STEPBible - Scripture Tools for Every Person - from Tyndale House, Cambridge
__

More about OT Ketiv & Qere

An Explanation of the System of Ketib-Qere (K-Q)

Charles L. Echols, Ph.D.

Ā 

The system ofĀ Ketib-QereĀ was created by the Masoretes to alert the reader to perceived issues with the written text (theĀ Ketib or Ketiv). The Masoretes wrote a small circle over the word in question (theĀ Ketib) that directed the reader to the margin where they wrote a small ק over which they indicated what they believed was the correct reading (theĀ Qere).

Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

Originally Hebrew was written using only consonants. By the Classical period (ca. seventh century BC), terminal vowels were addedā€”but even these were consonants used as vowels. Subsequently, medial vowels were addedā€”again using certain consonants. Not far into the Second Temple Period, Hebrew began to give way to other languagesā€”notably Aramaic and Greekā€”as the vernacular. Indeed the production of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), beginning probably in the early third century BC, reflects that fact that Hebrew was no longer the vernacular for most Jews. At least as early as the first century AD, several vowel systems existed to aid in reading Hebrew. The most famous were the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian systems, in which small marks were added above and below the text. During the rabbinic period, other notations to the text were made (e.g., the division of the text into paragraphs,Ā puncta extraordinaria).

If we speed forward to the ninth-tenth centuries AD, we come to a group of faithful, brilliant Jewish scholars called the Masoretes. They preserved the text that had been passed down to them, including the vowels and notations that accompanied the text. In fact, they compiled further information, including notation on the side margin (theĀ masora parva)Ā and bottom (theĀ masora magna)Ā of each page of the text as well as other information (e.g., the notation between the end of any biblical book and the beginning of the next book). Such was their reverence for the sacred text, however, that they made no alterations to the received consonantal text.

As they made copies of the received text, they noticed occasional differences with how they thought that the received text should be read. They wanted to register the differences and provide what they thought should be the alternative reading; but, again, because the text was Holy writ, they made notes in the margin rather than changing the consonants. The system ofĀ Ketib-QereĀ (K-Q) was implemented by the Masoretes to record such differences. Earlier rabbinic sources indicate that scribes were aware of such differences and had developed alternative readings, but the Masoretes were the first to record them in the margin of the page. [1]Ā The word ā€œKetibā€ (ā€œwhat is writtenā€) is from the Aramaic verb כְּ×Ŗ֓יב and refers to the written (consonantal) text. ā€œQereā€ (ā€œwhat is readā€) is also Aramaic (קְ×Øַי/קְ×ØÖ“×™) and signifies how the Masoretes thought that the text should be read (vocalized).

Ā Some K-Q occur only once or are infrequent. Others,Ā Qere perpetuumĀ (ā€œperpetualā€ or ā€œconstantā€Ā Qere) occur regularly as, for example, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), where the vowels reflect, with some modification, those that belong to אֲדֹנÖøי. Because perpetualĀ QeresĀ are invariable the Masoretes did not bother noting them.

Ā 

Letā€™s illustrate the system of K-Q with an example from 2 Kgs 23:36 (on the right)

TheĀ Ketibā€”the proper noun, Zebidahā€”is enclosed in the box. The small circle over it directs you to the margin where theĀ QereĀ (זבודה) lies over a small ק. The difference between theĀ KetibĀ and theĀ QereĀ is in the third letter, i.e. י (K) and ו (Q). The Masorete scribe pointed theĀ KetibĀ as he thought it should be vocalized. (Remember that the Masoretes added their system of vowels to the text that was handed down to them.) Hence, one simply transfers the vowels and anyĀ dāgÄ“Å”Ā fortesĀ orĀ lenesĀ from theĀ KetibĀ to the Qere to see the Masoretic vocalization. Further help comes from the a small, superscript ā€œaā€ immediately following theĀ KetibĀ that directs the reader to the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page. There the editor of the apparatus for 1-2 Kings (A. Jepson) provides fuller information. (Not all K-Q are noted in the critical apparatus.) He indicates that several Hebrew manuscripts (nonn Mss) and the Targum (ĀŒ) read with (ut) theĀ Qere, while the Syriac and Vulgate (Ā‹Ā) read with theĀ KetibĀ (as do the NASB, ESV, and NRSV). He also points theĀ KetibĀ as the Masoretes might have heard it.

