William Eyre: Neglected Figure in the History of Textual Criticism?

I recently acquired access to the substantial three-volume collection of James Ussher’s correspondence edited by Elizabethanne Boran. Ussher is most famous today for his very specific dating of creation. I’m no expert on him, but I can safely say that this was hardly his greatest contribution. He was, according to one recent biographer, “formidably learned” and kept a wide correspondence with great lights of hisday. He wrote on a wide range of subjects, including those of interest to this blog (see here). 

The particular letter I’m interested in, however, is not from Ussher but to him from a man named William Eyre (or Eyres, Aiers). Eyre was a Fellow at Emmanuel College and, according to Gordon Campbell, an overseer of the first Cambridge company of KJV translators who were assigned 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (more here).

Emmanuel College, where Eyre was a fellow

Before introducing the letter, it’s important to remember that, at this time, the dating of the Hebrew Masoretic vowel points was hotly contested. The issue was hardly arcane as it touched on a much larger debate between Catholics and Protestants on which versions of the Bible were “authentic” and therefore authoritative for settling doctrinal debate. If the Jews added the vowel points after both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, then it was easier to argue that the Hebrew text of the 16th century was inferior to either of those translations. From this Catholics could ground their preference for the Vulgate since, it was argued, Jerome had access to a purer Hebrew text than the one Protestants claimed. (If you want a great example, take a close look at Gen. 3.15 in the Douay-Rheims vs. KJV and think about its potential to influence Mariology.)

This is the backdrop to a long and fascinating letter that Eyre sent to Ussher on 24 March, 1608. (You can find the Latin online here.) The main subject of the letter is a proposed two-volume work that would contribute to the debate by showing that “only the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, just as the Greek of the New, is authentic and pure.” The OT seems to occupy his special attention, but the NT is not left out.

What’s fascinating is the amount of detail he provides Ussher for his plan.

...here is the method of the things that I have begun to prepare — and indeed shortly (with the Lord’s help) I shall complete this work for private use. It can be called סיג התורה ‘fence around the law, or ‘Massoreth’ ’ or (as others read) ‘Masorah’, for preserving the purity of the sources, or removing corruption from the text of the sacred scriptures, and consequently for proving their authority; it is contained in two books, of which: 

1. The first, will contain general introductory material. 
2. The second, an index of variant readings, in the whole of scripture. 

The chief material of the first book (after the state of the controversy about the authentic edition of the scriptures and purity of the sources) I have covered in six propositions, which I could confirm with the firmest of reasoning, if they are rightly understood: 

• 1st proposition: only that edition of the scriptures is authentic which was divinely inspired, and written down by the prophets and apostles. 
• 2nd proposition: that prophetic scripture which was first written down is still preserved in the Church in a pure and whole state. 
• 3rd proposition: the Hebrew scripture of the Old Testament was handed down in antiquity with the same notes of vowels and accents that we use today. 
• 4th proposition: the Greek scripture of the New Testament (which was divinely inspired) still remains whole and pure in the Church. 
• 5th proposition: the Greek translation of the Old Testament is neither divinely inspired, nor pure and whole. 
• 6th proposition: the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible is not faithful nor authentic, nor yet divinely written down.

Does pointing matter?

Does Hebrew pointing matter? This may seem a strange question from someone who spent the good part of five years of his life teaching students to point Hebrew (see my exasperated The Great Pointing Crisis). However, I am asking it more as a theological question and in relation to evangelical doctrines of scripture.

Most are probably familiar with the story of how Elias Levita (1469-1549) called into question the antiquity of the Masoretic pointing and how the question of the antiquity and inspiration of the vowels became a matter of special controversy in the seventeenth century. Key elements included the bringing to Europe of the first copy of a Samaritan Pentateuch by Pietro della Valle in 1616, with a script that was (rightly) judged archaic and that lacked pointing. Johannes Buxtorf (snr) attempted to refute Elias Levita’s contention that the vowels were late, and this contention was continued by his son, Johannes Buxtoft (jnr), who particularly strove with Louis Cappel. Very much connected with this is John Owen’s controversy with the London Polyglot of 1657[1658].

Even towards the end of the seventeenth century the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) said that:

‘... 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.’ (Canon II, Klauber’s translation)

Subsequent opinion has concluded that those who argued for the antiquity or inspiration of the vowels were wrong.

Some will also be aware that there has been some movement towards re-establishing the antiquity of the vowels—not arguing that they were ancient written entities, but rather affirming the antiquity of the reading tradition. Many who work within Masoretic studies find this plausible, and my Doktorvater, the great Semitist Geoffrey Khan, always used to say that the vowels were as old as the consonants. Even the Samaritans have their own oral system of pointing (with occasional marks in manuscripts) and this has been studied by Stefan Schorch (Die Vokale des Gesetzes: Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora 1. Band 1: Das Buch Genesis [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 339; Walter de Gruyter, 2004]). It both agrees and disagrees with the Masoretic system.

I should like to distinguish between (a) the pointing as a source of information to us about ancient Hebrew and (b) the pointing as a necessary guide in the identification of lexemes and grammatical forms in particular instances.

It seems to me that the pointing is very important in giving us a knowledge of the language and in moving us closer to the position that a native speaker would be in (function a), but is relatively unimportant in actually identifying the lexical or grammatical forms being used (function b). I read through Jeremiah 36 and Genesis 1 last night in Hebrew with this in mind and came to the conclusion that with competence in the language (based on a knowledge of pointing) it was possible to identify the lexemes and grammatical forms in all words in these texts. I wonder how much this is the case across the Hebrew Bible.

Often when people have sought to disregard pointing, they have disregarded it in both functions a and b. Such was the case with Dahood. I wonder, however, what people think about the following as a possible evangelical approach:

To accept that pointing is a reliable guide to ancient Hebrew, to its repertory of lexemes and grammatical structures, but to argue that it is not necessary for the identification of lexemes and grammatical structures in particular cases. This would seem to me to have the advantage of being able to maintain that the ancient written text (consonants comprising words with clear lexical identity and in specific grammatical forms) is self-sufficient provided one has (from somewhere) expertise in the language.

Whether the object marker is pointed with sere or seghol is not relevant for grammatical function or lexical identification. Neither is the question of whether a form is in pause or not (though unit division itself can be sematically important).

The Helvetic Consensus Formula was IMHO wrong in attributing ‘inspiration’ to the vowels. However, I would like to think they were particularly striving to be able to maintain that words in the text had particular grammatical forms and lexical identities. If so, they would not have been so much in error.

Thoughts?