Qere and Kethib in the Hebrew Bible: Safeguarding Scripture and Its Pronunciation

[Anthony Pritchard]

Qere and Kethib in the Hebrew Bible: Safeguarding Scripture and Its Pronunciation

Many discussions about the Hebrew text assume that the Masoretes were correcting or altering Scripture. In reality, the Masoretes were preserving both the written tradition and the reading tradition. One of the clearest examples of this is the practice known as Qere and Kethib. This article explains what these terms mean, how they work, and why they matter for understanding the Hebrew Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, Qere and Kethib are how the Masoretes preserved a difference between what is written in the text and how it is supposed to be pronounced, which includes the addition of vowels.

The terms are Aramaic and Hebrew:

Kethib or Kethiv, כְּתִיב, meaning “what is written.”
Qere, קְרֵי, meaning “what is to be read” or “what is called.”

When you open a printed Hebrew Bible, you will see the consonantal text in the main column. In places where there is a Qere and Kethib, the written consonants, the Kethib, remain in the line, while the vowels and the marginal note indicate a traditional pronunciation, the Qere, that differs from the written form. That is a Qere‑Kethib.

How it works

The Masoretes who added vowel points in the early medieval period left the Kethib consonants in the text and supplied the vowel points that reflect the Qere reading. These vowel points are the small dots and lines placed above, below, or beside the consonants to indicate pronunciation. By placing the Qere vowels around the Kethib consonants, the Masoretes produced a written form that cannot be pronounced as it stands, which tells the trained reader to follow the marginal Qere for pronunciation rather than the written Kethib.

You always follow the Qere. The Qere is considered the authoritative reading for pronunciation and interpretation, while the Kethib is preserved as the authoritative written tradition.

In short, the Masoretes were saying that they would not erase what their ancestors wrote, but they would ensure that the reader pronounced it correctly.

Why this matters

Qere and Kethib do not represent corruption of the text. They represent preservation. The Masoretes kept the written consonantal tradition intact and kept the reading tradition intact. They did not reconstruct Scripture. They transmitted it. The written form and the read form were both preserved without altering either.

This practice supports the doctrine of preservation rather than undermining it. It shows that the believing community received the text and passed it down faithfully, keeping both the written and the oral traditions together.

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Logos1560]

There are different kinds or classes of Qere/Kethib readings in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Concerning Qere/Ketiv notes, Israel Yeivin referred to “15 cases of one written word read as two” and “8 cases where two written words are read as one” (Introduction, p. 57). Elias Levita as translated by Christian Ginsburg listed “the fifteen instances in which the textual reading has one word and the marginal reading two” as the following: Gen. 30:11; Exod. 4:2; Deut. 33:2; 1 Chron. 9:4; 1 Chron. 17:12; Neh. 2:13; Job 38:1; Job 40:6; Ps. 10:10; Ps. 55:16; Ps. 123:4; Isa. 3:15; Jer. 6:29; Jer. 18:3; Ezek. 8:6 (Massoreth, p. 193, footnote 34). In this same footnote, Elias Levita noted: “The eight instances in which the reverse is the case, that is, the text having two words, and the margin one word, are as follows:” Jud. 16:25; 1 Sam. 9:1; 1 Sam. 24:9; 2 Chron. 34:6; Isa. 9:6; Isa. 44:24; Lam. 1:6; Lam. 4:3 (Ibid.). Bleddyn Roberts asserted: “Two words are rendered as one in Ps. 45:3; three words as two in Hos. 7:4; three words as one in Ps. 90:11” (OT Text, p. 93).

Elias Levita then described another class of Qere/Ketiv notes as “those words which are written in the text in one way, and for which the marginal reading has quite a different expression” (Massoreth, p. 193). As examples, Elias Levita presented the Ketiv the city, for which the Qere is the court (2 Kings 20:4) along with the Ketiv and where, for which the Qere is and I dwelled (Ezek. 3:15) (Ibid.). Another group of Qere/Ketiv is described by Elias Levita as “those expressions which are written in the text as one word, and for which the marginal reading has two words entirely different to the textual reading” (p. 194). Elias Levita gave as an example the following: the Ketiv as that and the Qere according to all that (Ezek. 9:11) (Ibid.).

