Chapter 5

CHAP. 5.

1 Arguments for the novelty of the Hebrew points, proposed to consideration. 2. The Argument from the Samaritan letters considered and Answered 3. Of the copy of the Law preserved in the Synagogues without points: 4. The testimony of Elias Levita, and Aben Ezra considered. 5. Of the silence of the Mishna, Talmud and Gemara about the points. 6. Of the Keri and Chethib. 7. Of the number of the points. 8. Of the Ancient Translations, Greek, Chaldee, Syriac. 9. Of Jerome. 10. The new Argument of Morinus, in this cause: The conclusion about the necessity of the points.

Section 1. But because this seems to be a matter of great importance, wherein the truth formerly pleaded for, appears to be nearly concerned, I shall [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] very briefly consider the Arguments that are usually insisted on (as in these Prolegomena) to prove the points to be a novel Invention; I mean of the men, and at the time before mentioned. Particular Instances I shall not insist upon: nor is it necessary I should so do; it has been done already. The heads of Arguments which yet contain their strength, are capable of a brief dispatch; which shall be given them in the order wherein they are represented by the Prolegomena; Prolegomena 3. 38, 39, 40.

Section 2. 1 It is said then, that whereas the old Hebrew letters, were the present Samaritan, the Samaritan letters having been always without points as they yet continue, it is manifest that the Invention of the points must be of a later date than the change of the letters, which was in the days of Ezra, and so consequently be the work of the postalmudical Massorites. Pergula Pictoris! This whole Objection is made up of most uncertain conjectures. This is not a place to speak at large of the Samaritans, Their Pentateuch and its Translation. The Original of that nation is known from the Scripture, as also their Worship of God, 2 Kings 17. Their solemn Excommunication and casting out from any interest among the people of God, is also recorded, Ezra 9, Nehemiah 6: and chapter 13. Their continuance in their abominations after the closing of the Canon of the scripture is reported by Josephus Antiquities book 11 chapter 8. In the days of the Maccabees they were conquered by Hyrcanus, and brought into subjection by the Jews. Josephus Antiquities book 13: chapter 17. Yet their Will worship upon the credit of the tradition of their Fathers continued to the days of our Savior, and their hatred to the people of God, John 4. When, by whom, in what Character they first received the Pentateuch, is most uncertain; not likely by the Priest sent to them; for notwithstanding his instructions they continued in open Idolatry; which evidences that they had not so much as seen the book of the Law. Probably this was done when they were conquered by Hyrcanus, and their Temple razed after it had stood 200 years. So also did the Edomites. What Diligence they used in the preservation of it, being never committed to them by God, we shall see afterwards. That there are any of them remaining at this day, or have been this 1000 years past, is unknown. That the Letters of their Pentateuch were the ancient Hebrew letters, as Eusebius, Jerome and some of the Rabbins report, seems to me (on the best inquiry I have been able to make) a groundless Tradition and mere fable. The evidences tendered for to prove it, are much too weak to bear the weight of such an Assertion. Eusebius speaks only on report; affirmatur; it was so affirmed, on what ground he tells us not. Jerome indeed is more positive; but give me leave to say, that supposing this to be false, sufficient instances of the like mistakes may be given in him. For the Testimony of the Talmud, I have often declared, that with me it is of no weight, unless seconded by very good evidence. And indeed the foundation of the whole story is very vain. The Jews are thought and said to have forgot their own Characters in the Captivity, and to have learned the Chaldean, upon the account whereof they adhered unto it after their return; when the same men were alive at the burning of one, and the building of the other Temple; that the men of one and the same generation should forget the use of their own letters, which they had been exercised in, is incredible. Besides they had their Bibles with them always, and that in their own character only; whether they had any one other book or no we know not: and whence then this forgetting of one Character, and learning of another should arise, does not appear. Nor shall I in such an improbable fiction lay much weight on Testimonies, the most ancient whereof is 600 years later than the pretended matter of fact.

Section 3. The most weighty proof in this case is taken from the ancient Judaical coins, taken up with Samaritan Characters upon them. We are now in the high road of forgeries and fables: in nothing has the world been more cheated. But be it granted that the pretended coins are truly Ancient; must it needs follow, that because the Letters were then known, and in use, that they only were so: that the Bible was written with them, and those now in use unknown. To save the credit of the coins, I shall crave leave to answer this conjecture with another. The Samaritan Letters are plainly preternatural (If I may so say) a studied invention; in their frame and figure fit to adorn, when extended or greatened by way of engraving or embossing any thing they shall be put upon, or cut in. Why may we not think they were invented for that purpose: namely to engrave on vessels, and to stamp on coin, and so came to be of some use in writing also. Their shape and frame promises some such thing. And this is rendered the more probable from the practice of the Egyptians, who as Clement of Alexandria tells us, had 3 sorts of letters, one which he calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], with which they wrote things of common use; another termed by him [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], used by the Priests in the sacred writings: and the other [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]: which also was of two sorts, simple and symbolical. Seeing then it was no unusual thing to have sundry sorts of letters for sundry purposes, it is not improbable that it was so also among the Jews: Not that they wrote the sacred writings in a peculiar character, as it were to hide them, which is declaimed against, but only that the other Character might be in use for some purposes which is not unusual: I cannot think the Greeks of old used only the uncial letters, which yet we know some did; though he did not, who wrote Homer's Iliad in no greater a volume, than would go into a nutshell.

Section 4. But if that should be granted, that cannot be proved, namely that such a Change was made; yet this prejudices not them in the least, who affirm Ezra and the men of the great Congregation to have been the Authors of the Points, seeing the Authors of this rumor affixed, that as the time wherein the old Hebrew letters were excommunicated out of the Church; together with the Samaritans. Nay it cast a probability on the other hand, namely that Ezra laying aside the old letters because of their difficulty, together with the new, introduced the points to facilitate their use. Nor can it be made to appear that the Samaritan letters had never any vowels affixed to them. Postellus affirms that the Samaritans had points in the days of Jerome, and that their loss of them is the cause of their present corrupt reading. Punctis hodie quae habebant Hieronimi temporibus carent: leguntque sine punctis admodum depravatè. Postellus Alphabet of 12 languages: There were always some copies written without vowels, which might be preserved, and the other lost. That people (if we have any thing from them,) being wicked, ignorant, sottish, superstitious, Idolatrous, rejectors of the greatest part of the Scripture, Corruptors of what they had received, might neglect the task of transcribing Copies with Points, because a matter of so great Care and diligence to be performed aright. Nor is it improbable, whatever is pretended to the contrary, that continuing in their separation from the people of God, they might get the Law written in a Character of their own choosing, out of hatred to the Jews. Now let any man judge, whether from this heap of Uncertainties any thing can arise with the face of a Witness, to be admitted to give Testimony in the cause in hand. He that will part with his possession on such easy Terms, never found much benefit in it.