Scholars debate over what exactly theĀ QeresĀ signify, although most work from two general suppositions: theĀ QeresĀ reflect (a) the majority reading of a number of texts (the ā€œcollationā€ theory) or, (b) an oral correction to a standard text (the ā€œcorrectionā€ theory). Tovā€™s recent work expands somewhat in deliberating between three possibilities: the Qeres signify (1) a reading (vocalizing) correction to theĀ Ketib, (2) a written variation from theĀ Ketib, and (3) a reading tradition that accompanied theĀ Ketib.[2]Ā  Tov rejects the first opinion because, for example, there are occasions when ā€œthe same words . . . sometimes form theĀ QereĀ word in one verse, and theĀ KetibĀ word in another oneā€ (p. 57; cf. āˆš××”×Ø, Gen 39:20; Judg 16:21, 25). He debates over the second opinion because ā€œthe existence of merely one variant is illogicalā€ (p. 58). Tov is persuaded by the third opinion. As evidence he points to the very terms,Ā KetibĀ (how the text is written) andĀ QereĀ (how the text should be read/vocalized). As further evidence that theĀ QeresĀ are not a record of alternative written readings, he observes (p. 56) that theĀ K-QĀ are ā€œthe only para-textual feature of Āˆ that is not paralleled by the Judean Desert scrolls,ā€ the latest of which is probably from the 1stĀ century AD. Also, in any given place where theĀ QereĀ differs from theĀ Ketib, there is only oneĀ QereĀ among all of the manuscripts. Tov (p. 58) allows that there are ā€œintermediate positionsā€ between the three.

In many cases, the third position is the most persuasive; but it is debatable whether it satisfactorily accounts for all of theĀ K-Q. WĆ¼rthwein, for example, states that theĀ K-QĀ reflect dissatisfaction with the received text ā€œon grammatical, esthetic, or doctrinal grounds.ā€[3]Ā  Indeed, one cannot be sure that theĀ QereĀ reading reflects the judgment of the Masoretes on the best of a number of alternative readings as Orlinsky supposed in 1960.[4] Ā WĆ¼rthwein also registers Gerlemannā€™s suggestion that in some instances theĀ QeresĀ record ā€œpopular variants.ā€[5] Ā Elsewhere, even Tov allows that theĀ QeresĀ perform other functions, instancing āˆš××”ל, Gen 9:21, where there is no real aural difference between theĀ KetibĀ and theĀ Qere.[6]

The example from 2 Kgs 23:36 follows Tovā€™s opinion that theĀ QereĀ indicates an alternate vocalization. If the first of the three opinions mentioned above is correct, then theĀ QereĀ is a correction to the vocalization. If the second is the case, then theĀ QereĀ reflects an alternate version of the written text.

A few concluding examples will illustrate the variety with whichĀ QeresĀ were used. Some background information is necessary for the first. Since the biblical period spans well over 1000 years, it should not be surprising to find different types of Hebrew. Scholars distinguish between three general types: Archaic, Classical, and Late. Occasionally the Masoretes would ā€œupdateā€ instances of Archaic Biblical Hebrew, as is the case in Gen 9:21. TheĀ KetibĀ reads אÖøהֳלֹה, ā€œhis tent,ā€ with the archaic 3ms pronominal suffix ֹה-. ā€œThe ה represents theĀ hĀ of the primitive formĀ ahu.ā€[7] Ā TheĀ QereĀ records the morpheme with the ā€œmodernā€ spelling, i.e., אÖøהֳלוֹ.

In some places it is quite clear that the text has suffered corruption and the Masoretes would sometime offer a correction. TheĀ KetibĀ for Deut 5:10 (מצו×Ŗו), for example, reads, ā€œbut showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep his commandments.ā€ The pronoun ā€œhisā€ is awkward and ā€œmyā€ is clearly wanted, and theĀ QereĀ supplies it. (It is quite possible that the error came in the process of copying the text as the scribe either mistook י for וā€”the two are very similar in handwritten textsā€”or misunderstood the sound sinceĀ ayĀ could be aurally close toĀ aw.)

QeresĀ were also used to harmonize spellings. The example of Oholibamaā€™s first son, Jeush, is an example. The name occurs nine times in the Old Testament: Gen 36:5, 14, 18; 1 Chr 1:35; 7:10; 8:39; 23:10, 11, 19. In seven of these occurrences, theĀ KetibĀ spells it as יעושׁ, but in Gen 36:5, 14, and 1 Chr 7:10, theĀ KetibĀ reads יעישׁ. In these three instances, theĀ QereĀ notes that it should be read as יעושׁ (the majority wins!).