Chester Kulus asserted: “In eight places, the Traditional Text has consonants without vowels. In ten places, the Traditional Text has vowels without consonants. And in fourteen places, the Traditional Text has a single vowel standing at the beginning of a word by itself and serving the function of the definite article” (One Tittle, pp. 373-374), and he defined the Traditional Text as referring “to the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text” (p. 398). Otto H. Bostrom wrote: “It is a well known fact that the Massoretes had a critical apparatus of their Holy Scriptures” (Alternative Readings, p. 21). Otto Bostrom asserted: “It has been shown that the Qere and the Ketib of one MS. have been reversed in another, so that what is Qere in one is Ketib in another, and vice versa” (p. 12). Mark Ward wrote: “If the MT is God’s chosen means of perfect preservation of his Word, why would it need to include a text-critical apparatus? The Masoretes’ ketiv-qere readings are more than this, but certainly not less” (Lanier, Authority, pp. 178-179).


Ellis Brotzman wrote: “The emendations of the scribes (tiqqune sopherim) are referred to in the Masorah and in various places in the Talmud” (OT Textual Criticism, p. 117).

Jacob ben Chayyim as translated by Christian Ginsburg or Christian Ginsburg wrote in a footnote: “The eighteen Tikun Sopherim = Emendations of the Scribes, refer to eighteen alterations which the Scribes decreed should be introduced into the text, in order to remove anthropomorphisms and other indelicate expressions” (Chajim’s Introduction, p. 68, footnote 51). Under the heading Tiqqune Sopherim (The Emendations of the Scribes), Page Kelley, Daniel Mynatt, and Timothy Crawford wrote: “A Masoretic tradition lists eighteen passages which have been emended for theological reasons. These changes were attributed to earlier scribes who designed the emendations to remove irreverent expressions concerning God” (Masorah, p. 37). In Appendix 33, The Companion Bible stated: “The following is a list of the eighteen ‘Emendations’ together with nine others not included in the official lists” (p. 33). Ellis Brotzman wrote: “The omissions of the scribes (itture sopherim) are, like the emendations of the scribes, mentioned in Talmudic sources. These sources indicate that scribes made alterations in a total of seventeen passages in the Old Testament” (OT Textual, p. 119). Israel Yeivin as translated by E. J. Revell also referred to the “’Tiqqune Soferim’ Corrections by the Scribes” (Introduction, p. 49).

 

[Logos1560]

Yosef Ofer noted: “In some cases such [Ketiv/Qere] notes were not written, relying on oral transmission of the tradition. For example the Tetragrammaton is vocalized with a shwa and qamas, (the vowels that belong to the letters aleph and nun in ‘Adonai’) without an accompanying note, and only by oral tradition does the reader know how to interpret the signs” (Masora, p. 92). Yosef Ofer added: “These are individual words that appear frequently, and this practice is called ‘permanent qere’” (Ibid.). Israel Yeivin referred to what he termed “perpetual ‘Qere,’” and he noted: “The leading example is the tetragrammaton” (Introduction, p. 58). Barry Levy mentioned “the Qere Perpetuum of the Tetragramaton” (Fixing, p. 77). Robert Gordis wrote: “Obviously, the Tetragrammaton forms a very numerous group of KQ, occurring as it does on almost every line of the Bible” (Biblical Text, p. 30). After mentioning a small first group of euphemisms, Yosef Ofer asserted: “In the second group—the Tetragrammaton--the qere refrains from pronouncing it as it is written because of its sanctity” (Masora, p. 99). Yosef Ofer added: “This [second] group includes over 6800 occurrences, i. e. four or five times more than all other instances of ketiv-qere in the entire Tanakh” (Ibid.). These permanent or perpetual Qere in effect greatly increase the number of ketiv-qere found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

 

[Logos1560]

Jacob ben Chayyim as translated by Christian Ginsburg wrote: “Shew me how it is possible to read the Pentateuch, when [according to the Talmud] we must not read a single letter which is not written in the text. How then can it enter into one’s mind that we should read the Keri [Qere], which, according to the opinion of Abravanel, of blessed memory, Ezra the scribe put down to explain the anomalous text, and leave out the textual reading [Ketiv], which was written by the finger of God? We are therefore bound to believe that all of them are a law of Moses from Sinai” (Chajim’s Introduction, pp. 54-55). Jacob ben Chayyim wrote: “If it be that they have received it from the prophets and sages of by-gone days, why have not the prophets and sages themselves corrected it? We are therefore bound to conclude that the Keri and the Kethiv are both a law of Moses from Sinai” (p. 56).

