On the History & Possible Inerrancy of the Hebrew Vowel-Points

Subsection

Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton יהוה

Order of Contents

Intro

Hebrew is a language that has only consonants (besides 3 silent place holders,
ע ו א which were probably vowels at one time). Hebrew is necessarily spoken with vowels, but is not always written with them. The Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament, as we have inherited them from the Jewish Masoretes of the Middle Ages, have a very systematized vowel-pointing to indicate how to say the words, which sometimes affects the meaning of the word.

Gen. 1:1

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ

B’reisheet bara Elohim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The small points below and above the Hebrew letters tell one how to pronounce the word. Are the vowel points:

(1) Original to the Scriptures, and thus inspired and inerrant?

(2) Or were they inserted into the texts in order to codify the traditionary Jewish pronunciation of the Scriptures during the Middle Ages?

The reformed orthodox theologians of the puritan era largely held to the former; modern conservatives largely hold to the latter.

Which view is right? Carl F. Keil (1882), below, appears to be the most historically accurate in his technical, scholarly treatment of the question. For a summary of his arguments in a more easily readable piece, see William H. Green’s treatment (1913) below.

History of the Controversy

Short Treatments

William H. Green’s opening 3 pages of his treatment (1913) below give a succinct, fair and very readable summary of the history of the controversy. Carl F. Keil (1883) in his first three pages documents many of the primary figures in the controversy and their works in Latin.

John Owen, a mouth-piece for the dominant, reformed orthodox establishment of the 1600’s, in his opening few pages expresses the concernment, and even shock, about the rising tide of persons denying the inspiration of the vowel-points. John Gill, in the Preface to his work (which is a model of peace-making, intelligent, humility) sheds light on the multifarious, and even bewildering, opinions that circulated in his day in 1700’s England.

In-Depth Treatments

Early Source

Elias Levita, the 1500’s Jew, throughout the whole of his piece below, sheds light on the interesting history before him regarding Jewish views and sources during the Middle Ages.

Modern Secondary Sources

1800’s

Chwolson, D. & T. K. Abbott – ‘The Quiescents (Or Vowel-Letters) יוה in Ancient Hebrew Orthography’ Hebraica, vol. 6, no. 2 (Jan, 1890), pp. 89-108

Pick, B. – ‘The Vowel-Points Controversy in the XVI. & XVII. Centuries’ Hebraica, vol. 8, no. 3/4 (Apr-Jul, 1892), pp. 150-73

1900’s

Bowman, John – ‘A Forgotten Controversy’ The Evangelical Quarterly 20.1 (Jan. 1948), pp. 46-68

Chomsky, William

‘The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew’ The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, vol. 32, no. 1 (Jul., 1941), pp. 27-49

This is different than the below. Chomsky (1896–1977) was an American scholar of the Hebrew language. He was born in the Russian Empire (now Ukraine) and settled in the United States in 1913.

ch. 5, ‘How did the Vowel-System Evolve’ in Hebrew: The Eternal Language (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1957), pp. 93-116

Very helpful.

Dotan, Aaron – ‘The Relative Chronology of Hebrew Vocalization and Accentuation’ in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 48 (1981), pp. 87-99

Burnett, Stephen G. – ch. 7, ‘Tiberias & the Vowel Point Controversy’ in From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) & Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century Pre (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 203–39

2000’s

Muller, Richard – ‘The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics’ Pre Journal of Medieval & Renaissance Studies 10.1 (1980), pp. 53-72 and in After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition Buy (2003)

Steiner, Richard C. – ‘Påṯaḥ & Qåmeṣ: On the Etymology & Evolution of the Names of the Hebrew Vowels’ Orientalia, Nova Series, vol. 74, no. 4 (2005), pp. 372-81

Lifschitz, Avi – ch. 4, ‘J. D. Michaelis on Language & Vowel Points From Confessional Controversy to Naturalism’ Ref in Language & Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), pp. 95-118

Abstrct: “This chapter is dedicated to the early career of the 1759 prize laureate, the Göttingen orientalist Johann David Michaelis. The main question is how Michaelis came to write a naturalistic essay on language that would appeal to the Berlin Academy. The chapter traces his complete change of mind about the antiquity and special status of the Hebrew vowel points. In his first works Michaelis adhered to the traditional Protestant view, endorsed by his ancestors, that the diacritical signs marking Hebrew vowels were extremely ancient (already in use in Moses’s time), and have since undergone remarkably little change. By the late 1750s Michaelis had revised this view and regarded all languages, Hebrew included, as naturally evolving along the lines of the naturalistic thesis. Michaelis’s confrontation with his own background demonstrates that a naturalistic view of language did not necessarily entail a radical or materialist outlook.”

