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

[Anthony Pritchard]

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.

You said 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. You are now denying the conclusion of your own premise. I am not misrepresenting you. I am quoting your own words.

You are also trying to turn the warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture into a definition of preservation. Those verses define the moral responsibility of men. They do not redefine preservation as depending on perfect scribal behavior. They do not overturn the doctrine that God preserves His words.

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.

You say that a scribe did not preserve one of God’s words when he omitted it. That is the claim that preservation depends on scribal accuracy. 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.

It is what God says, not what I dictate.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

You are trying to turn a simple descriptive statement about how Qere and Kethib function into an accusation against the KJV translators. The distinction between written tradition and reading tradition does not condemn them. It explains the Masoretic practice. The Masoretes preserved the written consonants as the Kethib and preserved the traditional reading as the Qere. That is how the Hebrew Bible was transmitted.

The KJV translators followed the received reading tradition where it was indicated. In places where the Qere and Kethib differ, the traditional reading is the one historically followed in synagogue practice. That is why the Masoretes marked it. The existence of a Qere does not impose a rule that every translator must follow it in every instance. It records the traditional reading. It does not bind translation choices.

Your question does not touch the doctrine of preservation. 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.

You said 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. You are now denying the conclusion of your own premise. I am not misrepresenting you. I am quoting your own words.

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 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.

Are you now contradicting what you yourself asserted?

Are you claiming that later post-1611 translation into English and later translation/editorial decisions and opinions do not change God's preservation of His words?


Does your own stated reasoning against present English Bible translations [besides the KJV] assert that preservation failed if the translators erred? Does a consistent application of your own stated strawman misrepresentations of my true statement in your inconsistent reasoning suggest that you are now denying the conclusions of your own unproven premises against modern English Bibles?

 

[Logos1560]

The existence of a Qere does not impose a rule that every translator must follow it in every instance. It records the traditional reading. It does not bind translation choices.

You earlier posted: "You always follow the Qere." Are you not contradicting what you yourself stated earlier in your own words?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You earlier posted: "You always follow the Qere." Are you not contradicting what you yourself stated earlier in your own words?

When I said “you always follow the Qere,” I was describing the Masoretic reading practice, not laying down a rule that every translator in every age must follow the Qere in every instance. The Qere is the traditional reading marked in the margin. The Kethib is the written consonantal tradition preserved in the line. The Masoretes followed the Qere in synagogue reading while preserving the Kethib in the written text. That is the distinction I was explaining.

The existence of a Qere does not impose a binding rule on all later translators. It records the traditional reading. It does not prevent a translator from rendering the written consonants where he judges that appropriate. That is why I said the Qere is the authoritative reading for pronunciation and interpretation, while the Kethib is preserved as the authoritative written tradition. Those are two aspects of one transmitted text, not a contradiction.

You are also trying to turn my rejection of modern English translations into a mirror of your own position. My criticism of present English versions concerns their handling of the underlying text and their translation choices. It does not assert that God’s preservation failed if a translator erred. Preservation is defined by Scripture as God keeping His words down to the number of the noun and down to the smallest stroke. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

You said that a scribe who omits a word “did not preserve one of God’s words.” That is a doctrinal claim about preservation. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the logical implication of your own statement, not something I have invented or dictated. The verses you cite warn men not to add to or take away from God’s words. They define human responsibility. They do not teach that preservation depends on perfect scribal behavior.

 

[Deacon]

The argument that Anthony Pritchard is using is unassailable...he believes in magic.

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

You said that a scribe who omits a word “did not preserve one of God’s words.” That is a doctrinal claim about preservation. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the logical implication of your own statement, not something I have invented or dictated.

Your imagined conclusion is something that you invented since that is not what I stated. I nowhere suggested that God failed in preservation so you are trying to impose your false conclusion on to my accurate statement. My statement deals with human responsibility, but it does not suggest that God failed in preservation as you incorrectly and falsely suggested.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I nowhere suggested that God failed in preservation so you are trying to impose your false conclusion on to my accurate statement. My statement deals with human responsibility, but it does not suggest that God failed in preservation as you incorrectly and falsely suggested.

"...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..."

When you say that men failed to preserve God’s Word, you are necessarily saying that the God who gave the inspired Word in spite of fallible men failed to protect it from fallible men. You cannot affirm human failure in preservation without implying divine failure in preservation. The two claims stand or fall together.

This is the logical entailment of your own premise.

 

[Logos1560]

. You cannot affirm human failure in preservation without implying divine failure in preservation. The two claims stand or fall together.

This is the logical entailment of your own premise.

You improperly continue to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. My statements that you try unsoundly to misrepresent and twist would be stating the same thing as the truths stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). According to these scriptural truths, omitted words, added words, or changed words would 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. There is no contradiction between what these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) state and the Bible doctrine of preservation. You seem to be the one denying what these verses of Scripture state and teach.

I did not imply nor suggest divine failure in preservation as you incorrectly and improperly allege.