Jacob ben Chayyim wrote: “It is very surprising that we find Rashi, of blessed memory, and Saadia Gaon, giving Keris and Kethivs which are not to be found in any of the Masoretic work” (pp. 64-65). Jacob ben Chayyim wrote: “For some time I was in great perplexity, seeing that the Talmud generally ignores the Massorah, as we have shewn above in the instance of plene and defective. According to whom [I asked myself] are we then to write the scrolls of the law, since what is lawful according to the one is unlawful according to the other?” (pp. 65-66).

Jacob ben Chayyim in effect tried to defend the Kethiv/Qere readings as being part of the Oral Law supposedly given to Moses.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Concerning Qere/Ketiv notes, Israel Yeivin referred to

The lists you cite are descriptive catalogues compiled by later scholars. They tell us how various Qere/Kethib forms appear in the manuscripts, but they do not define the nature or purpose of the practice. The Masoretes did not create a critical apparatus. They preserved two received traditions: the written consonantal form and the traditional reading.

The extra‑biblical cataloging of how many times one word is read as two, or two words as one, or how many instances involve different expressions, does not change the underlying reality. These lists are observations made centuries after the fact. They do not establish authority. They do not create doctrine. They do not redefine preservation. They simply describe what the Masoretes transmitted.

The danger is in treating extra‑biblical enumeration as if it carries interpretive weight. It does not. The Masoretes were not reconstructing Scripture. They were refusing to alter the written text even when the reading tradition differed. The catalogues you cite are useful for study, but they cannot be used to argue that Qere/Kethib represents textual correction or critical reconstruction. They are records of preservation, not evidence of emendation.

Truth is not established by extra‑biblical lists. Truth is established by what the Masoretes actually did: they safeguarded the written text and safeguarded the reading tradition without erasing either.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not shy away from debate, but I do tire of the same old pattern: extra‑biblical references being treated as if they were the way, the truth, and the life. Catalogues, classifications, and later scholarly lists may be useful for study, but they do not establish doctrine and they do not define truth. They describe what later observers noticed; they do not determine what the Masoretes actually did.

My concern is simple. When extra‑biblical enumeration is elevated to interpretive authority, the text itself is displaced. Qere and Kethib are not defined by how many times one word is read as two or two words as one. They are defined by the Masoretic practice of preserving the written form and preserving the reading tradition without altering either. That reality stands whether later scholars counted fifteen cases, eight cases, or fifty cases.

Truth is not established by extra‑biblical lists. Truth is established by the textual practice itself: the Masoretes safeguarded Scripture and its pronunciation. They did not reconstruct it, correct it, or emend it. They transmitted what they received.

 

[Logos1560]

I do tire of the same old pattern: extra‑biblical references being treated as if they were the way, the truth, and the life.

Truth is not established by extra‑biblical lists.

Your concern is misplaced. You jump to a wrong conclusion or make a false accusation. I do not treat extra-biblical references as if they were the way, the truth, and the life. You seem to try to dismiss the evidence that has been presented because it demonstrates that you make some non-true claims. Assertions can be true without them being Scripture. Jacob ben Chayyim was the editor of the 1524/1525 Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, and you even dismiss his firsthand comments.

Perhaps you treat your opinions as if they were the way, the truth, and the life. Your private interpretive assertions are not the Scriptures.