Ross, Thomas – ‘The Battle Over the Hebrew Vowel Points Examined, Particularly as Waged in England’ (2013) 27 pp.

Fuller, Russell T. – ‘John Owen & the Traditional Protestant View of the Hebrew Old Testament’ SBJT 20.4 (2016), pp. 79-99

Twining, Timothy – ‘The Early Modern Debate over the Age of the Hebrew Vowel Points: Biblical Criticism & Hebrew Scholarship in the Confessional Republic of Letters’ Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 81, no. 3 (July 2020), pp. 337-58

Conclusion: “The publications of Tiberias [by Buxtorf, Sr.] in 1620 and the complete Exercitationes biblicae [by Morin]
in 1660 provide bookends for a period when arguments over the text and history of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, were at the forefront of scholarly concern…

First, confessional biblical scholarship did not amount simply to subscription to, and bolstering support for, an already authoritative text, but rather the construction of confessionalized positions regarding the texts of Scripture and their history and transmission. These positions were not static: both Morin and Cappel notably challenged their contemporaries’ expectations by crafting new arguments
for why certain texts should be considered authoritative or some readings should be preferred to others. Yet, and hitherto less appreciated, the same point stands for others too, as both Buxtorf and even more so Buxtorf II’s studies of the Hebrew textual tradition and Hebrew Bible demonstrated how
far their scholarship—and that of contemporaries such as Hottinger—was also subject to change and increasingly sophisticated development.

Second, this confessionalized scholarship must be approached and understood on a number of levels, spanning the gamut from the work of the individual scholar to the arguments and practices of different collective groups: where given scholars built confessional preoccupations and presuppositions into the formative elements of their work, so too did they operate in a context structured by confessional cooperation, coexistence, and conflict.” – p. 358

Pro

Order of

Articles 5
Books 4
Latin 6

Articles

1600’s

Weemes, John – in The Christian Synagogue (1623/1630/1636) See the 3rd ed. in Works, 3 vols. (London, 1636), vol. 1, pp. 48-50

Lightfoot, John – ch. 31, ‘Of Vowels’ in Erubhin, or Miscellanies Christian & Judaical (London: Scott, 1632) in The Works of the Reverend & Learned John Lightfoot (London: Scott, 1684), pp. 1013-14

Owen, John

‘Digression on the Origin of the Hebrew Vowel-Points’ after bk. 5, ch. 12 in Biblical Theology: the History of Theology from Adam to Christ (Soli Deo Gloria, 1661/1994), pp. 495-533

The Integrity & Purity of the Hebrew & Greek Text (1659) in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 16

ch. 4, ‘General Premises…’, pp. 367-70

ch. 5, ‘The Original of the Points Proposed to Consideration in Particular’, pp. 370-88

ch. 6, ‘Arguments for the Novelty of the Hebrew Points Proposed to Consideration’, pp. 388-401

ch. 7, ‘Of the Chiri uChteev [‘Say this and read this’: Alternative Hebrew Readings in the Massoretic Text], their Nature & Original’, pp. 401-6

Owen’s affirmative argument is that:

‘I shall not oppose them who maintain that they [the vowel-points] are coevous [of the same age] with the [Hebrew] letters [of the original giving of the Scriptures]… so I nowise doubt but that, as we now enjoy them, we shall yet manifest that they were completed by the… men of the great synagogue, Ezra and his companions [at the return from the Captivity, 500’s B.C.], guided therein by the infallible direction of the Spirit of God.’ (p. 371)

Owen is most likely wrong as to the origin of the fully written vowel-points (which most likely appeared A.D. 600-900, see Keil below who answers nearly all of Owen’s points), but Owen’s arguments should still be considered as possibly applying to the original vowel-vocalizations which may have been preserved till their codification in the written vowel-points used by the scribes during the Talmudic era and as used by the Jewish Masoretes in the Middle Ages.