Section 5. 2 The Constant Practice of the Jews in preserving in their Synagogues one Book, which they almost adore, written without points, is alleged to the same purpose; for what do they else hereby but tacitly acknowledge the Points to have an human Original. Answer: But it is certain they do not so acknowledge them, neither by that practice, nor by any other way; it being the constant Opinion and persuasion of them all, (Elias only excepted) that they are of a divine extraction; And if their Authority be to be urged, it is to be submitted unto in one thing, as well as in another. 2 The Jews give a threefold account of this practice. First, the difficulty of Transcribing Copies without any failing, the least rendering the whole book as to its use in their Synagogues, profane. 2 The liberty they have thereby, to draw out various Senses, more eminent as they say, indeed more vain and curious, than they have any advantage to do, when the reading is restrained to one certain sense by the vowels and accents. 3 To keep all Learners in dependence on their Teachers, seeing they cannot learn the mind of God, but by their Exposition: Rabbi Azarias: book Imre Bina: chapter 59. If these Reasons satisfy, not any as to the ground of that practice, they may be pleased to inquire of them for others, who intend to be bound by their Authority; That the Points were invented by some late Massorites, they will not inform them. For Jesuitical stories out of China, they are with me for the most part of the like credit with those of the Jews in their Talmud; He that can believe all the miracles, that they work, where men are not warned of their juggling, may credit them in other things. However, as I said, I do not understand this Argument; the Jews keep a book in their Synagogues without points, therefore the points and accents were invented by the Tiberian Massorites; when they never read it, or rather sing it, but according to every point and accent in ordinary use. Indeed the whole profound mystery of this business seems to be this; that none be admitted to read or sing the Law in their Synagogues, until he be so perfect in it, as to be able to observe exactly all points and Accents, in a book wherein there are none of them.

Section 6. 3. The testimony of Elias Levita, not only as to his own judgment, but also as to what he mentions from Aben Ezra and others, is insisted on. They affirm, says he, that we have received the whole Punctuation from the Tiberian Massorites. Answer. It is very true, that Elias was of that judgment; and it may well be supposed, that if that Opinion had not fallen into his mind, the world had been little acquainted with it at this day. That by receiving of the punctuation from the Tiberians, the Continuation of it in their School, not the invention of it is intended by Aben Ezra, is beyond all exception evinced by Buxtorfius. De Punct. Antiq. part 1 chapter 3. Nor can any thing be spoken more directly to the contrary of what is intended, than that which is urged in the Prolegomena from Aben Ezra, comment. in Exodus 25. 31. where he affirms that he saw some books examined in all the letters, and the whole punctuation by the wise men of Tiberias; namely to try, whether it were done exactly, according to the patterns they had. Besides all Elias's Arguments are notably answered by Rabbi Azarias; whose Answers are repeated by Joseph de Voysin in his most learned observations, on the Proemium of the Pugio fidei, page 91. 92. And the same Azarias shows the consistency of the various opinions that were among the Jews about the vowels, ascribing them as to their virtue and force, to Moses, or God on mount Sinai; as to their figure and character to Ezra; as to the restoration of their use, unto the Massorites.

Section 7. 4. The silence of the Mishnah Gemara, or whole Talmud concerning the Points is further urged. This Argument is also at large discussed by Buxtorfius, and the instances in it answered to the full: nor is it needful for any man to add anything further, until what he has discoursed to this purpose be removed. See part 1. chapter 6. See also Glassius book 1. Tractate 1 de Text. Hebrai punctat: who gives instances to the contrary; yea and the Talmud itself in Nedarim, or of vows chapter 4. on Nehemiah 8. 8 do plainly mention them: and Treatises more ancient than the Talmud cited by Rabbi Azarias in Imre Binah expressly speaks of them. It is to me a sufficient evidence, able to overbear the conjectures to the contrary, that the Talmudists both knew, and in their Readings were regulated by the points now in use, in that, as many learned men have observed, there is not one Text of Scripture to be found cited in the Talmud, in any other sense, as to the literal reading and meaning of the word, than only that which it is restrained unto by the present punctuation: when it is known that the Patrons of the Opinion under Consideration, yield this constantly as one Reason of the seventy Translators reading words and sentences otherwise than we read them now in our Bibles; namely, because the books they used were not pointed, whereby they were at liberty to conjecture at This or That sense of the Word before them. This is one of the main Pillars of Capellus his whole fabric in his Critica Sacra. And how it can be fancied there should be no variety between our present reading and the Talmudists, upon supposition they knew not the use of Points, I know not. Is it possible, on this supposition, there should be such a Coincidence between their and our present punctuation; whereon the same principle, it seems, there are so many variations by the seventy and the Chaldean Paraphrast?

Section 9. 5. Of the [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] which are pleaded in the next place to this purpose, I shall speak afterwards. The difference in them is in the Consonants, not in the Vowels, which yet argues not that there were no vowels, when they were collected, or disposed as now we find them. Yea that there were no vowels in the Copies from whence they were collected (if they were so Collected) may be true; but that that Collection was made any later for the main of it, than the days of Ezra, does not appear. Now whatever was done about the Scripture in the Judaical Church, before the times of our Savior, is manifest to have been done by Divine Authority, in that it is nowhere by him reproved: but rather the integrity of every word is by him confirmed. But of these things distinctly by themselves afterwards we are to speak.

Section 10. A sixth Argument for the novelty of the Points is taken from their number; for whereas it is said all kinds of sounds may be expressed by five vowels, we are in the present Hebrew punctuation supplied with 14 or 15: which as it is affirmed, manifests abundantly that they are not Coeval or Connatural to the language itself, but the Arbitrary, artificial invention of men, who have not assigned a sufficient difference in their force and sound to distinguish them in pronunciation. But this objection seems of small importance. The ground of it is an Apprehension, that we still retain exactly the true pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue, which is evidently false. It is now near 2000 years, since that Tongue was vulgarly spoken in its purity by any people or nation. To imagine that the True, exact, distinct pronunciation of every Tittle and syllable in it, as it was used by them, to whom it was vulgar and natural, is communicated unto us, or is attainable by us, is to dream pleasantly whilst we are awake. Aben Ezra makes it no small matter that men of old knew aright how to pronounce Camets Gadol. Saith he [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] The men of Tiberias, also the wise men of Egypt and Africa knew how to read Camets Gadol. 2 Even the distinct force of one Consonant, and that always radical [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is utterly lost, so that the present Jews know nothing of its pronunciation. 3 Nor can we distinguish now between [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] between [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. Though the Jews tell us that the wise men of Tiberias could do so 1200 years ago; as also between [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Nor is the distinct sound of [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] so obvious unto us. The variety of Consonants among many nations, and their Ability to distinguish them in pronunciation, makes this of little Consideration. The whole nation of the Germans distinguish not between the force and sound of T and D, whereas the Arabic Dal and Dhsal, Dad, Ta and Da manifest how they can distinguish those sounds. Nor are the Jews [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] answered distinctly in any other language; to distinguish some of which, Good old Jerome had his Teeth filed by the direction of his Nicodemus. 6. The truth is, the Hebrews have but 10 vowels, five long, and five short, or five great and five less; Sheva is but a servant to all the rest; and its addition to Segol and Pathach makes no new vowels. To distinguish between Camets Chatuph, and Chatuph Camets there is no Colour. Seven only of them, as Morinus has manifested out of Rabbi Jehuda Chiug, one of the first Grammarians among the Jews, namely, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] they called (of old) Kings, or the chief Rulers of all the motions of the letters. So that indeed they have not so many figures to distinguish sounds by, with all their vowels, as have the Greeks. Besides the seven vowels they have twelve diphthongs, and three of them as to any peculiar sound as mute as Sheva. It is true, Pliny tells us that Simonides Melicus found out two of the vowels, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], as he did also two Consonants [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]: but surely he did so, because he found them needful to answer the distinct sounds used in that language, or he had deserved little thanks for his invention. Speaking lately with a worthy learned friend, about an universal Character, which has been mentioned by many, attempted by diverse, and by him brought to that perfection, as will doubtless yield much, if not universal satisfaction unto learned and prudent men, when he shall be pleased to communicate his thoughts upon it to the world; we fell occasionally on the difference of apert sounds or vowels, which when I heard him with good Reason affirm to be 8 or 9, remembering this Argument about the Hebrew points, I desired him to give his thoughts in a few words the next day, which he did accordingly; now because his discourse seems evidently to discover the vanity of this pretence, that the Hebrew vowels are an arbitrary invention from their number, I have here inserted it.

