The Second Method: the Stigmatic Exposition

On the Stigmatic Mode of Expounding — The Second Method

After the first Method of translating the holy letters, there follows at once, in the second place, the Stigmatic (ΣΤΙΓΜΑΤΙΚΗ), or Punctuary, method of expounding, ¹ which the Hebrews call פירוש הנקודות (Perush hannekudoth), that is, the “Interpretation of the points” [vowel-points]. Now this is a peculiar exposition of the Hebrews upon the sacred letters, which — from the various positions of the vowel-points — shows the sounds, the utterances, and the pronunciations, and the significations of the individual words, and the sense of the whole sacred reading. The invention of this interpretation had this occasion:

The old language of the Hebrews, which is called the Holy [tongue], and which the writers of the divine volumes used — and especially Ezra himself (who, after the Babylonian captivity, most faithfully restored the sacred books consumed in the burning of Jerusalem) ² — has twenty-two letters; among which there are no vowel letters — that is, [letters] sounding of themselves, and filling out the voice without the aid of another letter, such as among us are a, e, i, o, u — but all are soundless, or consonants, which by themselves alone cannot burst forth into voice. For although א Aleph, and ע Ayin, and ה He, and י Iod, and ו Vau — Hebrew letters — seem at first sight to have a vowel sound, yet they are, as it were, mute, and scarcely present anything by themselves to the ears. ³

Since, therefore, the ancient Hebrew writers were altogether destitute of vowels, ⁴ they were compelled to use the writing of consonant letters alone; and when they wished to read it, and to express with mouth and tongue the words composed of soundless and utterly mute letters, they supplied — by the sound of the living voice — what was lacking to the Writing, adding to the consonant letters certain vowel sounds, borrowed from the common speech of their own nation and from the custom of ordinary pronunciation. For example: if this name Lamech had to be written, they marked it with three consonant letters only, namely למך (Lmk); then, when the same had to be pronounced with the living voice, from a certain natural [property] of their own pronunciation… [continues p165]

[continuing from p164] …[from a certain natural] skill and habit of their own pronunciation, they supplied to the eye, or sounded together, that L itself, with the sound of the vowel-letter A added, and the M, likewise, with the sound of the vowel E applied; ⁵ and thus, filling out the whole word with sound, they pronounced למך Lamech. And according to this custom all the Jews were wont to read whatever Hebrew writings [they read].

But after the kingdom of Jerusalem was utterly overthrown, and the Jews were led away by the Romans into their final and everlasting captivity, and scattered over the whole globe of the lands, they began little by little to forget their native speech, to unlearn the holy tongue, to lose the understanding of the sacred reading, and — because of the lack of vowel letters — to utter, read, understand, and expound the words of divine Scripture by themselves (as we have already said) senselessly, with various and ambiguous sounds; and even to translate them into other languages with diverse and mutually discrepant words and senses, both from ignorance and from malice. When the Rabbis, the masters of the Jews, had noticed this — fearing lest the true and genuine reading of divine Scripture, destitute of vowel letters, should utterly perish — they devised, in place of vowels, certain points and little marks ⁶ which, set to the individual consonants, would reveal the sound of each letter and open up the proper signification of each word.

That this may be [made clear] by an apt example set before [us], let us take more clearly the word זכר (zkr), written with three consonants, in that divine oracle which God uttered in the book of Exodus against the Amalekites, saying: I will blot out זכר — that is, “the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” ⁷ Which word (as certain Jews affirm, excusing the disobedience of King Saul more piously than truly) gave occasion to the ruin of Saul himself. For when Samuel had commanded him to fulfill the aforesaid oracle upon the Amalekites, soon to be conquered by him, he — deceived by the ambiguity of the word זכר — believed the command would be satisfied if he only took away the males of the Amalekites (since זכר signifies both “male” and “memory”); and, on that account, all the males being slain except the king, he reserved for himself all the booty, the gold, the silver, and the herds of the Amalekite nation. Lest, therefore, occasion of slipping should thereafter arise from equivocations of this kind, it seemed [good] to the masters of the Jews to “point” all the sacred words. For example, lest it should henceforth be brought into doubt how the aforesaid word זכר should be read, they placed under the ז (zayin) these two points ⟨ ·· ⟩, which are called Tsere, expressing the sound of the long vowel E; but under the כ (kaph) they set these three points ⟨ ·.· ⟩, called Segol, which render the sound of the short vowel E. By which annotations of points they showed that the twofold and perfect pronunciation of this word is זכר Zecher (which signifies “memory”), and not זכר Zachar (which denotes “male”).

Now, to express the sounds of all the vowels — both short and long — they invented ten positions of points and little strokes, whose names, forms, and sounds are these:

• Short: a, e, i, o, u (patah, segol, hiriq, qamets-hatuf, qibbuts)
• Long: a, e, i, o, u (qamets, tsere, hiriq-with-yod, holem, shureq)

There is also, besides these ten points, another point, called Scheua (shewa), expressed by two little points, one standing perpendicularly above the other, thus ⟨ ⁚ ⟩. Yet this is not reckoned among the vowels, but is called by the Grammarians, from its office, the “servant of servants,” ⁸ because it serves the other vowel-points.

