De Moor II:8: The Authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, Part 2

A.  Here our AUTHOR briefly makes mention of some Philological Questions that are wont to be moved concerning the Authentic text, especially of the Old Testament.

              א.  Our AUTHOR sets forth concerning the Vowel Points (we dismiss for the present the Accents, concerning which an occasion of speaking to a limited extent will yet recur in § 14:  compare ALBERT SCHULTENS’ Institutiones ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ ad regulam XXI, ג, ד, ה, pages 86-89; PHILIPPUS OUSEEL’S[1] Præfationem before Introductionem in Accentuationem Hebræorum Metricam; to which are able to be added the Epistles of BURMANN,[2] RELAND,[3] and VITRINGA, to Ouseel concerning this work, in Bibliotheca Bremensi, classis VIII, fascicule V, chapter X, pages 893-899; see also CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter v, section VII, pages 242-275) a threefold Question, the parts of which are nevertheless greatly dependent upon each other.  That is, it is asked concerning the Points’, 1.  Antiquity, whether it is to be thought to be as old as the Letters, or later?  2.  Concerning their Origin, whether divine from Ezra or others, or Human from the more recent Masoretes?[4]  3.  Concerning their Authority, whether fallible or infallible?  It is well-known that this controversy is being agitated with great zeal among the most eminent Critics:  among whom on behalf of the Antiquity of the Points in the Sacred Codex, either coeval with the writing of the individual Sacred Books, or at least from the restoration by Ezra, hence on behalf of their θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration and infallible authority, there are those that contended before the rest in order to defend the integrity of the Sacred Codex, great men, both BUXTORFS, both the Father[5] in his Tiberiade, and the Son[6] in his Anticritica or Vindiciis Veritatis Hebraicæ, quas Ludovici Cappelli Criticæ quam vocat Sacræ opposuit.  With whom, following the Jews, only not all, with one Elias Levita excepted, who was a German Grammarian of the early Sixteenth Century,[7] the entire cohort of the most eminent Theologians and Philologists, of the Reformed, Lutherans, and Papists, agree:  their names are enumerated both by TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XI, § 13; and even more extensively by PFEIFFER,[8] Criticis Sacris, chapter IV, section II, question II, page 705.

On the other hand, others have taken on the task of undermining the Antiquity of the Points; and a great many, the task of undermining the Authority of the Points.  That is (let me not commemorate those that feel still less benignly concerning the Points, and refer the invention of the same to even later times), of the Jews, Elias Levita, præfatione III, libri Masoret hammasoreth, and after him Papists in vast numbers, besides also Lutherans and Reformed not of the least note, enumerated by PFEIFFER, Criticis Sacris, chapter IV, section II, question II, page 705, 706; and among the Reformed no one has treated this case with greater care and zeal than LOUIS CAPPEL, Professor of Theology and of the Hebrew Language at Saumur,[9] both in his Arcano Punctationis revelato, ejusque contra Buxtorfium Vindiciis, and in his Criticis Sacris:  these, I say, contend that the Codices from Moses unto the Tiberian Masters[10] did not possess the points, until at length, around five hundred years after the Birth of Christ, Jews, congregated in Tiberias, distributed the Points underneath in that manner in which they are read today.  But then these are divided again into two parts.  For some hold with Elias Levita that the modern Reading is authentic, divine, and proceeding from the very Writers of the Sacred Books, but preserved unto the times of the Masoretes by oral tradition alone:  until the latter committed that Reading, preserved hitherto by the trustworthiness of Tradition, to the letters by the help of the Points, and expressed it by certain signs.  Others with a great many Philologists of the Christians attribute the sound and value of the vowels, as well as their figures and signs, and to that extent the whole system of reading, to the genius of the Masoretes, and reckon it merely human; but suited to the analogy of Grammar, the genius of the Language, and the exigency of the text and sense:  hence to recede from today’s reading of the Hebrew text is hardly taboo to them.