- Apert sounds are either Simple, Vowels, Double, Diphthongs. - 1 Apert simple sounds are distinguishable Formally, Accidentally. - 1 The Formal difference is that which does constitute several letters, and must depend upon the various Apertion, required to the making of them, together with the Gravity or Acuteness of the tone which is made by them. According to which there are at least eight simple vowels, that are by us easily distinguishable, namely, - 1 - 2 E magis Acutum, as in He, me, she, ye, etc. minus Acutum, as the English, The: the Latin, me, te, se, etc. - 3 I or Y, which are both to be accounted of one power and sound: Shi, di: Thy my: - 4 - 5 A magis Apertum. All, tall, gall, wall. minus Apertum. Ale, tale, gale, wale. - 6 - 7 O Rotundum, minus grave, as the English. Go. so. no. the Latin. De. magis grave and pingue. as the English. Do. to. who. - 8 U as in Tu. use, us etc.

- So many apert simple sounds there are evidently distinguishable, I would be loath to say that there neither are, nor can be any more; for who knows, how many other minute differences of Apertion, and Gravity, may be now used, or hereafter found out by others, which practice and custom, may make as easy to them as these are to us. - 2 But besides this formal difference, they are some of them Accidentally distinguishable from one another, with reference to the quantity of time required to their prolation, whereby the same Vowel becomes sometimes Long Short. - So E. minor. Acute. Long Short mete steam met stem

- I Long alive, Give, Drive, title, Thine. Short Live, give, Driven, — ☞ that is tittle, Thin. - A Long Bate, hate, cate, same, dame — ae Short Bat, hat, cat — Sam. dam. - O. Rotund. Long one, none, note etc. oe vel oa Short one (non Latin) not. - U Long use, Tune, pule, acute. — ue Short us, Tun. pull, cut.

The other remaining vowels, namely E. magis Acutum A. magis Apertum and O. magis grave, do not change their Quantities but are always long. 2 Diphthongs are made of the Complexion of two Vowels in one Syllable, where the sounds of both are heard. These are, - 1 Ei. Ey. — Hei Latin. They. - 2 Ea. eat, meat, seat, Teat, yea, plea. - 3 Eu, ew. Few, Dew. Heu. Latin. - 4 Ai, Ay. Aid, said, pay, day. - 5 Au, Aw. Audience, Author, Law, Draw. - 6 Oi, Oy. Point, soil, Boy, Toy. - 7 Ou, Ow. Rout, stout. How, now. - 8 Ui, Uy. Buy, juice. - 9 Eo, Yeoman, People. - How other diphthongs (which have been used may be significant for the expression of long Vowels, see noted above. ☞

There is then very little weight to be ventured upon the strength of this Objection.

Prolegomena 8. 46. Section 11. 7: It is further pleaded that the ancient translations the Greek, the Chaldee and the Syriac, do manifest that at the time of their Composing the points were not invented; And that because in sundry places it is evident that they read otherwise, or the words with other points (I mean as to the force and sound, not figure of them) than those now affixed. For this purpose very many instances are given us out of the Seventy especially by Capellus: Grotius also takes the same course. But neither is the Objection of any force to turn the Scale in the matter under Consideration. Somewhat will in the close of this discourse be spoken of those Translations. The differences that may be observed in them especially the former, would as well prove, that they had other Consonants, that is that the Copies they used had other letters and words than ours, as other vowels. Yea if we must suppose where they differ from our present Reading, they had other and better Copies, it is most Certain that we must grant ours to be very Corrupt. Hoc Ithacus vellet; nor can this inference be avoided, as shall God willing be further manifested if Occasion be administered. The truth is, the present Copies that we have of the Seventy do in many places so vary from the Original, that it is beyond all Conjecture what should occasion it. I wish some would try their skill upon some part of Job, the Psalms and the Prophets, to see if by all their inquiries of extracting various lections, they can find out how they read in their Books, if they rendered as they read; and we enjoy what they rendered. Symeon de Muys tells us a very pretty story of himself to this purpose; Assertion of Hebrew Vindication Section 1: as also how ridiculous he was in his attempt. But I shall recall that desire; The scripture indeed is not so to be dealt withal; we have had too much of that work already. The Rabbinical [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is not to be Compared, with some of our Critics Temurah and Notarikon. Of the Chaldee Paraphrase I shall speak afterwards. It seems not to be of the Antiquity pretended. It is not mentioned by Josephus, nor Origen, nor Jerome; but this will not impeach its Antiquity. But whereas it is most certain that it was in high esteem and reverence among all the Jews before the time assigned for the punctuation of the points, it seems strange that they should in disposing of them, differ from it voluntarily in so many places.

Secondly. Besides, though these Translators or any of them, might use Copies without vowels, as it is confessed that always some such there were, as still there are, yet it does not follow at all, that therefore the points were not found out nor in use. But more of this, when we come to speak distinctly of these Translations.

Section 12. 8 Of the same importance is that which is in the last place insisted on, from the silence of Jerome and others of the Ancients, as to the use of the points among the Hebrews. But Jerome saw not all things, not the Chaldee Paraphrase, which our Authors suppose to have been extant at least 400 years before him; So it cannot be made Evident that he mentioned all that he saw. To speak expressly of the Vowels he had no Occasion, there was then no Controversy about them. Nor were they then distinctly known by the names whereby they are now called. The whole Current of his Translation argues that he had the Bible as now pointed. Yea, Learned men have manifested by instances that seem of irrefragable evidence, that he had the use of them. Or it may be he could not obtain a pointed Copy, but was instructed by his Jew in the right pronunciation of words. Copies were then scarce, and the Jews full of envy: all these things are uncertain. See Munster: Praefatio ad Biblia. The Truth is, either I cannot understand his words, or he does positively affirm, that the Hebrew had the use of Vowels; in his Epistle to Evagrius, Epist. 126: nec refert utrum Salem an Salim nominetur, cum vocalibus in medio litteris perraro utantur hebraei; if they did it perraro, they did it; and then they had them; though in those days to keep up their credit in teaching, they did not much use them; nor can this be spoken of the sound of the Vowels, but of their figures. For surely they did not seldom use the sounds of Vowels, if they spoke often: And many other Testimonies from him may be produced to the same purpose.