Occasionally the Masoretes saw theĀ KetibĀ as obscene, blasphemous, or theologically troubling and used theĀ QereĀ to provide an acceptable reading. In 2 Kgs 18:27, for instance, the Rabshekah delivers an insulting warning to the Israelite soldiers, telling them that they are doomed:

ā€œto eat their own dung (חֲ×Øֵיהֶם) and to drink their own urine (שֵׁינֵהֶם)ā€ (ESV).

TheĀ QereĀ reads:

ā€œto eat their own filth (צוֹאÖø×ŖÖøם) and to drink the water of their legs (מֵימֵי ×Øַגְלֵיהֶם).ā€

TheĀ QereĀ thus substitutes euphemisms for the obscene terms.

The system ofĀ K-QĀ is complex and it origins remain poorly understood. The opinion of Graves has much to recommend it:

Perhaps the immediate origin of theĀ Ketiv-QereĀ system was the need to record both an authoritative written text and a separate reading tradition, but the ultimate source of the reading tradition was a popular manuscript recension. This would account for both the presence ofĀ QereĀ readings in ancient sources and the function which theĀ Ketiv-QereĀ system seems to have performed during the Masoretic period.[8]

That said, the uncertainty over the origins of theĀ K-QĀ has consequences for adjudicating overĀ K-QĀ divergence. It is probably safe to say that in the majority of cases, theĀ QereĀ indicates the preferred reading, but there are exceptions as we have seen. Uncertainty over the origins of the system and inconsistencies in its application in Āˆ preempts any claim to a ā€œone size fits allā€ approach. Rather, when working through a K-Q, one should consider the different possible explanations and conclude for the one that is the most contextually persuasive.

Nedarim 37b-38a

Although technically not K-Q, there are other Masoretic notations that function similarly. The Babylonian Talmud tractate Ned. 37b-38a, for example, mentions a list of words that are not in the text but that the scribes thought should be, and a list of words that are in the text that the scribes thought should not be (see more here).Ā 

Ā 

Ā 


[1]Ā That the system ofĀ K-QĀ is a product of the Masoretes is inferred from the fact that none of the ancient manuscripts, particularly those from the Judean Desert, haveĀ QeresĀ (Emmanuel Tov,Ā Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected EssaysĀ [Texts and Studies inĀ Ancient Judaism 121; TĆ¼bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 2-3). As evidence that the practice of alternative readings was in place prior to the Masoretes, Tov (p. 6) citesĀ b. Erub.Ā 26a: ā€œIt [העי×Ø, 2 Kgs 20:4] is written ā€˜the city,ā€™ but we read ā€˜court.ā€™ā€

[2]Ā  Ā Emmanuel Tov,Ā Textual Criticism of the Hebrew BibleĀ (3rd, revised ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 54-59. Compare, in English, where, for example, the vowel ā€œaā€ in the word ā€œratherā€ when spoken with a British accent sounds long (as in ā€œalternateā€) whereas it is short with a North American accent (as in ā€œbatā€). For a survey of explanations of theĀ QereĀ from ancient to modern times, see Michael Graves, ā€œThe Origins ofĀ Ketiv-QereĀ Readings,ā€ Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion; n.p.; accessed 22 November 2013. Online:Ā http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Graves2003.html#fnref1.

[3] Ā E. WĆ¼rthwein,Ā The Text of the Old TestamentĀ (2nd ed.; trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 16.

Ā 

Ā 


[4]Ā  H. M. Orlinsky, ā€œThe Origin of theĀ Kethib-QereĀ System: A New Approachā€ (Congress Volume;Ā VTSup 7Ā [1960]), 187, in Graves, ā€œOrigins ofĀ Ketiv-Qere Readings.ā€

[5]Ā  WĆ¼rthwein,Ā Text of the Old Testament, 17, n. 21, citing G. Gerlemann,Ā Synoptic Studies in the Old TestamentĀ (Lund: Gleerup, 1948).

[6]Ā  Tov,Ā Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran, 5, n. 17.

[7]Ā  Paul JoĆ¼on and T. Muraoka,Ā A Grammar of Biblical HebrewĀ (Revised English ed.;Ā SubBiĀ 27; Roma: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2006), Ā§94h.

[8]Ā  Graves, ā€œOrigins ofĀ Ketiv-QereĀ Readings.ā€Ā 

www.STEPBible.org is created and supported by Bible scholars at Tyndale House, Cambridge
with a great deal of help from volunteers and partnering by many organisations.