The Arguments, with which this was fought by both parties, BUXTORF on the one hand, and CAPPEL on the other, are related in their great number by the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, in his Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ, pages 60-62:  he sets the same into a fixed order, in such a way that they have regard either to the historical tradition, or to the real documents, or to reasons more or less probable:  and the Most Illustrious MARCKIUS, in his Exercitationibus textualibus, part V, Exercise XXVIII, or Exercise III of his Sylloge Dissertationum ad Novum Testamentum, balances on both sides the weight of these arguments; and he rightly sees that various arguments are proffered by one and the other party, which arguments are parried with sufficiently probable Exceptions by the opposite party in turn.  And, with all duly weighed, I willingly acquiesce in the modest judgment of both Men, truly Great, just now cited, MARCKIUS and SCHULTENS:  of which the former, in his cited Dissertation § 14, wrote:  “It appears probable that, if perhaps not all the present pointing was formerly added by the divine hand to the letters in the writing of the Scriptures, nevertheless not all of it was entirely absent; as in certain things more and in other things less, a necessity is discerned for the fitting use and understanding of the Scriptures, on account of which the matter here is not incorrectly judged in accordance with the wisdom and goodness of God.  And thus (proceeds that Most Illustrious Man) the distinction, soon evident, is sufficiently great between the Vowel Points and the Accents—since the signification of the words depends upon the former far more than upon the latter, etc.  Again, as there is not at all the same necessity of all the Accents—so neither is there a reason why, in a situation clearly the same, might be found that entire Number of Vowel Points, which are called by the Grammarians long, short, and shortest, and some are judged to be of hardly any use, while others generally have a special regard to the elegance of pronunciation alone.  But if it be posited that from the first beginning of Scripture itself certain marks were present, both of the Vowel sound, with which the letters, otherwise of a dubious sense, were to be uttered; and of the Tone/ Accent to be exerted, and of the Sense either to be stopped or continued, according to the use of other Oriental Languages also, and the holy simplicity agreeing with the first ages and with the divine Spirit:  but that, through human wisdom and prudence, whereby they might study more certainly and holily the preservation and handing on of the Scriptures, or even through human περιεργίαν/over-elaboration, whereby they might wish to augment the glory of the same, far more similar notes were added by the human hand of the Jews, by which notes, nevertheless, the received Reading was by no means changed, which is certainly no more inconsistent with the character of the Jews than of the successive embellishing among men of all ancient institutes; but if, I say, those things be posited, perhaps it might be possible in the greatest degree to be satisfied with the arguments that were previously produced by one and the other party.”  When, moreover, in § 15, he urges that there is to be no light or rash withdrawal from the current punctuation.  But the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS expresses his mind in his preface to Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ in this manner:  “I wonder how it could come to pass that the Most Illustrious BUXTORF would allow so many questions, differing by the whole heaven in nature, worth, weight, and subject matter, to coalesce with that most important and fundamental controversy concerning the origin and authority of the Vowel Points, which he had undertaken to prove against the Most Illustrious CAPPEL:  and he would have without a doubt conquered, unless he had suffered himself to be circumvented by this stratagem of his most cunning Adversary.  That the Vowels, and indeed all of them, that is, the long and the short, were certainly coeval with the letters, in my judgment, could never have been drawn into contention, if only the state of the controversy had remained pure and unmixed.  Is it possible to name any Language without Vowels, a, e, i, o, u, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer, being heard?  No one would assert it.  Is the one that first clothed the Consonant Letters, that is, the body of the Language, with figures, and with admirable artifice subjected them to the eyes, to be supposed to have neglected the soul of Language?  This is inconsistent with all appearance of truth.  I do not assert that he, whoever he might have been, presently added the same figure of the vowels, of which we now make use:  but that were invented also with the Consonants, by this most wise inventor of writing, certain little marks and points, by which might be expressed a, e, i, o, u, the matter itself and the reason for the invention so evince that I indeed always speak of it as clearer than the noonday light, etc.  At the same time, I do not deny that our Oriental Languages, especially Hebrew, are compared with sister dialects, Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic, in such a way that in many things they are able both to be read and to be understood well, as expeditiously as possible, without Vowels inserted and subscripted.  Nevertheless, I myself, after thirty-five years spent in this school, partly in learning, partly in teaching, deny and utterly reject the same, that these, our Languages everywhere lack the insertion and subscription of the Vowel points, etc.  Therefore, it was displeasing in the system of Cappel, and I was supposing it to be against sounder Criticism, what was so confidently asserted:  1.  that the Vowels are new, because their denominations perhaps have the character of novelty.  2.  That without them the Hebrew text is everywhere sufficiently accessible and plain.  3.  That the Matres Lectionis,[11] in any event, shine light abundantly upon the more obscure passages.  4.  That all the Oriental Languages were formerly without express marks of Vowels, etc.  Most of these things appeared to me to be easy to confute, from the very principia of the Oriental Languages, etc.  Only somewhat of a scruple was recurring from the Matribus Lectionis, the feebleness of which I have now thoroughly ascertained, etc.”  And then, in the same work, page 62, he writes:  “The Controversy, more simply set forth, would be able to be composed without so much difficulty, if the truth alone had been sought.  Take away the Question’s adjuncts, concerning the contemporary figures and names of the vowels, concerning schema, concerning the manifold number and function of the accents:  then look into what appears to have the greater appearance of truth, whether the Vowels would have been present from the most ancient times, or not? further restrict this also, and discuss, whether or not at least little Vowel markings would have been inserted by the Sacred Writers, when the highest necessity was requiring it.  To deny this is not very becoming:  to require anything further is imprudent and hurtful to a good cause.  If this quarrel should keep itself within these bounds, a concord between the Critics and Theologians will spontaneously come together, and the Vowel points will by common consent obtain that just and natural place, which to them is allotted by the character of the Hebrew Tongue, by the usage of the East, thence from a primeval origin, among the Chaldeans, Syrian, and Arabs.  Those that express themselves otherwise on this matter, appear to have inquired into it without very much accuracy.”  Thus far the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS.

