly contrary reasons — are they divine. But the answer to both objections is easy. Those who acknowledge the most exact perfection in this pointing system have no just cause, without doubt, to move it away from a divine ordering. The more perfect anything is in its own kind, the more divine it ought to be judged to be. That the Hebrew language — the most ancient and most perfect of all languages — was produced as the standard of the others by God Himself, and by holy men endowed with the spirit of prophecy, very learned men judge with the weightiest of reasons. Nor would I deny that there is force in this argument, unless we were to assign the origin of the points to the most perfect wisdom that comprehends all things simultaneously. But the discourse of those who complain that many of the vowels and accents are useless is plainly futile and arrogant. How, I ask, will these little doctors ever persuade us that everything in the sacred scriptures whose purpose they do not grasp is useless? Is this dealing seriously with the matter? Is this arguing? The rationale, use, and utility of many of the accents we do not understand; therefore they are superfluous and were devised arbitrarily by the rabbis. It would indeed be easy to settle any dispute in that manner. But ought we to make pronouncements about the word of God from our own ignorance and lack of knowledge? Will that at last be judged fair? For my part I would far rather trust one who professed to know nothing than one who professed to know everything. What if some one person, entirely unknown to us, has been aided by any accent in perceiving the meaning of even the smallest word in the sacred scriptures, or directed in reading in the manner which God approved while the carnal ordinances of the Jewish church were still in force? Are we petty men — to whom, among countless other things, this use is unknown — to judge that accent useless? Without doubt, had not learned men previously decided among themselves, for other reasons, that the pointing was not of divine origin, they would not have ventured to use that bold caviling in this case. The Jews today, indeed, think that there is no one in existence who has a complete understanding of the accentual system, writes Sebastian Munster in the epistle prefixed to the Commentary of R. D. Kimchi on Amos. Elias Levita testifies in a Hebrew letter to the same Munster that he had written a book on the system of the accents, which perished at Rome. Had that writing been published, perhaps learned and modest men would have possessed something in whose knowledge they would by no means repent.

XXIII. Seventh, some contend that Jerome also did not know the points, since, as they say, he made no mention of them anywhere. They suppose that this most learned man, as it seems, committed to writing everything he knew, whether he had any occasion for doing so or not — an opinion I am by no means permitted to share. I would then wish them to show what reason Jerome would have had for relating that the Hebrews, in writing their language, used not only letters but also vowels, when all the other nations known to him had done the same. There is no one among the ancient historians who has preserved more and more reliable accounts of the affairs of the Carthaginians than Polybius of Megalopolis. He shows in many places that he not only understood the Punic language but had also read their records. For having carefully set forth in the third book of his history with what forces Hannibal entered Italy, he affirms that he gathered all the information he reported from bronze tablets inscribed by Hannibal himself. And yet this Polybius nowhere in his histories mentions the unusual manner of writing from right to left that the Phoenicians used, although he himself could not have been ignorant of it. Little support, therefore, is to be expected for this opinion from Jerome's silence. For it is certain that he could have known the points without having mentioned them in his writings; it is certain that the points could have existed and yet been unknown to him, since many copies were always transcribed without them; it is also certain that Jerome had access to a very small number of manuscripts and made use of only one or two teachers — so that it ought by no means to seem strange if he had never seen a pointed codex; moreover, there were no grammars, and no one in that age had cultivated the art of that language. To rely, therefore, on his silence is not to contend against the truth by arguments or reasonings, but by the most uncertain conjectures. But neither are there lacking testimonies drawn from the works of Jerome which plainly indicate that he had both seen and recognized both kinds of points. I have elsewhere cited that passage to Evagrius: "The Hebrews very rarely use vowel letters in the middle of words." Rabbi Azariah in Imre Binah, chapter 59, cites the same words to the same effect.