Turretin, Francis – sect. 11-13 in question 12, “Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New the only authentic versions? We affirm against the Papists.” in Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 2nd Topic, pp. 15-16

Turretin in sect. 12 allows for the possibility that the points were of recent origin (“Even if the points were lately added…”), giving reasons that buttress the fidelity of this view, that the vowels were original “although the marks and sings might not then have been known,” quoting Prideaux and Walton positively in this respect.

Turretin takes the “truer and safer way” to be that the points themselves are “of divine origin, whether they are referred to Moses or to Ezra” and references for this view “Protestants and Papists: Junius, Illyricus, Reuchlin, Munster, Cevalerius, Pagninus, M. Marinus, Polanus, Diodati, Broughton, Muis, Taylor, Bootius, Lightfoot, the great majority of modern theologians, and the Buxtorfs”.

Turretin, however, makes a large concession near the end allowing for the other view and making the whole to be non-theological and open to further inquiry: “But as this question seems rather to be grammatical than theological, we are unwilling to bring it into our field.”

1700’s

Gill, John – ch. 4, ‘Of the Antiquity of the Vowel-Points and Accents’ in A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew-Language, Letters, Vowel-Points & Accents (1767), pp. 136-282

Gill was a self-taught, widely read calvinistic, baptist pastor and Hebraicist. The Preface to this book is a model of peace-making, intelligent, humility.

Gill’s method in ch. 4 is to present the evidence for vowel points at successively earlier dates: A.D. 1037, 927, 900, 740, etc. His treatment is very thorough and will be of much interest and help in the question, whether or not one finds his arguments conclusive.

Gill presents the possibility of God giving the vowel-points to Adam, though this is highly unlikely as Hebrew appears to have originated as a conglomerate of Semetic trade languages during the time of Abraham’s descendants being isolated in Egypt.

(Or possibly somewhat before, see Gen. 10:21,24. It is possible that Eber could have maintained the language from Shem before the Tower of Babel, who would have derived the one language from Adam, though this is unlikely as there is not any archaeological evidence from the ancient world that shows that anyone besides the Israeli nation spoke Hebrew.)

While Gill’s affirmation, that it is probable that the vowel-points were given with the original of the various Scriptures, is most probably false (in light of archaeology and the history of such vowel pointing systems of nearby countries historically arising in the A.D. 600’s-900’s; see Keil below), Gill’s arguments that he begins to give on pp. 257-258 may possibly still be considered, for whatever weight they hold, for the vowel-vocalizations being originally inspired, and then codified in the later vowel points of the Medieval Jewish Masoretes.

All in all, Gill shows himself to be a scholar, and is very much worth reading.

Books

1600’s

Buxtorf, Johannes – Masora: a Collection out of the Learned Master Johannes Buxtorf’s Commentarius Masorethicus ed. Clement Barksdale (Berith Press, 2024) 106 pp.

Buxtorf (1564-1629)

A Discourse concerning the Origin & Antiquity of the Hebrew
Points, Vowels & Accents in The Young-Students-Library,
containing extracts and abridgments of the most valuable books
printed in England... (Athenian Society, 1691; Berith Press, n.d.) 170 pp.

1700’s

Whitfield, Peter – A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points. Shewing that they are an Original & Essential Part of the Language (Liverpoole: Peter Whitfield, 1748) 288 pp. no ToC errata

Here is a review of this work: Dr. Thomas Strouse, ‘A Review of & Observations about Peter Whitfield’s A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points‘.

2000’s

Ross, Thomas – Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points n.d. 69 pp. Including an Appendix arguing for the preservation of the pronunciation of the Divine name as it is in the Masoretic Text

This is perhaps the most in-depth and detailed modern argument for this view.

Latin

1600’s

Polanus, Amandus – ‘On Scripture’ in Syntagma (Geneva, 1617), vol. 2, ch. 37, p. 74

Buxtorf the Elder, Johannes – Tiberias sive Commentarius Masorethicus (1620)

Buxtorf the Younger, Johannes – Tractatus de punctorum vocalium, et accentum, in libris Veteris Testamenti hebraicis, origine, antiquitate, et authoritate: oppositus arcano punctationis revelato Ludovici Cappelli (1648)

Lightfoot, John – Horae hebraicae et talmudicae: impensaie, I. in chorographiam aliquam terrae israeliticae. II. in evangelium S. Matthei (Cambridge, 1658), pars 1, cap. lxxxi

Indeterminate & Moderates

Order of

Confession 1
Article
Quotes 2
Latin 2

Confession

The Helvetic Consensus, 1675

Intro

See Wikipedia for background to the Helvetic Consensus, which was a binding Swiss reformed confession for the ministers and churches of Switzerland. It was responding to numerous perceived aberrations that had arisen in the French Reformed Church.