That certain little Vowel markings were inserted from the beginning of the Consonants, from which the genuine Reading would be able to be certain, is proven:

1.  From the perfection, perspicuity, and certainty of the literal Sense of the Sacred Scripture, which all depend upon the added guidance of the Points.  That the Scripture is perfect and perspicuous, is to be proven below against the Papists.  But, without the express addition of the Points, the Scripture would be made ambiguous in a great many passages, its Sense uncertain, and its reader left in suspense:  thus, for example, if you read דבר, from this is able to be formed, דָּבַר, he said, דֶּבֶר/pestilence, דֺּבֵר, one speaking, דְּבַר, to speak, דַּבֵּר, speak thou, דָּבָר/word, etc.  In this way the Septuagint translators strayed with overmuch frequency.  Thus in Lamentations 3:33, in the place of, כִּ֣י לֹ֤א עִנָּה֙ מִלִּבּ֔וֹ, God does not afflict from His heart, they read עָנָה, to answer, rendering it, ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτοῦ, He does not answer from His heart, with a sense quite incongruous.  In Psalm 7:11, in the place of,וְ֜אֵ֗ל זֹעֵ֥ם בְּכָל־יֽוֹם׃, and God is angry every day, in the contrary sense they read וְאַל, and not, reading καὶ μὴ ὀργὴν ἐπάγων, etc., and He is not bringing wrath, etc.  In Isaiah 33:2, in the place of, זְרֹעָם, their arm, they read זַרְעָם, σπέρμα αὐτῶν, their seed, etc.

2.  An argument is sought from the men, for whom the Scripture was intended.  For it is set before the eyes to be read, not only by the prudent, men learned and especially skillful in letters; but by all indiscriminately, men, women, old, young, learned and unlearned:  unto this end, that thence they might derive the way of obtaining salvation, the saving knowledge of God, and faith.  Who then would deny that the style of the infirm and ruder sort was adopted, not only in the manner of propounding, but also of writing, and that the writing was accommodated especially to their capacity?  Now while, if you deprive the text of its Points, the true and genuine reading in a great many and very weighty passages would escape men well exercised and learned, and they would not with adequacy follow it; what would men, simple and ignorant of letters, do?

3.  The universal reception of the contemporary Pointing among all Jews everywhere appears to be traced back to no other source than the divine origin of these Points, and the providence accompanying this.  For, if the Biblical Pointing proceed not θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, from prophetical Men, but from the Tiberian Masters not rising above the human lot, it certainly would not in any way have been received so ἀναντιῤῥήτως/unanimously by the entire race of Jews; but the emulation, which always thrived among the Scribes and Doctors, would have prevailed to such a degree that some, withdrawing from the common opinion, would have set themselves opposite to that, or censured it.  But now there is agreement even among the Karaites[12] and the Rabbinical men in the same Pointing of the Codex, if you except a few things.

4.  Add that, concerning the Pointing being invented of late, among the Hebrew, if you except one, Elias Levita, the silence is most profound, who nevertheless were not at all silent concerning the elaboration of the Talmud, neither concerning this great labor upon the very Scripture could they have been silent, unto the praise of the inventors and the greater commendation of the thing itself, if it had happened in a later age.

5.  Neither without plausibility is this also urged at last, that in all ages the reverence of the Jews for their Law was greater than that they would dare according to human pleasure to augment it with such an addition, by which solicitous care of the Masoretes they applied themselves with great vigor to prevent all mutation.

And, so that we might with brevity take away one and the other of the principal difficulties, which are wont to be moved oppositely:

They object, for example, 1.  the Copies of the books, of which the Jews make use in their Synagogues for public recitations, which all are without the Vowel Points, Accents, etc., and which, nevertheless, would doubtlessly be in close conformity to the most ancient αὐτογράφους/autograph Codices of the sacred Amanuenses.  We respond:  α.  According to RABBI BECHAI[13] in his biour gnal hatthora, folio 162b, the Jews omit the Pointing of the book of the Law for Kabbalistic reasons, that is, so that from one unpointed they might be able to elicit various and manifold senses.  β.  For public uses the Jews employ Unpointed Codices, so that correct Codices might be able to be had throughout all the Synagogues in sufficient abundance, and so that those might be available without immoderate expense.  γ.  It is sufficient that the precentor on the day before the sabbath commit to memory his reading according to a Pointed copy, and that the pointed Codices furnish the norm of public recitation, although that be undertaken from an Unpointed volume.