Although the doctors of the Hebrews interpreted [i.e. pointed] the whole of divine Scripture by these [points], and published it, so interpreted, to be read by all in common: nevertheless, that they might keep the venerable antiquity and majesty of the ancient writing untouched, they sanctioned by inviolable decree — after the image of the ancient scriptures which Moses, Ezra, and the other writers of the divine books had written — that those lights of the Mosaic law, which are kept in the synagogues with the utmost reverence, should be written without any vowel-points, ⁹ lest some detriment should seem to be brought to the authority and majesty of the divine law by adventitious and novel additions.

Rabbi Elias the German [Elias Levita], in the preface of his book Masoreth ha-Masoreth, judges that the invention of points of this kind was made in the four hundred and sixth year after the last overthrow of the holy city, by the Jews of the city of Tiberias, who were always held the most cultivated of all the Hebrews in the holy tongue. ¹⁰ But since neither Epiphanius nor Jerome made any mention of such points, and clearly enough indicate that they had only the consonants in their codices, it seems to me more likely — what James, bishop of Christopolis, writes in the preface to the Psalms — namely, that this kind of exposition was devised long after the times of Constantine, by the Jews of Babylon of Egypt (which is now called Cairo), ¹¹ by the work and skill of Rabbi Hama and Rabbi Assi, authors of the Talmudic doctrine, who first showed these marks of points. I would not, however, easily affirm what the same bishop asserts in the same place: namely, that the Rabbis of the Jews, out of hatred of the Christian religion, by unanimous consent contaminated, depraved, and perverted from the true sense all the old scripture by this addition of points, so that by this perverse artifice they might, so far as possible, obscure and extinguish the truth drawn by the Christians from the Hebrew fount; and that, for this cause (he adds), no faith is to be given to the Hebrew copies, as corrupted and falsified by an interpretation of points of this kind. ¹² From assenting altogether to this opinion I am prevented by the translation of St. Jerome, which — in the chief passages of divine Scripture, by which the foundations of the Christian faith and the truth of our dogmas are especially proved, and about which in particular there is controversy between the Jews and us — almost always agrees with this punctuary [pointed] exposition of the Hebrews, although in matters of the slightest moment, and which… [continues p166]

[continuing from p165] …[although in matters of the slightest moment, and such as] can be interpreted in several senses without any prejudice to the truth, [Jerome’s translation] often disagrees [with the pointing]. To this is added also that persuasion of Augustine, in the fifteenth [book] of the City of God: that no one of sound mind could ever believe that the Jews — however evil and perverse — in codices so many, and so widely and far dispersed, came together into one and conspired, out of hatred of the Christians, unto the corruption of their own volumes; ¹³ so that, namely, while they envied to others the truth of Scripture, they should deprive themselves of the truth. And [let] these things [be said] concerning the Punctuary Exposition of the Hebrews.

With this [the punctuary method] the Prosodic illustration of divine Scripture among the Greeks seems to have some shadow of likeness ¹⁴ — that is, the addition of tones, breathings, accents, points, and hypostigmata [subscript marks]: which are now seen everywhere in the Greek codices. That these were anciently written with the bare letters only, without any marks of accents, ¹⁵ there are witnesses: Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in his book on the parts of divine Scripture, and Francisco Ximenes [Cisneros], Archbishop of Toledo, in his edition of the New Testament. But it seemed [good] afterward to the Greek Fathers to add these [marks], ¹⁶ not only for the correct and distinct reading of holy Scripture, but also for distinguishing certain ambiguities of no small moment, which without these little marks, apices, and points could not be resolved. For example: when it came into controversy in what sense that sentence should be understood which is had in the song of the Angels, in Luke the Evangelist — καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, ¹⁷ that is, And on earth peace to men of good will — namely, whether it should be understood [that] peace was brought to men endowed with good will, on account of their good will (which sense the aforesaid Greek words seem to make, written without any punctuation, and with a point affixed under the last letter of the final word); or whether it ought rather to be understood [that] not only peace, but also good will, together with that peace itself, was exhibited to men (which sense the same words render, if they be read thus: καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, that is, And on earth peace; then, a mark of punctuation being interposed, there is added ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, that is, good will to men — the point being removed, namely, which lay under the last letter). Origen took away the whole controversy, a small point being placed under the last letter of the word εὐδοκία, which would indicate that word to be not of the first case, but of the third [i.e., an oblique, genitive form], and to conclude the sentence thus: And on earth peace to men [endowed] with good will. And there are also many other ambiguities of this kind, which are removed in the sacred Greek codices by little marks of this sort — which anyone even moderately skilled in Greek letters will easily recognize by himself.

A Paradigm of the Stigmatic Interpretation upon Psalm 116, comprising four little columns:

• I — contains the Hebrew text, destitute of vowel-points;
• II — has the same text, interpreted [supplied] with vowel-points;
• III — contains the Hebrew words, written in Latin letters according to the interpretation of the vowel-points;
• IV — has the Latin translation of the same Hebrew text.

(Columns I and II present the same words in Hebrew script — unpointed, then pointed.)