 

[Logos1560]

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).

Brian Walton (1600-1661) maintained that “the Keri [Qere] and Ketib, which are confessed by all to be for the most part various readings gathered out of ancient Hebrew copies, are all about the letters only, not any about the points, which yet, if the points had then been in use, had been more subject to mistakes of the scribes than the letters” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 258). Brian Walton wrote: “in the same Keries and Ketibs, the vowels or points belonging to the marginal word, or the Keri, are put under the word in the text, or the Ketib, to admonish the reader, that the word in the margin must be read, and not the word in the Text” (Ibid.). Brian Walton asserted that “if they [the sacred penmen] had been the author of the points, [they] would have put the true reading into the text, with its own proper points, and not have placed it in the margin without points” (Ibid.).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Otto H. Bostrom wrote:

Brian Walton (1600-1661) maintained

You are again appealing to human authorities to establish your position. But none of these quotations address the actual doctrinal point I raised.

The issue is not what Bostrom or Walton believed about the Masoretic apparatus. The issue is the logical consequence of your own premise:

You maintain that any omission, addition, or alteration introduced by men breaks preservation. If that is true, then preservation depends on human accuracy. If preservation depends on human accuracy, then preservation fails whenever humans fail. And if preservation fails whenever humans fail, then God’s promise to preserve His words is not what keeps them preserved.

That conclusion does not come from Bostrom, Walton, or any other man. It comes from the structure of your own argument.

You can quote human authorities all day, but it will not change the fact that your premise carries an implication you have not answered.

Until you address that implication directly, your citations are irrelevant to the doctrinal question at hand.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You improperly continue to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say.

I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m tracing the necessary consequence of the premise you yourself continue to repeat.

You have stated multiple times that:

• omitted words
• added words
• changed words

“do not preserve the exact same original words that proceeded from the mouth of God.”

That is your premise, not mine.

Now here is the unavoidable entailment:

If the preservation of God’s words can be broken by human omission, addition, or alteration, then preservation is contingent on human accuracy. If preservation is contingent on human accuracy, then preservation can fail whenever humans fail. If preservation can fail whenever humans fail, then God’s promise to preserve His words is not what keeps the text preserved—human performance is.

That is the logical structure. It is not a misrepresentation. It is not an accusation. It is simply the consequence of the premise you are defending.

You may deny the consequence, but you cannot deny that it follows from your own stated position.

If you want to avoid the implication of divine failure, then you must revise the premise that human error breaks preservation. If you keep the premise, you keep the consequence. The two stand or fall together.

This is not me “putting words in your mouth.” It is your own premise carried to its doctrinal conclusion.

 

[Logos1560]

You are again appealing to human authorities to establish your position.

My position is based on what the Scriptures teach. I properly appeal to human authorities about matters of history and facts after the completion of the Scriptures. You are a human authority who has failed to establish your position from Scripture alone.

 

[Logos1560]

If you want to avoid the implication of divine failure, then you must revise the premise that human error breaks preservation. If you keep the premise, you keep the consequence. The two stand or fall together.

This is not me “putting words in your mouth.” It is your own premise carried to its doctrinal conclusion.

You are putting words in my mouth when you falsely allege that I suggest that God failed in the preservation of His words.

You have not refuted my statement, but instead you use a bogus tactic of trying to invent a conclusion that does not follow from my acceptance of scriptural truths stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). There is no need for me to revise my sound, scriptural-based statement. There is no contradiction in what the Scriptures teach regardless of your attempts to suggest one.

 

[Logos1560]

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001), who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, wrote: “Some of them [KJV-only people] have chosen a particular edition of the Masoretic text, and exalted it to the place of perfection, but they are unaware that every manuscript and every edition of the Massoretic text of the Old Testament has its corruption written on its face. Every copy of the Massoretic text contains marginal readings” (Bible Version Controversy, p. 280).

Glenn Conjurske asked: “If the Keri [Qere] exhibit the true readings, why are they not in the text? If the Khetiv is the true text, why are the Keri in the margin? The King James Only people roundly condemn the modern translators and critical editors for putting textual variations in the margin, claiming that these notes destroy faith, but lo, their perfectly preserved Hebrew text is full of such variant readings” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

.

If you want to avoid the implication of divine failure, then you must revise the premise that human error breaks preservation. If you keep the premise, you keep the consequence. The two stand or fall together.

My premises are what the Scriptures teach. My premises include the scriptural truths stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). Those scriptural truths do not fail or fall because you may choose to reject them. There is no need for me to revise my sound, scriptural-based premises. You have not refuted my actual premises with your bogus strawman misrepresentations.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

If the Khetiv is the true text, why are the Keri in the margin?

There it is again, quoting someone who sounds authoritative and treating the quote as if it settles the matter. It doesn’t. Conjurske’s argument is flawed, and you are repeating the flaw.