Section 13. Morinus in his late Opuscula Hebraea Samaritica, in his Digression against the Hebrew points and Accents the first part page 209: brings in a new Argument to prove that the puncta vocalia were invented by the Jewish Grammarians, however the distinction of sections might be before. This he attempts out of a discourse of Aben Ezra concerning the successive means of the preservation of the Scripture: first by the men of the great Synagogue, then by the Massorites, then by the Grammarians. As he assigns all these their several works, so to the Grammarians the skill of Knowing the progresses of the holy tongue, the generation of the Kingly points and of Sheva, as he is by him there cited at large. After he labors to prove by sundry instances, that the Puncta vocalia are by him called Reges, and not the Accents as is now the use. And in the Addenda to his book prefixed to it, he triumphs upon a discovery that the vowels are so called by Rabbi Jehuda Chiug the most Ancient of the Jewish Grammarians. The business is now it seems quite finished; and he cries out; Oculis aliorum non egemus amplius,[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]nunc sumus. A sacrifice is doubtless due to this drag of Morinus. But quid dignum tanto.

Section 14. 1 The place insisted on by him out of Aben Ezra, was some years before produced, weighed and explained by Buxtorf out of his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or the Standard of the holy tongue, De Punctorum Origine Part 1, pages 13, 14, chapter 3: and it is not unlikely, from Morinus his Preface to his Consideration of that place, that he fixed on it some years ago, that he learned it from Buxtorfius, by the provision that he lays in against such thoughts; for what is it to the Reader when Morinus made his Observations? The manner of the men of that society in other things gives sufficient grounds for this suspicion. And Simeon de Muys intimates that he had dealt before with the Father as he now deals with the Son. Censura in Excercitationes 4, chapter 7, page 17: himself with great and rare ingenuity acknowledging what he received of him. Assertio Textus Hebraici Veritas chapter 5. Dicesve me haec omnia mutuatum a Buxtorfio? quidni vero mutuor, si necesse erit. But what is the great discovery here made? That the puncta vocalia are some of them called Reges; The accents have now got that Appellation; some of them are Reges, and some ministri: So that the present state of Things, in reference to Vowels and Accents is but Novel. Secondly. That the Grammarians invented these regia puncta as Aben Ezra says.

Section 15. But I pray what cause of Triumph or boasting is in all this goodly discovery? Was it ever denied by any, that the casting of the names of the vowels and accents, with the Titles was the work of the Grammarians; was it not long since observed by many that the 5 long Vowels with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] were called of old Reges? And that the distinction of the Vowels into long and short was an invention of the Christians rather than Jewish Grammarians; the Jews calling them some absolutely reges, some great and small, some matres and filias. But then says he, the Grammarians were the Inventors of these points, why so? Aben Ezra refers this unto the work of the Grammarians, to know the progresses of the holy tongue, the generation of those things, etc.: but can anything be more evident against his design than his own testimony? It was the work of the Grammarians to know these things, therefore not to invent them; Did they invent the Radical and servile Letters? Surely they also then invented the tongue; for it consists of letters Radical and Servile, of points and accents; and yet this is also ascribed to them by Aben-Ezra. But it is well that Morinus has at length lighted upon Rabbi Jehuda Chiug: His Opinion before was collected out of Kimchi, Ephodius, Muscatus and others. But what says he now himself? For ought appears by what we have quoted by Morinus, he is like to prove a Notable witness of the Antiquity of the points. It may be well supposed that Morinus writing on set purpose against their Antiquity would produce that Testimony which in his whole Author was most to his purpose; And yet he fixes on one, wherein this Ancient Grammarian who lived about the years of Christ 1150, or 1200; gives us an account of the points with their names without the least intimation of anything to the impeachment of their Divine Original; So also the same Aben Ezra on Psalm 9, verse 7: tells us, of one Adonim Ben-lafrad who long before this Rabbi Jehuda found [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in an ancient Copy. And therefore when Morinus comes to make the Conclusion of his Argument, discovering it seems himself the folly of the pretence, that the points were invented by the Grammarians, the last sort of men mentioned by Aben Ezra, he says, procul omni dubio est, and luce meridiana clarius Aben Ezram sensisse omnium Vocalium punctationem a Massorithis Tiberiensibus, and Grammaticis, qui hos sequuti sunt Originem ducere. But of these Massorites there is not one word in the premises, nor is any such thing assigned unto them by Aben Ezra; But quite another employment, of making an hedge about the Law by their observations on all the words of it; And had he dreamed of their inventing the points, he would sure enough have assigned that work to them; and for the Grammarians, his own Testimony lies full to the Contrary.

Section 16. And these are the heads of the Arguments insisted on by Capellus and others, and by these Prolegomena, to prove the Hebrew punctation to be an invention of the Jews of Tiberias 500 years or more after the incarnation of Christ. Brevis Cantilena, sed longum Epiphonema. As I have not here designed to answer them at large, with the various instances produced to give Countenance unto them, (Nor is it needful for any so to do, until the Answer already given to them be removed) so by the specimen given of their nature and kind, the sober and pious Reader may easily judge whether there be any force in them, to evert the persuasion opposed by them; Grounded on the Catholic tradition and consent of the Jews, The uncontradicted reception of them absolutely, without the least Opposition all the world over by Jews and Christians, the very nature of the punctation it self following the Genius of the language not arising or flowing from any Artificial Rules, the impossibility of assigning any Author to it since the days of Ezra, but only by such loose conjectures and imaginations as ought not to be admitted to any plea and place in this weighty Cause; All attended with that great uncertainty, which without their owning of these points to be of divine Original we shall be left unto, in all Translations and expositions of the Scripture. It is true; whilst the Hebrew language was the Vulgar tongue of the nation, and was spoken by every one uniformly every where, It had been possible, that upon a supposition that there were no points, men without infallible guidance and direction might possibly affix notes and figures, which might with some exactness answer the Common pronunciation of the Language, and so consequently exhibit the true and proper sense and meaning of the words themselves. But when there had been an interruption of a 1000 years in the Vulgar use of the language, it being preserved pure only in one Book; to suppose that the true and exact pronunciation of every letter, tittle and syllable was preserved alive by oral Tradition, not written any where, not Commonly spoken by any, is to build Towns and Castles of imaginations, which may be as easily cast down as they are erected. Yet unless this be supposed, (which with no Colour of reason can be supposed, which is yet so, by Capellus and the learned Author of the Prolegomena) it must be granted, that the great Rule of all present Translations, expositions, and Comments, that have been made in the Church of God for some hundreds of years, is the Arbitrary invention of some few Jews, living in an obscure Corner of the world under the Curse of God, in their unbelief and blindness. The only Relief in the Prolegomena, against this amazing inference, is, as was said, that the Massorites affixed not the present punctation arbitrarily, (so also Capellus) but according to the Tradition they had received. What weight is to be laid upon such a Tradition for near a Thousand years (above according to Morinus) is easily to be imagined. Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew language without Points and Accents, and not only the language, but the true and proper reading and distinction of it in the Bible. Let the Points and Accents be wholly removed, and all Apprehensions of the sense arising, by the restraint and distinction of the words as now pointed; and then turn in the drove of the Learned Critics of this Age upon the noted Consonants, and we shall quickly see what woeful work, yea Havoc of sacred Truth will be made amongst them. Were they shut up in several Cells, I should scarcely expect the Harmony and agreement amongst them, which is fabulously reported to have been in the like case among the 70. The Jews say, and that truly [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] No man can lift up his tongue to read without punctation. And, si rationi in his and similibus dominium concedamus, toti mutabuntur libri, in literis, vocibus, and sententiis, and sic res ipsa quoque mutabitur. book Cosri. 1. Part 3. page 28. And thus have I with all possible brevity vindicated the position formerly insisted on, from this grand exception, which might be justly feared from the principles laid down in the Prolegomena.