The statements it makes regarding vowel points have never been repeated in a later, major reformed confession. The confession qualifies its teaching enough with ambiguous language, allowing for the inspiration and preservation of the vowel-vocalizations behind the points, that it is possible to affirm the confession’s statement while recognizing that it is more than historically likely that the majority of the written vowel points came in around 600-900 A.D. with the Jewish Masoretes (see Keil below).

The key term, “power” of the points, was contrasted with the figura, or symbol of the vowel point itself by Weemes and Turretin. Turretin characterizes power to refer to the “sound and value or power” of the points (Institutes, P&R, 1.115).

Helvetic Consensus, Canon 2:

“But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, ‘who had been given the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God.

It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.”

Article

1600’s

Quotes

On Andrew Rivet (d. 1651)

Willem van Asselt, The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pp. 260-61

“In the ongoing debate over the vowel points, Rivet distanced himself from the opinion of his [French] countryman Louis Cappel, who in his Arcanum punctationis revelatum had refuted the view of Johannes Buxtorf Sr. concerning the early origin of the vowel points. Against Cappel’s position, following the Jewish scholar Elias Levita, that the Tiberian Masoretes (ca. 500-600) invented the current system of vocalization, Rivet argued that this claim should not be allowed to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture or to deny the purity of the Hebrew sources. (Isagogue, chap. 7:15. C.f. cap. 9:27.) According to Richard Muller,

‘Rivet adapted the Reformed orthodox hermeneutic, maintaining the sole authority of Scripture, insisting on the clarity and perspecuity of the text, with or without the proof of the Mosaic origin of the vowel points.’ (Muller, After Calvin… Oxford, 2003, pp. 151-2)”

On Rijssen, Marck & Mastricht

Richard Muller, ch. 9, “The Debate over the Vowel Points & the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics” in After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), p. 155 Note these figures are in late-high orthodoxy, being affected by the previous controversies and concessions.

“Leonardus Rijssenius, whose system is based directly on Turretin’s Institutio, regards the vowel points as a device of the Massoretes intended to preserve the correct reading of the text. Johannes Marckius specifically notes his abandonment of the “Philologis inquisitio” while Petrus van Mastricht, despite his usual care for the history of polemic, completely omits consideration of the issue.”

Latin

1600’s

Rivet, Andrew – Isagoge, seu introductio generalis ad Scripturam Sacram… bk. 8, sect. 11-14 in Operum theologicorum, 3 vols. (Rotterdam, 1651-1660), vol. 2, pp. 889-90

On this, see Muller, After Calvin, pp. 151-52.

Heidegger, Johannes H. – Corpus theologiae, Il.xlvii

Heidegger, according to Muller (pp. 153 & 155), reached “the relatively moderate solution achieved by Turretin… and the Formula Consensus Helvetica… very much like that of the early orthodox writers–such as Ursinus, Zanchi, Keckermann, and Walaeus–whose systems did not press the issue of verbal inspiration quite as far as Polanus and did not shape doctrine around the problem of the vowels.”

Con

Order of

Articles 5
Book 1
Quote 1
Latin 3

Articles

1500’s

Elias Levita – Introduction #3 in The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita: being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament in Hebrew (d. 1549; Longmans, Green, 1867), pp. 103-37 Translated, and with an 84 page introduction, by Christian D. Ginsburg.

Elias, a Jew, was the first prominent person in the early modern era to put forward the (in-depth) argument that the Hebrew vowel-points were of fairly recent origin. His work is a commentary on the Massoretic apparatus around the Hebrew text.

Johannes Buxtorf, Sr. (1564–1629) a reformed Hebraicist in Basel, following the majority of the Medieval rabbis, wrote the outline and notes of a response to Elias’ work before his death. It was later published in 1665 by his son in Latin: Tiberias, or a Tri-fold Massoretic Commentary, Historical, Didactic and Critical. This work seemed to hold the high-bar for the argument for the antiquity of the vowel-points, as most of the reformed orthodox that came after him relied upon him and referred readers to him (including John Owen below). His son, Johannes Buxtorf, Jr. (1599–1664) gave several disputations in Latin further arguing this viewpoint.