They object, 2.  the Silence of the Talmudists, who neither in the Mishnah,[14] nor in the Gemara,[15] interject mention of the Points:  then of the Kabbalists, who draw their own arcane senses, never from the Points, but from the letters alone.  We respond:  α.  It is a strange argument, sought from the silence of the Talmud, no less than if you should undertake to reason in this way:  In the Justinian Body of Law,[16] no mention is made of letters, vowels, or punctuation:  therefore, in the age in which it was composed, the letters, vowels, and punctuation, which are in use today, did not exist, or were not employed in the same manner.  For the Talmud does not dwell on Grammatical precepts, nor on eliciting the sense of Scripture, but on explaining the rites and laws of the Nation.  β.  In the Talmud, today’s Pointing is tacitly approved, when, whatever sayings of Scripture it alleges, it alleges in no other sense than what our Pointing displays.  Now, it would hardly be without a miracle that the Talmudic Doctors had read the entire Codex in just the same way that the Masoretic exemplars read, if they had been directed by no Pointed Codex.  Neither is it possible for you to refer this to oral tradition:  for the same was equally enjoyed by the Chaldean Interpreters, being yet far superior in age to the Talmudists, and also by the authors of the Greek Version, etc.; who all, nevertheless, it is evident, strayed from the Masoretic Pointing in many places.  γ.  Both BUXTORFS commended many passages both of the Talmud and of the Kabbalists in favor of the Points.

They object, 3.  the most ancient Translations, the Chaldean Versions, the Syriac, the Greek Versions, which on account of the want of the Points read and render the words so diversely, which according to the diverse reckoning of the Points admit various readings.  Neither do the Fathers, the most ancient and skillful in Hebrew, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, make mention of the Points, although having a most convenient opportunity offered to them.  We respond:  α.  The Major premise of the argument concludes nothing.  For thus it has it:  what sort of Codex was used neither by the Translators, nor by the Greek and Latin Fathers, such existed neither from its first beginning, nor at that time among the Jews.  Pointed Codices were certainly able to exist at the same time, in which the Translators and Fathers were applying themselves to the Hebrew Scripture; but they would come at great expense, and so would not be very common; whence it happened that Unpointed Codices obtained in common use.  Moreover, the Ancient Interpreters strayed no less frequently from the genuine reading of the Consonants and whole Words than from that of the Points:  whence then by the same right it could be concluded also that formerly the consonant letters and entire words were read differently.  β.  As far as the particulars are concerned, 1.  With respect to the Greek Version of the Septuagint, Learned Men think that that ancient and genuine Version is not available to us in its entirety:  indeed, a collation of the diverse Editions, for example, of the Roman and Anglican, shows that almost innumerable discrepancies of the Greek text are given by them; so that from an adulterated, corrupt, and uncertain version nothing is able to be concluded firmly against the Hebrew sources, and the possession of the points in good faith.  2.  With respect to the Chaldean Paraphrases; no reason appears why their differing from the Hebrew text might argue the absence of the vowels, more than of the letters and words, since in both there is a great discrepancy from the Hebrew codex.  3.  Finally, with respect to the Fathers, one may retort:  a.  That they were not so skilled in the Hebrew Language, nor furnished with an abundance of Codices; that, however they may have made use of Unpointed Codices, it nevertheless does not follow from thence that Pointed Codices were not available at that time.  b.  In accordance with the additional examples alleged by BUXTORF, JEROME by repeatedly manifest indications appears to have not been altogether ignorant of the Points.  c.  The authority of the Septuagint Version was such in the ancient Church, that hardly without danger was it to depart entirely from it.  Hence fear of ill will often brought it to pass that with the Septuagint Translators they sometimes prefer to depart from the Masoretic reading, than, departing from their version, to incur suspicion of novelty and heresy.  On these Questions concerning the Vowel Points in the Hebrew Codex of the Old Testament, see also JOHANN FRANZ BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book I, chapter IV, § 6, pages 132, 133, tome 1.

ב.  With the threefold ζητήματι/inquiry concerning the Points, our AUTHOR subjoins a fourth, having regard to the Figure of the Hebrew Letters before the Captivity, whether they were the Samaritan, or the Blocked Letters of Today?  But concerning this, as concerning the Preceding Questions, he briefly adds:  “The determination and solid demonstration of all these is quite difficult.”

No less in this controversy concerning the Hebrew Letters, than in the other concerning the Vowel Points, it has been drawn into parties by the greatest Theologians and Philologists.  That is, it is affirmed by one party, that the squared impress, by which today’s written Hebrew Codices are read, with respect to their substance, were the same with that by which Moses and the Prophets set down their books in αὐτογράφοις, their autographs.  By the other party it is held that today’s squared impress was adopted more recently, so that Ezra with his Colleagues, after the return from Captivity, transcribed the sacred Books with this impress, with the former impress repudiated and left to the Samaritans.

