VOWEL-POINTS
821
VOWEL-POINTS
(q. v.),in 1574-75, nearly forty years after the appear- ance of Levita's work, miilertook a refutation of the same. lu his work Jleor Enaim, he quotes tlie Tal- mud, Nedarim, 37 b; the books Bahir and Zuhar ; Je- rome, Epist. 126, ad Evagi: etc.
Without entering too minutely upon the question, we may wind it up by saying that the synagogue of the Middle Ages, up to tlie 10th century, was ahnost unani- mously in favor of the high antiquity of tlie vowel- points. The more important, however, was the voice (if Levita, proving the verj' reverse. Among Chris- tians, even some centuries before Levita, the vowel- points were regarded as later inventions. I'rominent among them was the Dominican Kayraond Martini (q. v.), who, in his Pugio Fidel ("id ed. Leips. 10)87), on Hos. ix, 12, remarks, "Cieterum sciendum, quod nee Moyses punctavit legem, iinde Judtei non habent earn cum punctis, i. e. cum vocalibus scriptam in rotulis suis; nee aliquis ex prophetis punctavit librum suum ; sed duo Juda3i, quorum uuus dictus est Nephtuli, alter vero Ben-Acher, totum Vetus Testamentum punctasse leguntur; quae cpiidam pnncta cum quibusdara virgulis sunt loco vocalium apud eos: cum i]ua3 venissent ad locum istum, et secundum orthographiam debuissent punctare "^nVUn incarnatione mea, punctaverimt ''"1102 in recessu men, ut opus incarnationis removereut a Deo." Martini's opinion was conHrmed by Nicholas de Lyra (q. v.), who, after quoting with approval Raymond Mar- tini on Hos. ix, 12, remarks, '• Puncta non sunt de sub- stantia littere, nee a principio scripturere fuerunt, unde et rotuli qui in synagogis eorum legentur sunt sine punctis, sed permagnum tempus postea inventa sunt hujus modi puncta ad facilius legendum." Lyra's opin- ion was regarded as paramount by all succeethng Cath- olic writers.
To invest it with an air of originality, Jacob Perez de Valencia (died 141(1) gives the following account of the origin of the vowel - points, which we quote, not for its intrinsic value, but on account of its amusing nature : " After the conversion of Constantine the (ireat, the rabbins perceived that great multitudes of Gentiles embraced Christianity with the greatest de- votion all over the globe; that the Church prospered very favorably; and that also of the Jews an immense number became convinced of the truth by experience and miracles, whereby their gains and revenues were lessened. Roused by this wickedness, thej' assembled in great multitudes at the Babylon of Egypt which is called Cairo, where they, with as much secrecy as possi- ble, falsified and corrupted the Scriptures, and concocted about five or seven points to serve as vowels, tliese points having been invented by Ravina and Ravashe, two of their doctors. The same rabbins also concocted the Talmud" {Prolug. in Psalnws, tract vi). Hence he maintains " that no faith is to be placed in the Holy Scriptures as the Jews now interpret and pinictuate them" {ibid, tract, ii, fol. 23, " Ideo nulla tides adhibenda est Scripturaj SacriE sicut hodie habent [Judtei j sic in- terpretatam et punctuatam").
2. During and Since the Reformation. — Passing over the names of other Catholic divines who also assumed a late origin of the vowel-points, we find that almost the entire period of the Reformation sided with Levita. Luther (who called the vowels a modern invention — neues Meiischenfiindlein), Calvin, Zwingli, Mercier, Pel- lican, Leo Judah, Piscator, John Scaliger, Drusius, etc., boldly declaimed against the antiquity, divine origin, and authority of the points. The conviction of the Protestant leaders " muloubtedly was that by liberating themselves from the traditional vowel -points of the sj'nagogue, after having discarded the traditions of the Church of Rome, they could more easily and iiidepend- enth' prosecute their Biblical studies, without any tram- mels whatsoever" — thus making the Bible, and the Bible alone, without gloss and without tradition, the rule of faith and practice. Embittered at the cry of the newly
risen Protestant leaders that the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the norma normani<, Rome soon changed her tactics, and Levita's argument as to the late origin of the vowel-points was perused by her in order to confute the claims of her opponents. From Levita's argument she deduced the following : 1. That the Bible could only be read in ancient days by tlie few authorized spiritual teachers; and, 2. That the Scriptures, without tliese points, cannot possibly be understood apart from the traditional interpretation transmitted by the Church of Rome. This opinion soon found its way into England, and was advocated by Dr. Thomas Harding (q. v.), the celebrated antagonist of bishop Jewel. His argument was as follows : " Among the people of Israel, the seven- ty elders only could read and understand the mysteries of the holy books that we call the Bible; for, whereas the letters of the Hebrew tongue have no vocals, they only had the skill to read the Scripture by the conso- nants, and thereby the vulgar people were kept from reading of it by special providence of Cod, as it is thought that precious stones should not be cast before swine; that is to say, such as be not called thereto as being, for their unreverend curiosity and impure life, unworthy" (comp. the Wurlcs of John Jewel, bishop of Salisbury [ed. Parker Society], ii, G78).
Similar was the language used on the Continent by the Romanists against the Protestants, who appealed to the Scriptures in matters affecting their faith and prac- tice. Jean Morinus (q. v.) solemnly declares, in his learned Exe.rcitationes Biblicm de Bebrcei Grmcique Tex- ius Sinceritate, that "'the reason why God ordained the Scriptures to be written in this ambiguous manner (i. e. without points) is because it was his will that every man should be subject to the judgment of the Church, and not interpret the Bible in his own way. For, see- ing that the reading of the Bible is so difiicult, and so liable to various ambiguities, from the very nature of the thing, it is plain that it is not the will of (iod that every one should rashly and irreverenth' take upon himself to explain it, nor to suffer the common jieo- ple to expound it at their pleasure; but that in those things, as in other matters respecting religion, it is his will that the people should depend upon the priests" {Exercifat. [Paris, 1G33], IV, ii, 8, 198, etc.). To this argument R. Simon, in his JJistoire Critique (Rotter- dam, 1G85), p. 468, rejilied in the following manner: '"On pourra dire aussi, par la meme raison, que Dieu a voulu soiimettre les Mahometans a lenrs docteurs pour I'interpretation de I'Alcoran, parce qu'il est ecrit, aussi-bien que le texte Hebreu de la Bible, dans une langue qui n'est pas moins inconstante d'elle - meme que la langue Hebraique. Mais sans qu'il soit besoin d'avoir reconrs au conseil secret de Dieu, il est certain que la langue Hebraique a cela de coinmun avec les langnes Arabe, Chaldaique et Syriaque, qu'elles sont de leur nature fort iraparfaites, n'ayant pas assez de vo- yelles, pour rendre la lecture des mots qui les composent constante et tout-u-fait arretee."