‘Masoreth’ in Elias’ title means ‘to bind’ or ‘fix’, that is, the Massoretic apparatus was the Jewish commentary on the scribal reproduction of the Hebrew scriptures during the first millennium of the Christian era, meant to ‘fix’ and preserve the Hebrew text indefinitely. For a helpful summary of the Masorah and its significance, see the reliable McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia.

The title Elias chose connotates something to the effect of ‘a binding commentary on the Masorah’, that is, to shore up and confirm the validity and usefulness of the Masorah. Ginsburg was a leading Hebraicist of the late-1800’s. In the very valuable introduction he says:

‘The work now submitted to the public in the original Hebrew, with an English translation, is an explanation of the origin and import of the Massorah. Those who are acquainted with the fact that our Hebrew Bibles abound with marginal and textual glosses… and who know that there is no guide in our [English] language to these enigmatical notes, will welcome this Treatise, written first, and almost the only, Massoretic exposition.’

Richard Muller: “A crucial juncture in the understanding of the text of the Old Testament occurred in 1538 when Elias Levita published his commentary on the collected scribal annotations, the Massorah. Levita was able to show that neither the Talmud nor the Midrash manifested knowledge of the complete Massoretic system of vocalization and inferred that the points were of later origin than these documents. As for variant readings of the vowels, these, he argued, prove theologically that the vowels did not go back to Sinai, since divine origin of the vowels would have precluded any critical variation of vocalizations by the rabbis. Levita also demonstrated that the names of the points were Babylonian and Aramaic, proving them to have originated following the exile of the Jews to Babylon. Throughout his study, Levita asserts the accuracy of the vocalizations and praises the Massoretes for their perspicacity.

Levita’s work was at first received enthusiastically by Protestant Hebraists: one year after its publication, Sebastian Munster translated the preface and superintended the reprinting of Levita’s entire tome in Basel. There was, moreover, no immediate or intense theological reaction.” – “The Debate over the Vowel Points & the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics,” After Calvin, pp. 146-47

Jewell, John – in Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1567-1570) in Works, 4 vols. (Parker Society, 1848), vol. 2, p. 678

Richard Muller: “Bishop John Jewell well represented the initial Protestant reception of Levita’s theory when he wrote of the disagreements over the origin of the points in the Defense (1567-1570) of his Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Jewel’s chief opponent, Thomas Harding [a Romanist], had argued against the use of Scripture by laity, using the absence of vowels as evidence that only the learned ought to have access to the holy text.

Jewel began his refutation by noting first the varied opinions of the rabbis: some say that the vowel points “were delivered to Moses in the mount; some say that they were invented by Esdras; some by the Tabarites, which were the canonists of the Jews, or doctors of Traditions.” Jewel himself seems to have favored the latter opinion…” – “Debate over the Vowel Points” in After Calvin, p. 147

1600’s

Walton, Brian – “Prolegomena” in Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 6 vols. (1653-1657), vol. 1, esp. iii.8 & 42; vi.8-10, 12; vii.1

Richard Muller: “Perhaps the greatest linguistic scholar of the age, Brian Walton, superintended the printing, between 1653 and 1657, of the great “London Polyglot Bible,” which collated all the texts, variants, and versions known in his day. In the Prolegomena to this mammoth endeavor, Walton accepted the view of the vowel points developed by Levita and Cappel but strove to avoid the extreme of Cappel’s later hermeneutical theory. It was the Massoretes who developed a system of vowel points after Ezra and after the close of the period of the writing of the canonical Old Testament. The present vowel signs in the text are, therefore, of only human authority. Nevertheless, argues Walton, they are in the main an authentic representation of the oral tradition of pronunciation and a valid guide to meaning. By a careful collation of manuscripts and through a conservative use of ancient versions, errors can be excised. Walton limits the use to which ancient versions like
the Syriac and Chaldee can be put by affirming the priority of the Hebrew as the original language. He specifically limits the value of the Vulgate, denying the validity of the Roman, post-Tridentine hermeneutic. This being said on the philological level, it remained for the dogmaticians to disengage the problem of the vowel points from the problematic elements of Cappel’s late hermeneutic and to arrive at a doctrinal formulation dealing adequately with the interpretation and authority of the scriptures.”