The Authors and Patrons of both opinions, Men of great repute on both sides, both Jews, and Christians, Papists, Lutherans, Reformed, are enumerated by CARPZOV, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter V, section VI, pages 227, 228, 232-234, in the notes.  PFAFF, in his Historia Formulæ Consensus Helveticæ, chapter I, § 8, shows that the opinion of Cappel does not satisfy today’s Lutherans, who in this instance are devoted to the opinion of Buxtorf.  The arguments, of which they that discuss this business on the one side and on the other make use, are summarily related by the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ, pages 15 and following, with which rightly considered, it will be evident that various arguments on both sides are produced, to which it is discovered that hardly the greatest force belongs.

The most ancient Tradition is urged on both sides, which hence we set over against each other.

Nevertheless, if we have regard to the remaining weights of reasons, the Sacred Codex of the Old Testament was at first written down in the Hebrew Letters of Squared Figure, which sort are in use at the present day; to us it appears that it is to be defend, until the contrary be confirmed by stronger arguments.

In which situation, only with reluctance are we prepared to argue with the greatest Men from the י/yod, considered by the Lord as the smallest letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, Matthew 5:18, of which sort it is among the Squared letters, not among the Samaritan Alphabet, where it is written thus ᴟ.[17]  For others except that, 1.  when Matthew relates the words of the Lord in Greek, he also has regard unto the ι/Iota of the Greeks, just as also John mentions α/alpha and ω/omega in Revelation.[18]  2.  But if they have regard unto the Hebraic י, it is able to be referred to the form of writing used in the time of the Lord’s dwelling upon the earth.

Neither do we promote the argument from the confusion of the related Hebrew letters among Translators, whence others reason:  Whatever Alphabet has those related letters, by the confusion of which they poured forth evident errors into the Chaldean Versions, the Greek, the Latin, and into the Samaritan Codex, that is original to the Hebrew of the Sacred Codex.  But the Squared Alphabet of the Hebrews (not the Samaritan, or any other) has those related letters, by the confusion of which they pour forth evident errors into the Versions.  Therefore.  For there is absolutely no force in this argument, until you evince that all those Versions, or at least some of them, surpass the age of Ezra; in which others maintain that the permutation of the Samaritan Letters with the Squared letters was made.

Rather, we reason:  If the permutation of the letters, in which the Sacred Codex was written, happened in the time of Ezra, it ought not to be asserted lightly, but it ought to be demonstrated with clear and invincible proofs:  1.  Because the veneration owed to the Sacred Scripture wards off from this all casual alteration.  2.  Which restricts so much more, if a consideration of the Jewish Nation should be brought along side, a Nation tenacious of their ancient institutions, now already dispersed throughout the East with their Scriptures, and having in contempt the Idolatrous Nations, no less than the Samaritans:  whence learned Men contend that this sort of permutation of the letters was impossible to Ezra.  Indeed, if, say they, it was not able to happen either that Ezra gathered and destroyed the exemplars of the Sacred Books scattered far and wide through the world, and supplied exemplars new and written in Chaldean characters for the Jews throughout so many widely scattered parts and provinces of the world:  or that in the matter of the transfer of the Sacred Books into profane and gentile characters he procured the consent of the entire nation, extended so broadly throughout the world, so stubborn, and tenacious of those things that pertain to religion and sacred rites:  the conclusion is also that such things never actually happened.

An observation is also not altogether unsuitable concerning the simpler and more original figure of the Squared letters.

They object on behalf of a Permutation of the Letters made by Ezra;

1.  Various reasons, which are able to be reckoned to make rather for the illustration of this thesis already proven, than for the proof of the same:  of which sort is, for example,

              α.  The longer sojourn of the Jews in Chaldea:  which brought in a change of writing no more than formerly their Egyptian sojourn, or long afterwards the Jews’ even longer lasting sojourn in the Greek world, Roman or European:  and, learning the Chaldean language for their own use, the Jews were not immediately obliged to make use of its characters in their Language, much less in their θεοπνεύστοις/ inspired Books.

              β.  The easier writing of the Squared letters; but which is offset by the longer use and love of the other writing.

              γ.  The separation of the Jews from the Samaritans:  but on account of which they were not obliged to relinquish their sacred things to them, and to conform themselves to other foreigners.

              δ.  Their enduring subjection under the Persians; but which does not extend itself to this point.

