A Summary of the arguments for and against the antiquity and authority of
the Vowel Points, is given at the beginning of the Second Vol. of Horne’s
Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures; from which the following
considerations seem most entitled to selection. That the earliest traces
of the points are to be found in the tenth century—that many of the oldest
manuscripts now extant are without them—that the copies of the Jewish
Scriptures now used in the Synagogue and esteemed peculiarly sacred, are
without them—that the Samaritan letters which were the same as the Hebrew
before the captivity, are without them—and the Samaritan Pentateuch is
without them—that there are no traces of them to be found in the shekels
(coins) struck by the kings of Israel—that the fathers, particularly
Origen and Jerome, who treat of the Hebrew pronunciation, make no mention
of them—that all the antient various readings of the Jews regard the
letters only, not one of them relates to the vowel points—to which may be
added, that there are five vowels in the Hebrew alphabet which are quite
sufficient for reading the language, though they may not enable us to
determine with precision the antient pronunciation. “These
considerations,” says Mr. Horne, “have determined the majority of Hebrew
scholars in the present day to reject their authority.” Still we may admit
their utility in fixing the pronunciation, and perhaps also in
facilitating the construction; but the main objection to them is, that by
changing the vowels, they frequently alter the sense, as well as the
sound, and that in passages where a Jewish interpretation is particularly
open to suspicion. Thus in prophecies relating to the Messiah, both their
prejudices and their feelings unfit them for becoming guides to a
Christian expositor.
Verse 1. :משא דבר יהוה בארץ חדרך ודמשק מנחתו כי ליהוה עין אדם וכל שבטי
ישראל
_The heavy burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and
Damascus shall be the rest thereof; when the eyes of man, as of all the
tribes of Israel, shall be towards the Lord._
These are the words of the translation in our Bible; but the sense of them
I must acknowledge my inability to unravel. Of what Damascus is to be the
rest, or what period is intimated by the adverb of time _when_, I am at a
loss to discover. The separation of Hadrach and Damascus by the insertion
of a comma between them, evidently owes its origin to the supposed
necessity for rendering the word מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _the rest thereof_. But
if deriving it from נח (or חנ) or נוח (or חונ) does not afford any
intelligible sense, we are naturally led to seek another derivation; and
we find one in the verb נחת (or תחנ) _to descend_ or _send down_, which
without violating grammatical construction affords a meaning not only
intelligible, but in perfect unison with the context. The Hemantiv מ
prefixed, gives the _thing sent down_, while the suffix ו _his_, evidently
refers to _the Lord_ who sends the vision or denunciation. The English
construction, of course, requires it should be rendered _his sending
down_, that is, the Lord’s denunciation, _against_ Hadrach and Damascus,
as well as the other cities which are mentioned afterwards; for ב here
rendered _in_, may with more propriety be rendered _against_ or _upon_.
The verb נחת (or תחנ) _to send down_, occurs in Joel iii. 11 and
elsewhere: but the writer freely acknowledges that he has no authority for
the participial noun with the Hemantiv מ prefixed to signify the thing
sent down, or the act of sending down, as the sense seems to require here.
He therefore rests this construction solely on the ground of its being
grammatically admissible, consonant to analogy, and in accordance with the
context, as affording a satisfactory meaning. Let those who are not
satisfied with such reasons furnish a better solution of the difficulty.
In the next place, there is no necessity for rendering כי (or יכ) _when_,
which more frequently signifies _for_; and when so rendered, it will be
found to connect together the latter and the former part of the verse. For
this, we only require to render the dative ל, as it frequently is rendered
in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin, to denote _possession_; and the
verse will run thus. _For the Lord’s is_, or to the Lord belongs, _the eye
of man_; to wit, the eye of the Seer, who receives the vision, _and all
the tribes of Israel_, whom the vision chiefly concerns. Making the tribes
a genitive case, by inserting _of_ before them, is wholly uncalled for by
the text.