1700’s

Venema, Herman – pp. 37-39 in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 3, Of the Scriptures

Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller

1800’s

Keil, Carl Friedrich – Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (1882), vol. 2

‘The Most Ancient System of Vowel Marks’, pp. 190-94
‘How the Masoretic Vowel System Came into Existence’, pp. 194-97
‘The Masoretic System of Accents’, p. 209

Keil (1807-88) was a conservative, Lutheran, German Old Testament scholar, known for his contributions to the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, the best advanced commentary on the Old Testament that there is.

In this advanced, scholarly treatment, Keil gives a very helpful survey of the controversy and then marshals all the relevant evidence for the history of the Hebrew vowel points. In doing so, Keil gives the standard, accepted, modern conservative view that:

The original Hebrew Scriptures were written without vowel points (as confirmed by archaeology and other evidences), though by at least the time of the Early Church father Jerome (A.D. 347-420), the traditionary vocalizations were firmly in place. The Jewish Massoretes of the early to mid-Medieval period appear to have adopted and used the developing and complex punctuation system arising originally from Arabic for the Hebrew Scriptures.

Thus, the vowel points as we have them are of the most trustworthy character in preserving the words of the original autographs and the traditionary Jewish vocalizations of them from near the time of Christ.

Keil’s treatment is theoretically consistent with either position, that (1) the traditionary vowel vocalizations, later codified in the vowel-pointings, were inspired and preserved inerrant, (2) or not; though Keil’s treatment (by itself) lends itself to the latter view.

1900’s

Green, William Henry – ‘Antiquity & Authority of Vowels & Accents’ in General Introduction to the Old Testament (1913), vol. 2: ‘The Text’, pp. 63-74

Green (1825–1900), a leading conservative scholar of the Old Testament at Old Princeton Seminary, gives a readable summary (at the intermediate level) of the arguments against the inerrancy of the Hebrew vowel-points (which arguments are essentially the same as Keil’s above, but are easier to read).

Wilson, Robert Dick – pp. 40-41 & 49-50 in ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament’ in The Princeton Theological Review (Jan, 1929), pp. 36-59

Wilson was a very accomplished professor of Old Testament at Old Princeton.

Book

1800’s

Wall, Charles William – Proofs of the Interpolation of the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible & Grounds thence derived for a Revision of its Authorized English Version (London: Whittaker, 1857) 670 pp. ToC

Quote

On the Middle Ages & Early Reformers

“Whereas rabbinic teaching, following the doctrines of the Kabbala, held the coetaneous revelation of consonants and vowels to Moses on Sinai, medieval Christian interpreters of Scripture had viewed the points as a Jewish attempt to conceal the true meaning of the text and render it useless to Christians. The several patterns of allegorical, spiritual, and typological exegesis practiced in the late Middle Ages and the early sixteenth century, however, made a critical approach to the vowel points unnecessary.

Luther argued that the points were merely an imperfect aid to the reader, that they were unknown to Jerome and thus postbiblical in origin, and that they might be altered by the interpreter in order to bring the meaning of the Old Testament into conformity with the revelation of Christ in the New Testament.

Zwingli concurred, expressing a low opinion of the vowel points.’ Neither worried over the possible use of the system of vocalization to corrupt the text.

Calvin, more textually oriented in his exegesis than either Zwingli or Luther, had a high regard for the accuracy of the Massoretic editors of the text and, while believing the vowel points to be an invention of these rabbis, approved of alterations in pointing only after critical examination of the meaning of the text.”

Latin

1600’s

Cappel, Louis

Arcanum punctationis revelatum (1624)

Richard Muller: “In response to Buxtorf’s strongest argument [four years earlier], Cappel showed that references to the Massorah in the Talmud indicated the tradition of biblical interpretation and not the specific problem of the vowel points. Furthermore, the variety of the pointing of the text, the rabbinic discussion of variants, and the failure of the vocalization to follow a uniform rule indicate not the antiquity of the points but the gradual invention of a system of vocalization by many editors over the course of centuries.

As for the comment of Christ (Matthew 5:18) that no jot or tittle of the law can be changed, Cappel could argue, on good
rabbinic grounds, that it referred not to the vowel points but to the figura literae, the spines and horns (corniculum) that distinguish one consonant from another.