2.  Then they produce ancient Shekels with a Samaritan Inscription, Holy Jerusalem, ירושלים הקדושה, which were able to be made neither by the Samaritans on account of their contempt of that city, nor by the Jews after the Captivity on account of their aversion to the Samaritans, which hence they assert were struck by the Jews in the time of the first Temple.  But, α.  Men especially conversant in this sort of study did not make those coins to be of so much value; and some of the same think that these coins were struck only in the time of the Hasmoneans.[19]  β.  They observe that the letters, which these coins depict, are not the same as the Samaritan, neither are they completely foreign to the Squared letters of the Hebrews; but a stamp intermediate, as it were, between both, which LŒSCHERUS notes to have been the shorthand of the Jews.  For thus that learned Man, and others with him, think that, although the Hebrews did not know any other form of letters from the beginnings of the Jewish republic than that Sacred and Squared form, nevertheless by those writing swiftly there was introduced another, and that less carefully formed, which indeed was able to represent the Squared stamp; but it was far less carefully formed and less exact, and in private and profane writing it was everywhere increasing in the succession of time:  while with the destruction of the Palestinian Schools it perished among the Jews, it remained among the Samaritans, continually inhabiting their original seats; where nevertheless after these things, with the cultivation of writing coming on, from that ruder method of drawing the Samaritan character at length came forth, which is in use among them today.  And, that in this sense their opinion is able to be tolerated, they suppose, who attribute two sets of letters to the Hebrews, namely, sacred and profane.  The Most Illustrious SCHULTENS sees things a little differently, who thinks that the conspicuous stamp on those coins is ancient Phœnician, which differs from the Squared Hebrew only in the drawing and bending of the hand.  Now, he posits that this Phœnician stamp was actually derived from the Samaritans from the first beginning of their affairs, which Samaritans were pursuing neighborhood and commerce with Phœnicia.  Nevertheless, he asserts that the ancient Phœnician character was simpler, just as it is also conspicuous on those coins, than the Samaritan is now wont to be depicted, augmented with new appendages and little stokes.  Whatever of these you might now choose, even if you should desire to refer the age of those coins to the first temple, nothing else thence follows; than that some letters of the Hebrews were common, similar to those that afterward obtained among the Samaritans, and which they were using in private writings, coins, and shekels:  others were solemn, as it were, and sacred, more like our Squared letters, of which use was made in sacred writings and perhaps public monuments.  γ.  In any event, from this Inscription of the Coins it is not able certainly to be concluded that the Hebrews made use of those characters only; and that these were most certainly the same in which the Law was formerly set down, and in which the remaining Sacred Books were committed to writing.  Certainly from the Coins and Inscriptions of other nations anything similar would be rashly concluded.

They object, 3.  That commonly the Samaritan Letters are called כתב עברי, Hebrew writing; but the Squared letters are called כתב אשורי, שעלה עמהם מאשור, Assyrian writing, because it arose with the people returning from Assyria.  Responses:  α.  The mere sophistries of certain Rabbis, says the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS.  β.  The Most Illustrious LŒSCHERUS responds that the Jews that dwelt in Chaldea and Assyria far more diligently practiced the holy tongue than those that lived in Palestine; and that the same, in preserving and with greater diligence copying the letters of their ancestors, were more painstaking than the rest, who adopted the swifter method of writing, which afterward was like unto the Samaritan method.  And thence it happened that the true and most ancient letters were called Assyrian by some, especially by the Jews of preceding times:  but the name of Hebrew writing remained to those deformed and shorthand letters, which the Hebrew inhabitants of Palestine retained.  γ.  Now, MARCKIUS, a.  supposes that the Samaritan Letters are able to be calledכתב עברי , Hebrew writing, by a notion, not so much proper to Hebrew Writing, as appellative of Transfluvial Writing, that is, Trans-Euphratean, that is, with respect to the Assyrians and other Oriental peoples, just as Trans-fluvial Writing is directly enough set over against Assyrian.  Now, thus by the name of Hebrew Writing given to Samaritan letters it could not be solidly proven that the Hebrew people made use of these before the Captivity, still less of these only as peculiar to themselves.  b.  But he desires that the Squared writing be called Assyrian, not because it was proper to Assyria and the neighboring peoples all the way until the times of Ezra, where the captive Jews learned that first or more commonly, and whence they brought it with them in the return:  but because Abraham, coming with his own from Assyria unto Canaan, thence brought this ancestral writing, and propagated it with the tongue unto his posterity, although then led away into Egypt and thence led out with a mighty hand;[20] to which also in the exodus God, publishing the Law, adhered, and Moses kept with all the Prophets, indeed even the rest of the people, in matters, not indeed always all, but nevertheless most and the principal.  Clearly, just as among us letters are called Italic, the use of which, with the diverse wisdom of the Latins itself, was brought to us ages ago.

