Exposition of the Laws of Moses, Exegesis 9 · Part 14
EXERCITAT. XIIII. That the points were not originally with the Letters from the beginning.
Neh. 8.8. So they read in the Booke, the Law of God diſtinctly, and gave the ſenſe, and cauſed them to underſtand the reading of the Law.
WE have ſhowne that the Scriptures are not corrupt, and that no eſſentiall or integrall part is wanting in the holy Scriptures: Now it reſteth to ſhow that the Points, the accidentall ornaments were not from the beginning.
The Iewes who are faithfull keepers, but bad interpreters of the Scriptures, interpret theſe words, Nehe. 8.8.foreign after this manner, vaijkren baſſepher betorath, They read in the booke of the Law, this they expound, to be the litterall ſenſe,foreign which Ezra gave. Mephoraſh, diſtinctly that is,foreign adding the Points and diſtinctions. Veſhom Sh…cel, Appenentes intellectum, and gave the ſenſe, that is, he added the Targum or paraphraſe to it.foreign Vajabhinu bammikra and cauſed them to underſtand the reading of the Law, that is, he added the Kabbala. But this is a falſe Gloſſe, Ezra read the Law to them, & gave them not onelyonly the grammaticall ſenſe, but alſo the ſpirituall and true meaning of the words; he neither added points nor Targum, or Kabbala to it. The points were not then from the beginning, as may be ſeene by theſe reaſons following.
Reaſon 5 The firſt reaſon is taken from the Samaritan Character. The Iewes acknowledge that the letters of the law which they have now, are not the ancient Characters in which Moyſes wrote the Law. But to theſe ancient Characters there is no vowell ſubjoyned as we may ſee in the forme of the Shekell ſet downe by Arias Montanus, Beza, and Villalpand upon Ezekiel.
Reaſon 2 The ſecond reaſon is taken from the firſt exemplar of the Iewes, which they kept in their Synagogues;foreign and they have moſt exactly written and rouled up this booke, which is the cheefe booke in their eſtimation, and whereof they account more then of any other Hebrew Bible; yet there is neyther Poynt nor Accent in this booke, but onelyonly Conſonants. This may be ſeene alſo in their ancient billes of divorce wherein are neyther Points nor Accents: Therefore the Points were not from the beginning.
Reaſon 3 The third reaſon is taken from the names of the Points, and Accents, which are Chaldee names, therefore they were impoſed after the captivity.
Object. But they who maintaine that the Poynts were from the beginning, ſay, that this reaſon holdeth not; for the names of the Moneths are Chaldee names, impoſed after the captivity; and yet the Moneths were from the beginning: So the Points may be from the beginning, although the Chaldee names were given to them after the captivitie.
Anſw. As the Moneths were from the beginning, and had Chaldee names given unto them, after the captivity: ſo the value of the Points were from the beginning; but the figures and the names of the Points, were ſet downe a long time afterwards.
Reaſon 4 The fourth reaſon is taken from the tranſlation of the Seventy: for when the Seventy read the Hebrew Text wanting the Points, they differed very farre from the Hebrew in many things.foreign baculus. foreign lectus▪ The difference of their reading aroſe from this; becauſe the Hebrew Text wanted the Poynts. Example, Gen. 47.31. and Iſrael bowed himſelfe, gnal roſh hamitta, upon his beds head. But the Apoſtle followeth the tranſlation of the Seventy tranſlating it,foreign Ʋolumen. He bowed upon the top of his rod, Heb. 11.21. So Pſal. 40.7.foreign caput, cranium. for Megilla the Seventy read gilgoleth, in capite libri, for in volumine libri: becauſe they wanted the Points, and the Apoſtle followed this reading.
Reaſon 5 foreignThe fift reaſon is taken from, Ketibh volo keri, when the words are written one way, and read another. This diverſity of reading and writing aroſe becauſe the letters wanted the Points from the beginning: this made them to reade one way and write another way.
Reaſon 6 The Chaldee, Arabian, and Aſſyrian language, which are but daughters proceeding from the Hebrew tongue, have no Points: therefore it is not probable that the Hebrew Text had Points from the beginning.
Reaſon 7 The ſeventh reaſon is taken out of the Talmud. They write,foreign maſculus that Ioab killed his maſter, becauſe he taught him to read Zacar Maſculus, foreign memoria.for Zecer Memoria, and ſo made him to ſpare the females of the Amalekites, whereas hee ſhould have blotted out their memorie and killed them all. Now if the points had beene from the beginning, then Ioabs maſter could not have taught him, to have read Zacar for Zecer.