You do this constantly with your piles of quotations. When you borrow another man’s argument, you are not just borrowing his words. You are borrowing his assumptions, his blind spots, his mistakes, and his misunderstandings. Relying on borrowed insight means you inherit the borrowed error. A quotation is only as sound as the reasoning behind it. Conjurske’s reasoning is unsound, therefore your argument is equally unsound.

Conjurske’s argument assumes something the Masoretes never claimed. Qere and Kethib do not represent corruption. They represent preservation. The Masoretes recorded both the written tradition and the reading tradition so neither would be lost. That is why the marginal notes exist. They are evidence of care, not decay.

Every manuscript tradition has a way of preserving variant forms. The Masoretes did it openly. They kept the consonantal text exactly as they received it, and they kept the traditional reading exactly as they received it. Both were preserved. Neither was erased.

Conjurske asks why the Qere is not in the text if it is the true reading. The answer is simple. The Masoretes did not alter the written tradition. They transmitted it. They also transmitted the reading tradition. That is why both appear. It is not a sign of corruption. It is a sign of fidelity.

His second question assumes that marginal notes undermine faith. They do not. They protect the reader from losing the traditional reading. The Masoretes were not modern critical editors. They were scribes preserving everything they received, including the reading tradition that predated them.

The presence of Qere and Kethib does not contradict preservation. It demonstrates it. The written text was preserved. The traditional reading was preserved. Nothing was hidden. Nothing was lost.

Conjurske’s conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and quoting him does not change what the Masoretes actually did.

 

[Logos1560]

Conjurske’s argument is flawed, and you are repeating the flaw.

Your argument is inconsistent and flawed. You did not prove that Glenn Conjurske argument was flawed. Glenn Conjurske did not assert that the presence of Qere and Kethib contradict preservation as you try to put words in his mouth that he did not say.

You seem to ignore the fact that there are some Qere that were not written in the Masoretic text [those called permanent or perpetual Qere].
Readers had to have been taught the oral tradition to know these Qere.
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). Concerning the Qeri perpetua, Alfred Geden wrote: “In such cases the Qeri was not actually written in the margin, but its vowels were supplied to the consonantal Kethibh. The chief instance is the Divine name” (Massoretic Notes, p. 10). 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.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your argument is inconsistent and flawed. You did not prove that Glenn Conjurske argument was flawed. Glenn Conjurske did not assert that the presence of Qere and Kethib contradict preservation as you try to put words in his mouth that he did not say.

You did not answer my argument.

My argument was simple and clear. Qere and Kethib do not represent corruption. They represent preservation. The Masoretes preserved both the written tradition and the reading tradition. Conjurske’s claim was that the presence of Qere and Kethib undermines preservation. I pointed out that this is false because the Masoretes preserved both traditions faithfully. You did not answer that. You changed the subject.

You are also pretending that Conjurske said something he did not. Conjurske’s argument is that the presence of Qere and Kethib proves the text was corrupt or uncertain. That is the flaw. The Masoretes never claimed corruption. They claimed preservation of both traditions. You try to dodge this by saying that Conjurske did not assert that Qere and Kethib contradict preservation. But that is exactly what he asserts. His entire argument is that the marginal notes prove the text was unstable. That is the flaw I pointed out. You are trying to rewrite Conjurske’s claim so you can accuse me of misrepresenting it.

Your long quotation dump does not address my point. Everything you quoted is about permanent Qere, which is simply the Masoretic practice of supplying the traditional reading without writing the marginal note. Permanent Qere does not contradict preservation. Permanent Qere is preservation. The Masoretes preserved the written form. They preserved the reading tradition. They preserved the vowels that signal the reading. They preserved the consonants that signal the written form. Permanent Qere is not corruption. Permanent Qere is fidelity.

Listing scholars does not prove your conclusion. All those scholars agree that permanent Qere is a reading tradition. None of them claim it proves corruption. You are quoting facts that do not support your argument.

The real flaw in Conjurske’s argument is simple. He assumes that if the reading differs from the written form, the written form must be corrupt. That assumption is false. The Masoretes preserved both traditions intentionally. They did not alter the written text. They did not erase the reading tradition. They preserved both. Conjurske’s argument collapses because it assumes the Masoretes were trying to hide something. They were not. They were preserving everything.

Borrowing another man’s argument means borrowing his mistake. That is what has happened here.

 

[Logos1560]

The real flaw in Conjurske’s argument is simple. He assumes that if the reading differs from the written form, the written form must be corrupt.

The real flaw is that you misrepresent Glenn Conjurske's point. Glenn Conjurske was applying the argument of KJV-only advocates concerning textual variants or marginal notes consistently and justly.


Glenn Conjurske noted: "The King James Only people roundly condemn the modern translators and critical editors for putting textual variations in the margin, claiming that these notes destroy faith, but lo, their perfectly preserved Hebrew text is full of such variant readings” ((Bible Version Controversy, p. 280).


Are you admitting that the KJV-only assertions concerning marginal notes or textual variants are wrong, or are you trying to defend and excuse KJV-only reasoning?