They object, 4.  What things you may see are found in Daniel, Ezra, and the Chaldean Targums, written in today’s Squared Hebrew characters.  But, that formerly the Chaldean characters were diverse from the Hebrew, appears to be evident from Daniel 1:4, in which the sons of Hebrew noblemen, excelling in ability and learning, for whom neither the vernacular Hebrew tongue nor its script could be unknown, are commanded to be educated in the סֵ֖פֶר וּלְשׁ֥וֹן כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃, Writing and Tongue of the Chaldeans.  Therefore, it is likely that today’s Squared characters were the very same, ancient characters of the Chaldeans.  Response:  The Chaldean characters may formerly have been diverse from the Hebrew, but of which sort it is likewise now to us:  nevertheless, from the Chaldean pericopes of the Bible and Targums written in the Squared characters, it does not follow that this is the genuine writing of the Chaldeans:  instead, the Prophets in the authentic text, and the Targumists in order to please their nation, of Hebrew characters as familiar to all, rather than in Chaldean, wished to make use in expressing Chaldean words, lest the people be hindered by foreign characters:  just as today you often also see Syriac and Arabic written in Hebrew characters.  Except that others explain סֵפֶר here rather of those things that were committed to writing, than of the writing itself, as the DUTCH translates it books:  CHRISTIAN BENEDICT MICHAELIS,[21] in his Adnotationibus in Daniele, has on this passage:  “סֵפֶר/book, that is, learning, which is wont to be contained in books.  Therefore, the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic render it rightly as letters; but you may comprehend under this name, not only the elements of writing, but also the cultured disciplines and liberal studies, and whatever belongs to the Chaldean Philosophy, gathered out of verse 17, where it is coordinated with wisdom, בְּכָל־סֵ֣פֶר וְחָכְמָ֑ה, in all the book, that is, literature, and wisdom.  From the same, one learned, erudite, is called a סוֹפֵר/scribe, who handles letters and books, Isaiah 33:18.”

Objects, 5.  BASNAGE, in his Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans,[22] year 1709, January, article IV, pages 65 and following, that the Israelite Priest, who, having been sent from the Captivity to the new colony of Samaria, brought the book of the Law,[23] brought it undoubtedly written in the same letters, in which it, having been written before this devastation of the nation and from antiquity, was read:  and that hence it is evident that the Samaritan characters were those in which the ancient copies of the Law were written, and which the Samaritans afterwards continually retained.  Response:  Although the former is able to be admitted, nevertheless we deny the consequence.  α.  For the exemplar, brought by the Priest in the Squared character, afterwards was able to be transferred into another form by the Samaritans.  For from the volume of the Law that Priest did not wish to instruct them in the writing of letters, but in the sense of the Law:  and these colonists did not adopt immediately the same system of letters, which obtained in the codex of that Priest.  β.  With no less ease were the Samaritans able to converted the Squared characters into another; than the Jews are supposed to have changed the Samaritan characters into the Squared.  γ.  But that Israelite Priest is not expressly remembered to have brought an entire Pentateuch Manuscript with him.  δ.  Although this would have been better, it is probable that he by oral tradition alone taught the Cuthite peoples, ignorant of the Hebrew tongue and addicted to idolatry, the worship of the God of Israel:  whence they were easily able to refrain from copying the sacred Codex, until afterwards Manasseh crossed over unto their camp and reformed the sacred rites of the Samaritans;[24] at which time and thereafter the Samaritans, now accustomed to the Phœnician characters, were also able to copy the Pentateuch in those characters for their own uses:  compare HUMPHREY PRIDEAUX’S[25] History of the Jews, book VI, column 476.

They object, 6.  who maintain that the Hebrew writing was changed by Ezra, the authority of EUSEBIUS, Chronicon on Olympiad LXXX, and of JEROME, Prologo galeato ad libros Regum, who both expressly testify to this.  Response:  α.  The words of EUSEBIUS regarding this  indeed appear in ancient Latin Codices; but neither in the Greek, nor in the Latin, of the edition of SCALIGER, who does not even alert us concerning the reading of these things in others.  Now, that the same were spurious and added by a more recent hand to the text beyond the confirmation of the Ancient Codices, contends EZEKIEL SPANHEIM,[26] de Præstantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum, Dissertation II, tome I, page 63, with CARPZOV bringing this to notice.  β.  THOMAS BANGIUS[27] wrote an entire dissertation against the testimony of JEROME, which is the third dissertation of Cœli Orientis, page 209; and lest we should be moved too much by his authority, it is to be understood that Jerome understood Hebraica no further than he had learned it from his Teacher, a Tiberian Jew:  and so that testimony of Jerome only demonstrates that his teacher among other Jews was in this heresy also.

See at greater length this controversy concerning the Figure, whether Samaritan or Today’s Squared, of the Hebrew Letters before the Babylonian Captivity, thoroughly treated by our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus textualibus XXVII, Part V; by ABRAHAM CALOVIUS,[28] Bibliis Illustratis, tome I, in the Præloquio in Libros Veteris Testamenti, pages 25-27; by JOHANN GOTTLOB CARPZOV, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter V, section VI, § 10, pages 225-242, and many others whom he cites here, and likewise part III, chapter V, pages 917-922; by JOHANN FRANZ BUDDEUS, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome 2, pages 803-814, and Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book I, chapter IV, § 6, tome 1, pages 131, 132, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1456, 1457a; by ALBERT SCHULTENS, Institutionibus ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ, pages 15-20, ה; by SEBASTIANUS RAVIUS,[29] Exercitatione philologica quarta ad Houbigant Prolegomena in Scripturam Sacram, chapter III, article I, pages 3-24.  Consider also SALOMON DEYLING, Observationibus Sacris, part III, Observation XXV, § 10-20, pages 234-251; FREDERIC SPANHEIM, Historia Sacra Veteris Testamenti, epoch VIII, chapter III, § 5, column 416.