Simeon de Muis, in Defens. Veritat. Hebraic., and Josephus de Voisin, in Praefat. ad Pug. Fid., reply that Jerome called the letters aleph, waw, and yod vowels, since in other languages they perform that function. Indeed, waw and yod are vowels when they have points added to them; although they very frequently take the place of consonants in a way different from what occurs in the Greek language. That aleph was ever a vowel has not yet been proved; it is also frequently pronounced with a different sound from what it would produce if it were a vowel. Taken bare, therefore, these letters are not the vowels that Jerome indicates. Next, in his Exposition on chapter 1 of Jonah, he has these words: "I am sufficiently amazed that it was translated thus, since in the Hebrew there is no community whatever of letters, syllables, accents, or the word." I do not know whether anyone could make more open mention of accents — which, however, no one will say were in use before the vowel points. So also on Genesis 19:38, regarding the Hebrew word there, he says, "They add a point above, as if it were incredible that anyone could lie together without knowing it," thus observing an irregular pointing. And on Ezech. 27: "Hebrew names are frequently interpreted variously, in accordance with the difference of accents and the change of vowel letters, which have their own distinctive properties especially among them." And in his epistle to Paula and Eustochium, or his Preface to Isaiah, he affirms that this prophecy "is written among the Hebrews in cola and commata." In Quaest. Heb. on Genesis 47:31: "And in this place some vainly pretend that Jacob worshiped the top of the scepter of Joseph, meaning that honoring his son he worshiped his authority; whereas in the Hebrew it reads quite differently: 'And Israel worshiped,' he says, 'at the head of the bed.'" The Hebrew word in question is the one from which the controversy arises. Jerome knew that the apostle had rendered that word by the Greek for scepter. If it had not been pointed in such a way that it ought truly to be rendered "bed," how, I ask, would he have dared to say "in the Hebrew it reads differently," when without points it reads no differently? Ought Jerome to have listened to his Nicodemus against the translation used by the apostle himself, or the sense of the passage rendered by him, and boldly declare "in the Hebrew it reads differently?" — which, unless we grant that he knew the points, is utterly false. It is therefore sufficiently established that Jerome knew the vowel points and accents, and made more open mention of them than could have been expected from one who had no other occasions for noting them. But some say that Jerome could have learned from common usage that the Hebrew word in question was to be pronounced in that passage in such a way as to mean "bed." But Jerome says nothing about the pronunciation of the word; he shows how it was read in the Hebrew — that is, by every reader examining the text — and what, I ask, was that common usage which he is supposed to have followed? He made use of one or two teachers, as we said. But that he would have preferred the whisper of an obscure teacher to the authority of the apostle is not credible; especially since the sequence of the discourse admits both meanings; for it is most certain that Jacob worshiped God, leaning on the top of his staff.

XXIV. In the last place, some allege the kinship of the Arabic and Syriac languages with Hebrew: these languages, they say, have only very recently admitted pointing, and the same condition appears to have obtained for the Hebrew language in antiquity. At what time the Arabs and Syrians first acquired the use of letters, and then of points, is entirely uncertain. The distinguished Golius, in his Preface to Sura 31 of the Quran, shows that the ancient Arabic script fell out of use centuries ago. What other changes the vicissitudes of times and all things have introduced into that language, we simply do not know. Perhaps the points also fell into disuse and were called back into common use through the Saracens. In truth, as to when vowel points first came into use among the Arabs and Syrians, no trustworthy testimony exists. Granted even that all these oriental languages originally lacked vowel points — this does not prevent us from concluding that Ezra added them to the usage of the sacred language.

XXV. And these are the chief heads of argument by which learned men think they have proved that Hebrew pointing was itself the work of the post-Talmudic rabbis — those who submit to being dispossessed of so great a treasure will by no means find me as their companion.

XXVI. Many also suppose that the well-known variation in the sacred Scriptures which goes under the name of Keri and Kethib arose from that same care which Ezra applied to the sacred Scriptures. I am not disposed to repeat here what I have written elsewhere concerning the nature and number of these variant readings. There are those who ascribe this variation to the original amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; some of these think that a mystery underlies it; others say that the ambiguity of a certain Hebrew expression was its cause. There are those who assert that the Keri are Masoretic notes, partly variant readings collected from various codices, partly critical corrections of the text — this is the opinion of those who attach little weight to what is held concerning the purity of the Hebrew codex called the Masoretic, as though there were need of a mark of distinction here, or as though any other biblical codex had ever been in common use among men. Having read through the opinions and arguments of many learned men, I confess that I am at a standstill here; yet I am pleased to add what Isaac Abarbanel has on this matter in his preface to the prophet Jeremiah. Having rejected the less satisfactory opinion of others, he adds: "But the true state of the matter seems to me to be this: that Ezra together with the Men of the Great Synagogue found the books complete and intact, as they had been written. But before he established the pointing and the accents and the division of verses, he gave attention to the reading; and if anything occurred to him that was foreign to the nature or property of the language and to the rules of grammar, he considered within himself that it had come about for one of two causes. First, that the scribe in these irregular forms had regard to some one of the mysteries of the law according to the dignity of its prophecy and the depth of its wisdom, and therefore had not dared to attempt to delete anything from the divine books; for he understood that those books had been written with singular wisdom, and that the defective and redundant letters had not been written without reason —"

374 ON THE EZRAIC REFORMATION. [Book 5. and exotic expressions of that sort, therefore he left them in the text just as they had truly been written, but placed in the margin the Keri — that is, the explanation of this exotic reading according to the property of the language and according to the simple sense. It can also be the case that Ezra judged that there existed in the sacred Scripture letters and expressions written irregularly for no other reason than that the one who transcribed them had not expressed them correctly as he ought, whether from ignorance of the Hebrew language or from ignorance of orthography; and therefore it was necessary to set forth the true spelling and reading of the expression according to the rules of grammar. This is the reason for the Keri which the holy scribe placed in the margin, being unwilling to lay hands upon the words of the authors who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."