After dealing at length with grammatical and historical issues, Cappel finally turns to his theological argument. He recognizes that, in the controversy up to that point, there seemed to be only two options: either insist on the equal antiquity of the vowels and consonants or yield to the “Papist” argument, accept the human origin of the points, and admit that the authority of Scripture depended upon the testimony and the teaching office of the church. Cappel believed that he could contribute a new dimension to the controversy and reinforce the Protestant position on the authority of Scripture. The “Papists” argue thus:

If the points are from the Massoretes, the authority of the Hebrew text is merely human…; But the points are from the Massoretes; Therefore, etc.

It is useless to refute the minor of the syllogism, comments Cappel, since the best analysis of the Hebrew text and of rabbinic sources favors it. The issue, then, is to refute the major.

Following Levita, Cappel argued that the vowels, or at least the vocalization, had been passed on as an oral tradition that, although unwritten, was as carefully established as the written text:

When I say that the points were conceived by the Tiberian Massoretes and added to the consonants. .. . I wish to imply that they expressed by these markings of their invention the reading of the sacred text which had everywhere obtained among the Jews, and which they had been taught by the teachers of their schools.

The Massoretes simply reported the tradition by means of a set of symbols, in the firm faith that their reading represented that of Moses and the Prophets. The tradition itself can in no wise be called arbitrary, since vowels stand in the grammatical series of the words of the text and depend, for their sound, on the order and structure of the sentences. Ultimately, therefore, the vowels depend—even acknowledging the human origin of the system of points—not on human editing but on the divine and inspired canon of Scripture. Because the grammatical structure of the sentence stands, the true and certain text of the Old Testament can be established.

In thus accepting the invention of the vowel points by the Massoretes but insisting on the integrity of the text in its grammatical construction, Cappel stood in somewhat greater continuity with the Reformers on the specific problem of the vowels than did his orthodox contemporaries, but that continuity was established by way of a vastly different hermeneutic.” – “Debate over the Vowel Points & the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics,” After Calvin, p. 150

Critica Sacra (1650)

Richard Muller: “Cappel maintained, even in his later and more radical Critica Sacra (1650), that the

saving doctrine which was stated by Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists in their autographois… is, in the Greek and Hebrew texts and in the translations either old or new, clearly, correctly, and sufficiently conveyed… in respect of their content the Greek and Hebrew texts are authentic, sacred, divine, theopneustoi.

Cappel’s method, however, more and more assumed that the vowel points had been corrupted in the transmission and that the textus receptus needed to be altered on the basis of ancient translations such as the Chaldee, the newly discovered Syriac, and the Septuagint. Differences between these ancient versions and the extant Hebrew codices could be explained by the hypothesization of earlier Hebrew manuscripts substantially different from the textus receptus.” – “Debate over the Vowel Points & the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics,” After Calvin, pp. 150-51

Prideaux, John – Lectio 12, “De Punctorum Hebraicorum origine” in Viginti-duae Lectiones (1648)

Prideaux: “No one will deny that the points and accents have been from the first as to sound and value, but [the issue is] only as to the marks and characters.” “the vowels were coeval with the consonants as to sound and subjective power, although the marks and signs might not then have been known.” – pp. 195 & 197 as quoted in Turretin, Institutes, 1.115-16

The Masoretic Text & Apparatus

The Westminster Leningrad Codex

The Greek Textus Receptus bound with the Hebrew Masoretic Text/Apparatus Buy

This is the best and cheapest edition of the original languages bound together in one volume to buy and to read. It is published by the very faithful Trinitarian Bible Society.

Some of the various marks in the Masoretic apparatus are quite bewildering, as no one knows what some of them mean. No theory has been found to adequately explain all of them. For Elias Levita’s opinions, a 1500’s Jew, see below.

Commentary on the Masoretic Apparatus

1500’s

Elias Levita – The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita: being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament in Hebrew (†1549; London: Londmans, Green, 1867) Translated, and with an 84 page introduction, by Christian D. Ginsburg.

“The work now submitted to the public in the original Hebrew, with an English translation, is an explanation of the origin and import of the Massorah. Those who are acquainted with the fact that our Hebrew Bibles abound with marginal and textual glosses… and who know that there is no guide in our [English] language to these enigmatical notes, will welcome this Treatise, written first, and almost the only, Massoretic exposition.”

Old Testament Theology

Old Testament Commentaries

Inspiration and Authority of the Bible

The Inerrancy of the Bible