[1] Philippus Ouseel (1671-1724) was a Reformed Hebraist and Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Frankfurt (1717-1724).

[2] Pieter Burmann (1668-1741) was the Professor of History, Greek, and Eloquence at the University of Leiden (1715-1741).  He also served as Librarian.

[3] Adriaan Reland (1676-1718) was a Dutch scholar.  He was appointed to the University of Utrecht, first as Professor of Oriental languages (1701-1713), then as Professor of Sacred Antiquities (1713-1718).

[4] The Masoretes were mediæval Jewish scribes (laboring from the fifth to the tenth centuries AD), responsible for the preservation and propagation of the traditional text of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[5] Johann Buxtorf, Sr. (1564-1629) was a renowned Reformed Hebraist, known as the “Master of the Rabbis”.  He served as Professor of Hebrew at Basel from 1590 to 1629.

[6] John Buxtorf, Jr. (1599-1664) succeeded his father as Professor of Hebrew at Basel (1629-1664), and was perhaps the equal of his father in learning.

[7] Elias Levita (1468-1549) was a Jewish Hebrew grammarian, respected among Christian Hebraists such as Munster and Fagius.  Tishbi was a lexicon presenting for the German reader seven hundred and twelve words used in the Talmud and Midrash.  It was translated into Latin by Fagius.

[8] August Pfeiffer (1640-1698) was a German Lutheran Theologian and Orientalist.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Wittenberg (1665-1671), and then as Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages at Leipzig (1681-1689).

[9] Louis Cappel (1585-1658) was a Huguenot divine of broad and profound learning.  He served as a minister of the gospel and Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Saumur.  Although his expertise in the Hebrew language was beyond question, his denial of the authority of the vowel points and of the absolute integrity of the Hebrew texts was hotly contested.

[10] The Masoretes were gathered for their work in Tiberias and Jerusalem in Palestine, and in Babylonia.

[11] That is, mothers of reading, certain Hebrew consonants (א, ה, ו, י) are also associated with vowel sounds.

[12] The Karaites were a Jewish sect that adhered to the written Scripture, denying the authority of oral and Rabbinic tradition.  This sect appears to have originated in the eighth century AD.

[13] Bahya ben Asher was a thirteen century Spanish rabbi and scholar.  He produced a commentary on the Torah, which takes into account the literal meaning of the text, its logical and philosophical implications, traditional rabbinic interpretation, and a Kabbalistic/mystical interpretation of text, following Nahmanides.

[14] The Mishnah is a compilation and redaction of the Jewish oral law, ascribed to Rabbi Judah haNasi around 200 AD.  It is a commentary and elaboration of the Law of Moses.

[15] The Gemara is rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah.  The Gemara and Mishnah together make up the Talmuds:  The Jerusalem Talmud was publish toward the end of the fourth century; the Babylonian Talmud was published around 500.

[16] The Code of Justinian was compiled about 530 at the command of Justinian I.  It is a selection and compilation of preceding imperial enactments and the pronouncements of Roman jurists.

[17] A rough equivalent of the Samaritan character.

[18] Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13.

[19] The Hasmonean dynasty, established by the Maccabees, reigned from c. 140 to 37 BC, when they were succeeded by the Herodians.

[20] See Exodus 3:19; 6:1.

[21] Christian Benedict Michaelis (1680-1764) was German Orientalist and Evangelical Lutheran theologian.

[22] Henri Basnage de Beauval (1657-1710) was a Huguenot historian and lexicographer.  He was the editor of the periodical Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans.

[23] 2 Kings 17:27, 28.

[24] Jewish Antiquities 11:7:2; 11:8:2.  Josephus records that Manasseh, a Jewish priest, married the daughter of Sanballat.  When the Jews threatened to deprive Manasseh, he went over to the Samaritans, Sanballat having promised to build him a temple at Gerizzim.

[25] Humphrey Prideaux (1648-1724) was an Anglican churchman and orientalist.

[26] Ezekiel Spanheim (1629-1710), eldest son of Friedrich Spanheim the Elder, was a Swiss diplomat and scholar.

[27] Thomas Bangius (1600-1661), a student of Sixtinus Amama, was a first-rate Orientalist, and he served as Professor of Divinity at Copenhagen.

[28] Abraham Calovius (1612-1686) was a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy.  He served the University of Wittenberg as Professor of Theology, and later as general superintendent.  He opposed Socinians, Roman Catholics, and Calvinists, denying the possibility of the salvation of any of these.  His Systema locorum theologicorum stands at the apex of Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy.

[29] Sebald Rau (1724-1818) was a German Orientalist and Reformed theologian.