Chapter 5.

1. Arguments for the novelty of the Hebrew points, proposed for consideration. 2. The argument from the Samaritan letters considered and answered. 3. Of the copy of the Law preserved in the synagogues without points. 4. The testimony of Elias Levita and Aben Ezra considered. 5. Of the silence of the Mishnah, Talmud, and Gemara about the points. 6. Of the Keri and Kethib. 7. Of the number of the points. 8. Of the ancient translations — Greek, Chaldee, Syriac. 9. Of Jerome. 10. The new argument of Morinus in this cause: the conclusion about the necessity of the points.

Section 1. Because this appears to be a matter of great importance — one on which the truth I have been defending seems closely bound up — I will very briefly consider the arguments commonly urged (as in these Prolegomena) to prove that the points are a modern invention, that is, the work of the men and at the time before mentioned. I will not go into particular instances, nor is it necessary that I do so — that has already been done. The main lines of argument, which still contain their full force, can be dispatched briefly. I will address them in the order in which the Prolegomena presents them: Prolegomena 3, sections 38, 39, 40.

Section 2. The first argument runs as follows: since the ancient Hebrew letters were the same as the present Samaritan letters, and since the Samaritan letters have always been without points — as they remain today — it is evident that the invention of the points must be later than the change of the letters, which occurred in the days of Ezra, and therefore must be the work of the post-Talmudic Masoretes. A painter's scaffold — that is, a flimsy structure supporting a false picture! This entire objection rests on highly uncertain conjectures. This is not the place to speak at length about the Samaritans, their Pentateuch, and its translation. The origin of that nation is known from Scripture, as is their worship of God: 2 Kings 17. Their solemn excommunication and exclusion from any share among the people of God is also recorded: Ezra 9, Nehemiah 6, and Nehemiah 13. Their continued abominations after the closing of the canon of Scripture are reported by Josephus, Antiquities, book 11, chapter 8. In the days of the Maccabees they were conquered by Hyrcanus and brought into subjection by the Jews: Josephus, Antiquities, book 13, chapter 17. Yet their self-chosen worship, based on the tradition of their fathers, continued to the days of our Savior, along with their hostility toward the people of God: John 4. When, by whom, and in what script they first received the Pentateuch is highly uncertain. It was probably not through the priest sent to them, since despite his instructions they continued in open idolatry — which suggests they had never even seen the book of the Law. The most likely time was when they were conquered by Hyrcanus and their temple was razed after it had stood two hundred years. The same happened with the Edomites. What care they took in preserving it — since it was never committed to them by God — we shall see afterward. That any of them remain to this day, or have for the past thousand years, is unknown. That the letters of their Pentateuch were the ancient Hebrew letters, as Eusebius, Jerome, and some of the rabbis report, seems to me — after the best inquiry I have been able to make — a groundless tradition and mere fable. The evidence offered to prove it is far too weak to bear the weight of such a claim. Eusebius speaks only on hearsay — "it is affirmed" — without indicating on what grounds. Jerome is more positive, but allow me to say that if this point is false, there are sufficient examples of similar mistakes in his writings. As for the testimony of the Talmud, I have repeatedly stated that it carries no weight with me unless supported by very good independent evidence. And indeed the entire foundation of the story is very weak. The Jews are thought to have forgotten their own script during the captivity and to have learned the Chaldean, and are said to have clung to it after their return. But the same people were alive both at the burning of one Temple and the building of the next — men of one and the same generation could not have forgotten the use of letters they had practiced all their lives. Besides, they always had their Bibles with them, in their own script alone. Whether they had any other book is unknown. How, then, the forgetting of one script and the learning of another would have come about does not appear. Nor will I place much weight on such an improbable fiction on the basis of testimonies, the most ancient of which is six hundred years later than the alleged event.

Section 3. The weightiest proof in this case is drawn from ancient Jewish coins bearing Samaritan characters. We are now in the well-worn road of forgeries and fables — no area has produced more frauds. But grant that the coins in question are genuinely ancient: does it necessarily follow that because these letters were then known and in use, they alone were in use, or that the Bible was written in them and those now in use were unknown? To preserve the credibility of the coins, I will answer this conjecture with another. The Samaritan letters are plainly unusual — if I may put it that way — a studied invention. Their shapes and forms are suited to ornamentation when enlarged by engraving or embossing onto surfaces or when cut into coin dies. Why might we not think they were invented precisely for that purpose — to engrave on vessels and stamp on coins — and from there came to have some use in writing as well? Their shapes suggest something of the kind. This is made more plausible by the practice of the Egyptians, who, as Clement of Alexandria tells us, had three kinds of letters: one used for everyday writing, another used by the priests in sacred writings, and a third of two kinds — simple and symbolic. Since it was not unusual to have several kinds of letters for different purposes, it is not improbable that the same was true among the Jews. Not that they wrote the sacred texts in a special character to conceal them — which would be rightly condemned — but simply that another character may have been used for certain purposes, which is not unusual. I cannot think, for instance, that the Greeks of old used only the large block letters, though we know some did — unlike the man who wrote Homer's Iliad in no larger a volume than would fit in a nutshell.

Section 4. But even if what cannot be proved were granted — namely that such a change of letters took place — it would not in the least harm those who hold that Ezra and the men of the great congregation were the authors of the points. The proponents of this rumor placed the time at which the old Hebrew letters were, so to speak, cast out of the church, alongside the Samaritans themselves. In fact, it lends a certain plausibility to the opposite view: that Ezra, setting aside the old letters because of their difficulty, along with the new letters also introduced the points to facilitate their use. Nor can it be shown that the Samaritan letters never had any vowels affixed to them. Postellus affirms that the Samaritans had points in the days of Jerome, and that the loss of them accounts for their now corrupt reading. He writes: "They now lack the points they had in the time of Jerome, and they read without points in a thoroughly corrupted manner" (Postellus, Alphabet of 12 Languages). There were always some copies written without vowels, which might have been preserved while the others were lost. That people — if we have anything from them at all — being wicked, ignorant, dull, superstitious, idolatrous, and rejectors of most of Scripture, corrupting what they had received, might well have neglected the painstaking task of copying out pointed texts correctly. Nor is it improbable — whatever may be claimed to the contrary — that, persisting in their separation from the people of God, they might have obtained a copy of the Law written in a script of their own choosing out of hatred for the Jews. Now let anyone judge whether from this heap of uncertainties anything can emerge with the appearance of a credible witness to give testimony in the matter at hand. Anyone who would surrender his possession on such easy terms never found much benefit in it.