The Points were not from the beginning then, but found our afterwards by the Maſorath.
foreignThere were three ſorts of teachers, amongſt the Iewes. The firſt was foreign, who gathered the traditions of the Fathers together;foreign vel ſuch were the Phariſees.foreign The ſecond were the Sopherim afterwards called the Maſoreth: theſe obſerved the letters and words in the reading.foreign The third ſort were the Midroſeth, the Cabbaliſts, who expounded the Scriptures allegorically. The Scribes were from Moyſes time, who taught the people to reade the Law, becauſe the Law wanted the Points: and Chriſt calleth theſe The learned Scribes, and ſaith to one of them; How readeſt thou? Luk. 10.26.Shammai and Hillel the firſt of the Sects of the Scribes and Phariſees. But afterwards Shammai and Hellel were the firſt of the Scribes and Phariſees, who were the originall of theſe ſects. Shammai was the firſt of theſe Scribes who drew out the Cabbaliſticall readings, and Hillel was the firſt who gathered their traditions together.
Becauſe the Text wanted the Vowels before the Maſorets time, hence aroſe theſe diverſe readings marginall and Textuall; here wee muſt take heed of two errores. The firſt is of thoſe who hold,Two errors to be ſhunned concerning the Marginall and Text reading. that both the Textuall and Marginall reading were from the beginning, and both authenticke and originall from Moſes. The ſecond error which we muſt ſhunne, is this, that the marginall reading implyeth ſome corruption, where as it ſerveth for illuſtration of the Text.
There is but ſmall difference betwixt the Marginall and the line reading. There are three ſorts of reading. The firſt is foreign,foreign. when there is no difference at all in the words.foreign. The ſecond is foreign when there is ſome ſmall difference in the reading.foreign. And the third is foreign, when there is a contrarie reading. Now for foreign, we may ſee it in the originall Text it ſelfe, as 2 Sam. 22. and Pſal. 18. the ſame argument is handled almoſt word by word in both theſe places, there is ſome diverſitie of words onelyonly: for 2 Sam. 22.43.foreign Evacuare. It is Adikem, I did ſtampe them as the myre of the ſtreetes, but Pſal. 18.42. it is Arikem, foreign Comminuere.I did caſt them out as the myre in the ſtreets. Here is but ſmall difference, Daleth is onelyonly changed into Reſh, the ſenſe is all one.ר mutatur in ר So 2 Sam. 22.11. and Pſal. 18.11. So 2 Sam. 22.27. and Pſal. 18.26. So 2 Sam. 22.8. and Pſal. 18.9. here is foreign,The Marginall and the Text reading make not a contrary but a diverſe reading. but not foreign. So the Marginall reading, and the Text reading makes not a contrary reading, but a diverſe reading: therefore ye ſhall ſee that the Tranſlaters follow ſometimes the Marginall reading in their firſt tranſlations,foreign illi as Iunius 2 King 8.10. in his firſt tranſlation, he ſaith abi; foreign non.dic ei, but in this ſecond tranſlation he ſaith, abi, dic non, So Ezr. 4.2. In his firſt edition, ſacrificabimus eidem which is the marginall reading,foreign fecit. but in his ſecond tranſlation,foreign decem. non ſacrificabimus alteri which is in the Text. Example, 3. 1 King 22.49. Iehoſaphat prepared ſhipes, Tranſlaters ſometime joyne both the marginall and text reading together.Gnaſha fecit; but in his ſecond tranſlation Iehoſaphat made decem naves which is in the Text. So Prov. 31.4. Eccleſ. 3.4. Ier. 2.20. and 5.8. He followeth Ketibh in his laſt Edition, that is, as it is written and not read in all theſe places. And ſometimes ye ſhall ſee them, joyne both the Marginall and Text reading together. Pſal. 22.17. They Lyon like digged. So the Chaldee Paraphraſt and the Seventie readeth it. So Iunius. (Exod. 21.8. If ſhe pleaſe not her Maſter who hath not betrothed her unto himſelfe, foreign non ſibi.non ſibi) joyneth lo, lo, foreignboth together, both the Text and Marginall reading.foreign voluit eſt ketibh So Ioſh. 8.12. The line reading hath gnir, foreign cuſtodivit eſt kerivrbs, and the Marginall reading hath Hai, and hee joyneth them both together vrbs Hai. So Prov. 23.26. Let thine eyes obſerve my wayes. Ratza, and Natzar, he joyneth them both together, ſtudioſe cuſtodivit. So Eze. 22.16.foreign They joyne them both together. So 1 King. 22.18. the Tigurin joyneth them both together.The Maſoreth put the vowels ſome times in the text, and the conſonants in the margent. and the Engliſh joyne them both together, Prov. 19.7. They are wanting to him.