Truth is not established by your repeating your unproven assertions concerning the Hebrew Masoretic text. Your attempts to dismiss verifiable facts does not refute them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your concern is misplaced. You jump to a wrong conclusion or make a false accusation. I do not treat extra-biblical references as if they were the way, the truth, and the life. You seem to try to dismiss the evidence that has been presented because it demonstrates that you make some non-true claims. Assertions can be true without them being Scripture. Jacob ben Chayyim was the editor of the 1524/1525 Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, and you even dismiss his firsthand comments.

Perhaps you treat your opinions as if they were the way, the truth, and the life. Your private interpretive assertions are not the Scriptures.

Truth is not established by your repeating your unproven assertions concerning the Hebrew Masoretic text. Your attempts to dismiss verifiable facts does not refute them.

You are not being accused falsely. You are being described accurately. Every argument you present relies on extra‑biblical authorities, later editors, later printed editions, later catalogues, later scholars, later conjectures. That is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact demonstrated by your own citations.

Pointing out that your sources are extra‑biblical is not calling you a liar. It is identifying the method you are using. You deny relying on extra‑biblical authorities, and then you immediately post long chains of extra‑biblical authorities. That contradiction is yours, not mine.

Jacob ben Chayyim’s comments, Yeivin’s classifications, Norzi’s corrections, Ofer’s opinions, Farstad’s notes, Price’s interpretations, Bednar’s claims, all of these are extra‑biblical. They do not define preservation, they do not determine what the Masoretes actually did, and they do not overturn the textual practice affirmed by Christ and the apostles.

Truth is not established by later catalogues or later editorial opinions. Truth is established by Scripture and by the actual Masoretic transmission: the consonantal text was preserved, not reconstructed; the reading tradition was transmitted, not invented.

You are free to quote as many later authorities as you wish, but until you address preservation on biblical grounds rather than on the accumulated opinions of post‑Masoretic editors, you have not established anything at all.

 

[Logos1560]

You are not being accused falsely. You are being described accurately.

You have not described me accurately. I do not treat extra-biblical references as if they were the way, the truth, and the life as you incorrectly suggested. Your false assertion that I do is what I correctly denied. Your strawman misrepresentation is wrong. I presented the clear evidence that proves that the Hebrew Masoretic text is not every letter and every word perfect.

You have not established your misrepresentations and false accusations against me to be true.

I have posted my acceptance of the Bible doctrine of preservation many times. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. According to these scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the absolutely pure words of God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

 

[Logos1560]

Should the KJV translators have sometimes depended on or trusted the judgment of unbelieving Jewish Sages who advocated the Oral Law or Talmud, who had not accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Saviour, who seemed to have believed in spontaneous generation and in the existence of some mythological creatures, and whose hearts had not been enlightened or illuminated by the ministry of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Should the KJV translators have sometimes depended on or trusted the judgment of unbelieving Jewish Sages

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word, down to the number of the noun (“seed” vs. “seeds”) and down to the smallest stroke (“jot and tittle”). Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture do not redefine preservation as requiring perfect scribal behavior. They define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God.

Your opinion is incorrect. Your strawman misrepresentation is not my argument. I do not claim that preservation depends on the accuracy of every scribe, but I do acknowledge the responsibilities that God Himself gave to men. According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

You seem to try to dictate to God how He has to preserve His words.

God did not promise that the copying process of the Scriptures would be by a supernatural miracle of direct inspiration. If the preservation of the Scriptures depended upon a continual miracle of God or on repeated miracles as some TR-only or KJV-only reasoning suggests, why was there any need for these scriptural instructions/warnings (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)? Do you assume that your identification determines which manuscripts or texts were supposedly preserved 100% every letter and every word perfect?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

God did not promise that the copying process of the Scriptures would be by a supernatural miracle of direct inspiration

You are repeating the same assumption while denying you hold it. When you say that omitted, added, or changed words mean God’s Word was not preserved, you are making preservation depend on human accuracy. Scripture does not teach that. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word.

You keep appealing to later editors, later scholars, later catalogues, and later conjectures. None of these define preservation. None of these determine what the Masoretes did. None of these overturn the doctrine. They are the words of men.

Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word, down to the number of the noun (“seed” vs. “seeds”) and down to the smallest stroke (“jot and tittle”). Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

Your argument assumes that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe. Scripture teaches the opposite: preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

That is not my argument as you falsely allege. I clearly told you that I do not claim that preservation depends on the accuracy of every scribe so you seem to be bearing false witness as you attempt to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You claim that I said certain things defined preservation when I did not say that.

Did the Masoretes preserve the text that they received every jot and tittle exactly the same? Is adding vowels or accents preserving every aspect of the text they received the same?

KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: “The Masoretes flourished from about 500 to 1000 A. D. They were supposed to have standardized the Hebrew Old Testament in about 600-700 A. D. by putting in the vowel pointing to aid in the pronunciation of the consonantal text” (Defending the KJB, p. 27).

James D. Price suggested that “apparently the Masoretes erroneously supplied the consonants for the word for ‘cities’ with the vowels for the word for ‘donkeys’ as found in the preceding line--a slip of the copyist’s eye” (King James Onlyism, p. 284).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That is not my argument as you falsely allege

Your exact words post #9:

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

 

[Logos1560]

You always follow the Qere. The Qere is considered the authoritative reading for pronunciation and interpretation, while the Kethib is preserved as the authoritative written tradition.

The KJV translators did not follow the Qere at Isaiah 9:3.

Christian Ginsburg maintained that “as the text [Isa. 9:3] now stands one hemistich contradicts the other” (Introduction, p. 161). John Eadie asserted: “The Masora gives fifteen instances where lo should be written so as to signify ‘to him’—and not to signify ‘not.’ Thus in Isaiah 9:3, in the clause ‘thou hast not increased the joy,’ which contradicts the rest of the verse, ‘they joy before Thee,’ the translators put the note ‘to him’ into the margin—though it should have been in the text. In Exodus 21:8, ‘not’ should be ‘to himself’ as the Masora intimates, and this is accepted into the text without any remark” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 209).

Fairbairn’s Standard Bible Encyclopedia stated: “Among the more important of the Keris are those which substitute to him for not of the text. The Masora enumerates 15 such passages; and in most of them there can be no doubt that the text reading is wrong” (Vol. V, p. 72). Concerning Isaiah 9:3, Charles William Wall observed: “The monosyllable LoH [not] should obviously be changed to LO [to him or to it], in order to remove the glaring contradiction which the sentence at present betrays, between the denial of the greatness of the joy referred to, and the immediately ensuing description of that very joy as exceedingly great. Accordingly, the mistake here committed by the Jewish transcribers of the text is acknowledged even by the Masorets; for they have branded the Haleph of the LoH in this verse with their little circular mark of censure” (Proof, p. 439). Regarding Isaiah 9:3 but inconsistently ignoring Exodus 21:8 and other verses, D. A. Waite wrote: “But the Hebrew says ‘not’ and the KING JAMES translators simply wrote it down, faithfully as they ought to have done” (Defending the KJB, p. 32).

 

[Logos1560]

“According to scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.”

My statement states the truth.
My statement does not say that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe as you misunderstand or misrepresent it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My statement states the truth.
My statement does not say that preservation depends on the accuracy of every individual scribe as you misunderstand or misrepresent it.

You said in post #9 that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the claim that preservation depends on scribal accuracy. You are now denying the conclusion of your own premise. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am quoting your own.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men, not the faithfulness of God. God’s promise to preserve His words is not overturned by human fallibility. It is fulfilled in spite of it.

Your argument assumes that preservation fails when a scribe omits, adds, or changes a word. Scripture teaches the opposite. Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

 

[Logos1560]

You said in post #9 that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs.

That is not what my true scripturally-based statement asserts. I am agreeing with what is stated and taught in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). Your invented or imagined conclusion is not the conclusion from my scripturally-based statement. You are trying to read into my statement with your misrepresentation something it does not say. I do not say that God's preservation failed. The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

God does not have to preserve His words according to how you may try to dictate to Him.

 

[Logos1560]

You always follow the Qere. The Qere is considered the authoritative reading for pronunciation and interpretation, while the Kethib is preserved as the authoritative written tradition.

Does your assertion condemn the KJV translators for not following the Qere at Isaiah 9:3?