Section 5. The second argument: the constant practice of the Jews in preserving in their synagogues one book — which they almost worship — written without points, is brought forward for the same purpose. What do they do by this, it is asked, but tacitly acknowledge that the points have a human origin? Answer: it is certain they do not acknowledge this, either by that practice or by any other means. It is the consistent opinion and conviction of all of them — Elias alone excepted — that the points are of divine extraction. And if their authority is to be urged, it must be submitted to in one thing as well as another. The Jews give a threefold account of this practice. First, the difficulty of transcribing copies without any error — since the slightest error renders the whole book unfit for use in their synagogues. Second, the freedom it gives them to draw out various senses — more elevated, they claim, though in reality more fanciful and arbitrary than they can achieve when the reading is fixed to one certain sense by the vowels and accents. Third, it keeps all learners dependent on their teachers, since without the points they cannot know the mind of God apart from their teachers' interpretation: Rabbi Azarias, Imre Binah, chapter 59. If these reasons do not satisfy anyone as to the ground of that practice, they may ask the Jews for others — those who intend to be bound by the Jews' authority. As for Jesuit stories out of China — I give them about the same credit as the Jews give their Talmud. Anyone who can believe all the miracles they perform, where people are not warned of their tricks, may well credit them in other matters. However, as I said, I do not understand this argument: the Jews keep a book in their synagogues without points, therefore the points and accents were invented by the Tiberian Masoretes — when in fact they never read or chant from it except according to every point and accent in ordinary use. Indeed, the whole deep mystery of this practice seems to be this: that no one is permitted to read or chant the Law in their synagogues until he has it so perfectly memorized that he can observe exactly all the points and accents — in a book that has none of them written in it.

Section 6. The third argument uses the testimony of Elias Levita — not only his own judgment but also what he reports from Aben Ezra and others. They affirm, says Elias, that we received the whole system of punctuation from the Tiberian Masoretes. Answer: It is quite true that Elias held that view, and it is fair to suppose that had this opinion not entered his mind, the world would have heard little of it to this day. That by "receiving the punctuation from the Tiberians" Aben Ezra means its continuation and transmission through their school — not its invention — is demonstrated beyond all reasonable objection by Buxtorfius, De Punctorum Antiquitate, part 1, chapter 3. Nor could anything speak more directly against the intended argument than what the Prolegomena cites from Aben Ezra's comment on Exodus 25:31, where he affirms that he saw certain books examined in all their letters and in the whole punctuation by the wise men of Tiberias — that is, examined to verify whether it had been done exactly according to the patterns they held. Moreover, all of Elias's arguments are notably answered by Rabbi Azarias, whose answers are repeated by Joseph de Voisin in his most learned observations on the proem of the Pugio Fidei, pages 91 and 92. The same Azarias also shows the consistency of the various opinions held among the Jews about the vowels: attributing their virtue and force to Moses, or to God at Mount Sinai; their physical form and character to Ezra; and the restoration of their use to the Masoretes.

Section 7. The fourth argument: the silence of the Mishnah, Gemara, and the whole Talmud concerning the points is pressed further. This argument is also discussed at length by Buxtorfius, and the instances cited in it are answered fully. No one need add anything further until what he has written on this subject is refuted. See Part 1, chapter 6. See also Glassius, book 1, Tractate 1, on the Hebrew pointed text, who provides instances to the contrary. Indeed, the Talmud itself, in Nedarim (the tractate on vows), chapter 4, on Nehemiah 8:8, plainly mentions the points. Treatises even more ancient than the Talmud, cited by Rabbi Azarias in Imre Binah, speak of them explicitly. To me, a sufficient proof that the Talmudists both knew and were governed in their readings by the points now in use is this: as many learned men have observed, there is not a single text of Scripture cited in the Talmud in any other sense — as regards the literal reading and meaning of the word — than what the present punctuation restricts it to. This is significant because the advocates of the view under consideration regularly offer this as one reason why the Seventy Translators read words and sentences differently from how we now read them in our Bibles: namely, that the manuscripts they used were not pointed, and they were therefore free to guess at this or that sense of the word before them. This is one of the main pillars of Capellus's entire structure in his Critica Sacra. And I cannot understand how, on the assumption that the Talmudists did not know the use of points, there could be no variation at all between our present reading and theirs — when by the same principle, there are supposedly so many variations in the readings of the Seventy and the Chaldean Paraphrast.

Section 9. Regarding the Keri and Kethib, which are brought forward next for the same purpose, I will speak of them afterward. The differences in them are in the consonants, not in the vowels — though this does not prove there were no vowels present when they were collected or arranged as we now find them. It may well be true that the manuscripts from which they were collected — if they were collected from manuscripts — had no vowels. But that this collection was made any later than the days of Ezra, for the most part, does not appear. Whatever was done concerning Scripture in the Jewish church before the time of our Savior is evident to have been done with divine authority, since He nowhere reproved it — but rather confirmed the integrity of every single word. But these matters we will address distinctly by themselves afterward.

Section 10. A sixth argument for the novelty of the points is drawn from their number. Since it is said that all kinds of sounds can be expressed by five vowels, yet the present Hebrew punctuation supplies us with fourteen or fifteen, it is argued that this abundantly proves the points are not original to the language itself, but are the arbitrary artificial invention of men who failed to assign sufficiently distinct sounds to them to differentiate them in pronunciation. But this objection carries little weight. Its basis is the assumption that we still possess the exact true pronunciation of the Hebrew tongue — which is evidently false. It has been nearly two thousand years since that language was spoken in its purity as a common tongue by any people. To imagine that the true, precise, and distinct pronunciation of every letter and syllable, as used by those for whom it was a native language, has been handed down to us or is attainable by us — that is a pleasant dream indulged while wide awake. Aben Ezra considers it no small thing that men of old knew correctly how to pronounce Camets Gadol. He says: "The men of Tiberias, along with the wise men of Egypt and Africa, knew how to read Camets Gadol." Even the distinct force of a single consonant — and one that is always a root letter — has been entirely lost, so that modern Jews know nothing of its pronunciation. Nor can we now distinguish certain consonant pairs that the Jews tell us the wise men of Tiberias could distinguish twelve hundred years ago. The variety of consonants among many nations, and their ability to distinguish them in pronunciation, makes this objection of little consequence. The whole German nation does not distinguish between the force and sound of T and D, whereas the Arabic letters Dal, Dhsal, Dad, Ta, and Da show how those sounds can be distinguished. Nor are certain Hebrew letters answered distinctly by any other language — to distinguish some of which, Jerome had his teeth filed at the direction of his Hebrew teacher Nicodemus. Sixth point. In truth, the Hebrews have only ten vowels — five long and five short — or five great and five lesser. Sheva is merely a servant to all the rest, and its addition to Segol and Pathach creates no new vowels. There is no real basis for distinguishing between Camets Chatuph and Chatuph Camets. Only seven of them, as Morinus has demonstrated from Rabbi Jehuda Chiug, one of the first grammarians among the Jews, were anciently called Kings — that is, the chief rulers of all the movements of the letters. So in practice they have no more figures to distinguish sounds by, with all their vowels, than the Greeks have. Beyond the seven vowels they have twelve diphthongs, three of which are as silent as Sheva in terms of any distinct sound. It is true that Pliny tells us that Simonides Melicus discovered two vowels and two consonants — but surely he did so because he found them necessary to represent sounds already in use in that language; otherwise his invention would have merited little thanks. Speaking recently with a worthy and learned friend about a universal character — a project mentioned by many, attempted by several, and by him brought to such perfection as will doubtless give great, if not universal, satisfaction to learned and prudent men when he chooses to share his thoughts with the world — we happened upon the question of the number of distinct vowel sounds. When I heard him argue with good reason that there are eight or nine, I recalled this debate about the Hebrew points and asked him to write down his thoughts briefly the next day, which he did. Because his account seems clearly to expose the weakness of the claim that the Hebrew vowels are an arbitrary invention based on their number, I have included it here.