In theſe diverſe readings ſet downe by the Maſoreth, ſometimes the Points are put in the Text and the Conſonants in the Margent,foreign as Ier. 31.39. Behold the day ſaith the Lord. Here is a blanke in the Text, the vowels are onelyonly ſet downe and the word Baim, is underſtood by the Points of it, which are in the Text, and ſo it is Baim, although it be not expreſly written in the Text. The reaſon why they ſet the conſonants in the Margent and the vowels in the Text, was to ſignifie, that they enclined rather, to follow the Marginall reading than the Text, and yet not to exclude the Text reading: therefore they ſet the vowels in the Text.The Masoreth put not points to a word which they thinke doth redound.
Againe, when the Maſoreth thinke that ſome words abound, they ſet downe the Conſonants of the word in the Text, but they point not the word, which they would have to be be omitted, Example, Ier. 51.3.foreign Againſt him that bended, let the Archer bend his bow. El ijddroch ijddroch hadderech. And thus the Maſoreth keepe us that we goe not amiſſe,foreign and their obſervations are a hedge to the Law: therefore the Iewes ſay, Sejag lahhochma ſhethea, Silence is the hedge of wiſedome, for when a man holdeth his peace he is then thought to be wiſe. So they ſay Megnaſheroth ſejag legnoſher, foreignTythes are the hedge of our riches, and therefore pay thy Tythes and bee rich. So Nedarim ſejag liphriſhoth, foreignvowes are the hedge of the firſt fruites. Laſtly, they ſay, Maſoreth ſejag latora, foreignthat the Maſoreth is the hedge to the Law. By great paines and wonderfull care thoſe Maſoreth, foreignnumbred the letters and words of the Scripture, that none of them might periſh: and as in a well conſtituted family,foreign the maſter of the family taketh a note of all the things in his houſe from the greateſt to the leaſt:foreign So did theſe Maſoreth of the whole Law: therefore the Hebrewes ſay, Gnim ſhimmureth hatorah, that is,foreign the ſtudie of the Maſoreth was Cum conſervationelegis, for the preſerving of the Law from corruption.
Theſe diverſe readings make not up diverſe ſenſes but helpe us better to come by the right ſenſe of the Scripture.Diverſe reading, make not up diverſe ſenſe in the Scripture. When it is objected to us by the Church of Rome that we have not the true meaning of the Scriptures, becauſe of our diverſe tranſlations: Our Divines anſwer, that theſe diverſe tranſlations make not diverſe ſenſes in the Scriptures; for the ſenſe is ſtill one and the ſame: but theſe diverſe tranſlations helpe us onelyonly, to come to the true meaning of the Scriptures, and ſo we muſt uſe theſe marginall and line readings, as we uſe theſe interpretations. When we ſee a blanke left in the the Text, and ſupplyed in the Margent; this addeth nothing to the Text, as a word added ſometime by a tranſlatour, addeth nothing to the Text: So when the Maſoreth put another word in the Margent,A word ſet downe for explanation addeth nothing to the text. which is not in the Text; that word is ſet downe onelyonly for explanation,The meaning of the text is knowne by the antecedent and conſequent. and it addeth nothing to the Text. We take up the meaning of the Text, by the antecedent, and conſequent, Example, Prov. 4.3. Tender and young was I, foreignLiphni, before my Mother; but in the Margent it is, Tender and young was I, Libhni, amongſt the Sonnes of my Mother: for Salomon had moe brethren 1 Chron. 3.6. But theſe readings may ſtand, he was tender and young before his Mother, and beſt beloved of all his Mothers Sonnes.
The Concluſion of this is. A certaine Iew gave God thankes for foure things. Concluſion. Firſt, that hee was a Iew and not a Samaritane. Secondly, that he was bred at Ieruſalem and not at Pambiditha. ex Tilmideni. cap. 7Thirdly, that he ſaid Shibbeth and not Sibboleth. Fourthly, that hee needed not the helps of Tiberias, meaning the Points and Accents. But we who are not naturall Iewes ſhould bee thankefull to God; becauſe wee have theſe helpes to further us in the reading.