- Open sounds are either simple (vowels) or double (diphthongs). - 1. Simple open sounds are distinguishable formally and accidentally. - 1. The formal difference is what constitutes distinct letters and depends on the various degrees of mouth opening needed to produce them, together with the gravity or acuteness of the tone they produce. According to this, there are at least eight simple vowels that are easily distinguishable, namely: - 1. - 2. E more acute, as in He, me, she, ye, etc.; less acute, as in the English "the," the Latin me, te, se, etc. - 3. I or Y, which are both of one force and sound: Shi, di; Thy, my. - 4. - 5. A more open, as in All, tall, gall, wall; less open, as in Ale, tale, gale, wale. - 6. - 7. O round, less grave, as the English Go, so, no, the Latin De; more grave and full, as the English Do, to, who. - 8. U, as in Tu, use, us, etc.

- There are evidently that many distinguishable simple open sounds; I would not say there are no more, nor could be — for who knows how many other subtle differences of mouth opening and tone may now be in use or may be discovered by others, which custom and practice may make as easy for them as these are for us. - 2. But beyond this formal difference, some of them are accidentally distinguishable from one another with respect to the length of time required for their utterance, whereby the same vowel becomes sometimes long, sometimes short. - So E minor, acute: Long — meet, steam; Short — met, stem.

- I: Long — alive, give, drive, title, thine; Short — live, give, driven, tittle, thin. - A: Long — bate, hate, cate, same, dame; Short — bat, hat, cat, Sam, dam. - O round: Long — one, none, note, etc.; Short — one (non-Latin), not. - U: Long — use, tune, pule, acute; Short — us, tun, pull, cut.

The other remaining vowels — E more acute, A more open, and O more grave — do not change their quantity but are always long. 2. Diphthongs are formed by the combination of two vowels in one syllable, where the sounds of both are heard. These are: - 1. Ei, Ey — Hei (Latin); They. - 2. Ea — eat, meat, seat, teat, yea, plea. - 3. Eu, ew — Few, Dew; Heu (Latin). - 4. Ai, Ay — Aid, said, pay, day. - 5. Au, Aw — Audience, Author, Law, Draw. - 6. Oi, Oy — Point, soil, Boy, Toy. - 7. Ou, Ow — Rout, stout; How, now. - 8. Ui, Uy — Buy, juice. - 9. Eo — Yeoman, People. - How other diphthongs that have been in use may serve to represent long vowels, see the note above.

There is therefore very little weight to be placed on the strength of this objection.

Prolegomena 8, section 46. Section 11. Seventh argument: it is further argued that the ancient translations — Greek, Chaldean, and Syriac — demonstrate that the points had not yet been invented at the time of their composition, because in numerous places it is clear that those translators read certain words differently from how we now read them with the points currently affixed — that is, differently in terms of the force and sound, not the written form, of those vowels. For this purpose a great many instances are given from the Septuagint especially, by Capellus; Grotius follows the same course. But this objection is not sufficient to tip the scale in the matter under consideration. Something will be said about those translations at the close of this discussion. The differences that can be observed in them — especially in the former — would prove just as well that those translators had different consonants in their copies, that is, that the copies they used had different letters and words than ours, not just different vowels. Indeed, if wherever they differ from our present reading we must suppose they had other and better copies, we are necessarily committed to saying our text is very corrupt. That would please certain critics — but the inference cannot be avoided, as I hope, God willing, to demonstrate further if the occasion arises. The truth is, the copies of the Septuagint we now have differ in so many places from the original that it is beyond all conjecture what caused it. I wish someone would try their skill on some portion of Job, the Psalms, or the Prophets, to see whether, with all their inquiry into variant readings, they can determine how those translators read in their copies, if they translated as they read and we have what they translated. Symeon de Muys tells us a revealing story about himself on this point in his Assertion of Hebrew Vindication, section 1 — and also how ludicrous his own attempt turned out to be. But I will withdraw that suggestion. The Scripture is not to be handled in such a way; we have already had far too much of that kind of work. The Rabbinical method of finding hidden meanings is not to be compared with some of our critics' methods of transposing and rearranging letters. Of the Chaldean Paraphrase I will speak afterward. It seems not to be as ancient as it is claimed. It is not mentioned by Josephus, Origen, or Jerome — though this alone does not necessarily impugn its antiquity. But since it is most certain that it was held in high esteem and reverence among all Jews before the time assigned for the punctuation of the points, it is strange that those who fixed the points should voluntarily differ from it in so many places.

Second point. Besides, even if these translators — or any of them — used copies without vowels (as it is acknowledged that such copies always existed, as they do still), it does not follow at all that the points had not been devised or were not in use. But more on this when we come to speak about these translations in detail.

Section 12. Eighth argument: of similar force is the argument made last, drawn from the silence of Jerome and other ancient writers concerning the use of points among the Hebrews. But Jerome did not see everything — he was not aware of the Chaldean Paraphrase, which our authors suppose to have been extant at least four hundred years before him. So it cannot be established that he mentioned everything he did see. He had no occasion to speak expressly about the vowels — there was no controversy about them in his day. Nor were they then known by the distinct names they now carry. The whole current of his translation argues that he had the Bible as we now have it pointed. Indeed, learned men have shown by examples that seem to provide irrefutable evidence that he did use them. Or it may be that he could not obtain a pointed copy but was taught the correct pronunciation of words by his Jewish teacher. Copies were then scarce, and the Jews were full of jealousy. All of this is uncertain. See Munster, Praefatio ad Biblia. The truth is, either I cannot understand Jerome's words, or he positively affirms that the Hebrews had the use of vowels. In his Epistle to Evagrius, Epistle 126, he writes: "It matters not whether Salem or Salim be named, since the Hebrews very rarely use vowel letters in the middle of words." If they did it rarely, they did it — and therefore they had them. Although in those days, to preserve their reputation as teachers, they did not make much use of them. Nor can this be said of the sound of the vowels, but only of their written figures. Surely they did not rarely use the sounds of vowels, given that they spoke constantly. And many other testimonies from Jerome may be produced to the same effect.

Section 13. Morinus, in his recent Opuscula Hebraea Samaritica, in his digression against the Hebrew points and accents, part 1, page 209, introduces a new argument to prove that the vowel points were invented by the Jewish grammarians — though he allows that the distinction of sections may be older. He bases this argument on a passage in Aben Ezra concerning the successive means by which Scripture was preserved: first by the men of the great synagogue, then by the Masoretes, then by the grammarians. As Aben Ezra assigns distinct tasks to each group, so he assigns to the grammarians the knowledge of the progress of the holy tongue, the origin of the chief points, and of Sheva — all as Morinus cites him at length. Morinus then labors to prove by several instances that by "chief points" Aben Ezra means the vowels, not the accents as they are now called. And in his addenda, prefixed to the book, he triumphs over the discovery that the vowels are so called by Rabbi Jehuda Chiug, the most ancient of the Jewish grammarians. The business now seems to him completely settled, and he cries out: "We need no longer the eyes of others — now we see for ourselves." A great sacrifice is surely owed to this crowning net of Morinus. But what would be worthy of such a thing?

Section 14. The passage Morinus relies on from Aben Ezra was produced, weighed, and explained by Buxtorf several years earlier, from his work on the standard of the holy tongue, De Punctorum Origine, part 1, pages 13 and 14, chapter 3. It is not unlikely, given how Morinus handles it in his preface — noting that he fixed on it some years ago — that he actually encountered it in Buxtorfius. This suspicion is reinforced by the way Morinus preemptively guards against that accusation. And Simeon de Muys suggests that Morinus dealt with the father as he now deals with the son. Censura in Exercitationes 4, chapter 7, page 17, where de Muys himself acknowledges with great and rare candor what he received from Buxtorf. Assertio Textus Hebraici Veritas, chapter 5: "Will you say I borrowed all of this from Buxtorfius? Why not indeed borrow it, if necessity requires?" But what is the great discovery here? That the vowel points are called by some of them "kings" — the accents have now acquired that title, some being called kings and some servants — so that the present arrangement of vowels and accents is supposedly novel. Second point: that the grammarians invented these royal points, as Aben Ezra says.

Section 15. But what cause for triumph or boasting is there in any of this great discovery? Was it ever denied by anyone that the naming of the vowels and accents with their titles was the work of the grammarians? Had it not long since been observed by many that the five long vowels, along with certain others, were anciently called kings? And that the distinction of vowels into long and short was an invention of the Christian rather than the Jewish grammarians — the Jews themselves calling some absolutely kings, others great and small, others mothers and daughters? But then says Morinus: the grammarians were the inventors of these points — why so? Aben Ezra assigns to the work of the grammarians the task of knowing the progress of the holy tongue, the origin of those things, etc. But could anything be more clearly against his design than his own testimony? It was the work of the grammarians to know these things — therefore not to invent them. Did they invent the root and servant letters? By that logic they invented the language itself, for it consists of root and servant letters, of points and accents — and yet this too is attributed to them by Aben Ezra. But it is good that Morinus has at last lighted upon Rabbi Jehuda Chiug. His opinion before was gathered from Kimchi, Ephodius, Muscatus, and others. But what does Chiug himself say? From what Morinus quotes, he seems likely to prove a notable witness to the antiquity of the points. It may well be supposed that Morinus, writing explicitly against their antiquity, would produce whichever testimony in his whole author best served his purpose. And yet the testimony he fixes on is from this ancient grammarian — who lived around the year AD 1150 or 1200 — and gives an account of the points with their names without the slightest hint of anything that would impugn their divine origin. Similarly, Aben Ezra himself, on Psalm 9:7, tells us of one Adonim Ben-Lafrad who, long before Rabbi Jehuda, found a certain vowel reading in an ancient copy. So when Morinus comes to draw the conclusion of his argument — apparently discovering in the process the absurdity of claiming the points were invented by the grammarians, the last group mentioned by Aben Ezra — he says: "It is beyond all doubt, and clearer than the midday sun, that Aben Ezra believed the origin of all vowel pointing to derive from the Tiberian Masoretes and the grammarians who followed them." But of these Masoretes there is not a word in the premises, nor does Aben Ezra assign any such work to them. He assigns them a quite different task — making a protective hedge around the Law by their observations on all its words. Had he envisioned them as inventors of the points, he would surely have assigned that work to them. And as for the grammarians, his own testimony stands squarely against that conclusion.

Section 16. These are the main arguments pressed by Capellus and others, and by these Prolegomena, to prove that the Hebrew punctuation is an invention of the Jews of Tiberias, five hundred or more years after the incarnation of Christ. A short song, but a long refrain. I have not set out here to answer them at length with the various instances produced to lend them credibility — nor is it necessary for anyone to do so until the answers already given are refuted. But from the sample given of their nature and character, the sober and godly reader may easily judge whether they carry any force sufficient to overturn the persuasion they oppose. That persuasion rests on the universal tradition and consent of the Jews; on the utterly uncontested reception of the points by all the world — Jews and Christians — without the least opposition; on the very nature of the punctuation itself, which follows the genius of the language and does not arise from artificial rules; on the impossibility of assigning any author to it since the days of Ezra except by the kind of loose conjectures and guesswork that ought not to be admitted in a matter of such weight. All of this is attended by the great uncertainty we would be left in, in all translations and expositions of Scripture, if we were to deny that these points have a divine original. It is true that while the Hebrew language was the common tongue of the nation, spoken uniformly by everyone everywhere, it would have been possible, on the assumption that there were no points, for men without infallible guidance to affix marks and figures that might with some accuracy represent the common pronunciation of the language, and so yield the true and proper sense of the words themselves. But when there had been an interruption of a thousand years in the everyday use of the language — preserved pure only in one book — to suppose that the exact pronunciation of every letter, tittle, and syllable was kept alive by oral tradition, nowhere written and not spoken by anyone as a common tongue, is to build towns and castles of imagination that can be as easily demolished as they are erected. Unless this is supposed — which cannot be supposed with any plausibility at all, yet is so supposed by Capellus and the learned author of the Prolegomena — we must grant that the great rule of all present translations, expositions, and commentaries that have been made in the church of God for several hundred years is the arbitrary invention of a handful of Jews living in an obscure corner of the world under the curse of God, in their unbelief and blindness. The only relief offered in the Prolegomena against this troubling conclusion is, as I said, that the Masoretes did not affix the present punctuation arbitrarily — so Capellus also says — but according to the tradition they had received. What weight should be placed on such a tradition preserved for nearly a thousand years — indeed, more than a thousand according to Morinus — is easy to imagine. Nor should men comfort themselves with the supposed ease of learning the Hebrew language without points and accents, and of reading not just the language but the true and precise text of the Bible rightly. Let the points and accents be entirely removed — along with all understanding of the sense that arises from the restraint and distinction the words receive by being pointed as they are — and then turn the whole crowd of learned critics of this age loose upon the bare consonants, and we shall quickly see what dreadful havoc will be made of sacred truth. Were they shut up in separate rooms, I would scarcely expect the harmony and agreement among them that is fabulously reported of the Seventy. The Jews say truly: "No man can lift up his tongue to read without punctuation." And: "If we grant reason mastery in these and similar matters, the whole of the books will be changed — in letters, words, and sentences — and so the thing itself will be changed" (book Cosri, part 3, page 28). And so I have, with all possible brevity, defended the position I earlier maintained against this major objection — one that might rightly have been feared from the principles laid down in the Prolegomena.