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

[Anthony Pritchard]

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?

You did not answer my argument.

You are trying to change the subject to KJV‑only claims, which I have not made. My point was about the Masoretic practice itself. 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. That claim is false because the Masoretes preserved both traditions faithfully. You did not answer that. You changed the subject.

You are also rewriting Conjurske’s point. Conjurske argued that the presence of Qere and Kethib shows instability or corruption in the text. That is the flaw. The Masoretes never claimed corruption. They claimed preservation of both traditions. You are trying to recast his argument so you can accuse me of defending KJV‑only reasoning, which I have not done.

Your quotation from Conjurske does not support your conclusion. It only shows that he assumed marginal notes imply instability. That assumption is wrong. 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 fidelity, not corruption.

Listing scholars does not prove your point. None of them claim that permanent Qere undermines preservation. You are quoting facts that do not support your argument.

The flaw in Conjurske’s argument remains. He assumed 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]

You did not answer my argument.

You are trying to change the subject to KJV‑only claims, which I have not made.

Your argument was answered by demonstrating your misrepresentation of Glenn Conjurske's point. You change the subject away from the point that he was making. Glenn Conjurske soundly demonstrated the inconsistency and flaw in KJV-only claims about marginal notes and variant readings while you seem to try to rationalize or defend KJV-only claims. His point concerning KJV-only claims about marginal notes does not collapse, and it is not flawed. Glenn Conjurske did not claim the Kethib and Qere contradicted God's presevation. Glenn Conjurske was in agreement with the views of John William Burgon.

John Brug wrote: “The KJV does cite 31 kethiv/qere variations” (Textual Criticism, p. 122). John Brug mentioned the following examples of cases where the KJV adopts the qere: “‘children’ is added from the Q” (Jud. 20:13); “’to me’ is added from the Q” (Ruth 3:5); “‘to me’ is added from the Q” (Ruth 3:17); “‘Euphrates’ is added from the Q “ (2 Sam. 8:3); “’man’ is added from the Q” (2 Sam. 16:23); “‘host’ is added from the Q to complete the phrase ‘Lord of hosts’” (2 Kings 19:31); and “‘his sons’ is from the Q” (2 Kings 19:37) (Ibid.). Concerning 2 Chronicles 11:18, John Brug wrote: “The kethiv says that Rehoboam married Mahalath, son of David’s son Jerimoth. The stock expression ‘son of David’ pushed its way into the scribe’s mind and replaced the correct ‘daughter of David’” (p. 12).

You borrow the erroneous KJV-only "preserved stream" argument.

 

[Logos1560]

Benjamin Kennicott asserted: “This evidence of the Keri [Qere] has sorely distressed the advocates of the perfection of the Hebrew text, who would fain have the Keri called conjectures, or expositions, or explanations, or any thing, rather than various readings” (State, II, p. 281). Benjamin Kennicott contended that “no man can now stand forth and assert, that the words in the margin never were in the text; because a multitude of them are found in the text of the now-existing MSS” (p. 282). Norman Gottwald maintained that in some cases “these oral substitutions apparently preserve textual variants” (Hebrew Bible, p. 120).

 

[Logos1560]

Three Old Testament verses [Joshua 21:36-37; Nehemiah 7:68] are not in the text of Ben Chayyim’s Hebrew Masoretic Text edition, showing that the Masoretes did not preserve the text perfectly in all the Hebrew manuscripts they copied.

J. Scott Porter maintained that “it [Joshua 21:36-37] is left out of the Rabbinical Bibles of Ben Chajim, Buxtorf, and Ben Simeon” (Principles, p. 194). Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Benjamin Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285). Christian Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965). Gail Riplinger acknowledged: “The original ben Chayim Hebrew Bible wrongly omitted Joshua 21:36-37” (Hazardous, p. 1016). Gail Riplinger asserted: “This proves that the KJB translators DID NOT follow ben Chayim exclusively” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the original ben Chayim edition wrongly omitted Nehemiah 7:68” (p. 1017).

Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). Scott Porter asserted that “the great majority of the MSS. of the Book of Joshua contain these verses,” claiming that 164 manuscripts have the verses while 68 omit them (Principles, p. 195). Douglas Somerset maintained that both Masoretic “Aleppo and Leningrad codices omit Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 242).

 

[Logos1560]

In my opinion, the demonstrated inconsistencies in Anthony Pritchard's claims and his own assertion suggesting that my points or arguments and Glenn Conjurske's points and arguments for a preserved Traditional text view have supposedly failed would lead to the logical conclusion that he is saying that he in effect defeated his own position or he in effect exposed his own arguments as failures.

Has he been unable to see that he has been attacking the position that he claims to hold when he attacks Glenn Conjurske's preserved text views and my preserved text views? Is he revealing that he is taking the side of KJV-only advocates? Do Anthony Pritchard borrow the mistakes of KJV-only advocates when he uses KJV-only arguments?

 

[Logos1560]

At Judges 10:4, James D. Price maintained that the Masoretic Text “reads ‘they had thirty donkeys,’ whereas the King James Version reads ‘they had thirty cities,’ following the Aramaic Targum and the other ancient versions” (King James Onlyism, p. 284). 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]

I am posting this for the readers, not for those still replying to me. I stepped out of the discussion because it had reached the point where nothing new was being said. The arguments were being repeated in loops, and the replies had shifted from substance to personal accusations. When a discussion becomes repetitive and the focus turns to claiming victory rather than addressing the text, there is no value in continuing.

The continued replies after I left show exactly why I stepped out. They are not attempts to advance the argument. They are attempts to keep the performance going, and that is all it is, performance. The language of “thrashings” and “taking his ball and going home,” the extreme quote stacking, the constant reframing of my words, the shifting of categories to avoid direct answers, and the false claims about my motives and about my position on the KJV and the preserved text are not theological argument. They are posturing. They are strutting. They are attempts to frame the discussion as a contest that must be won, even after the actual exchange has ended.

The readers can see the pattern. When someone stops replying and the other side continues posting in rapid succession, it is not debate. It is fixation. It is an attempt to claim victory by volume rather than by truth. I am not interested in that. I am not responding to it. I am not reading it.

My position was stated clearly. Their arguments were answered directly. The replies that followed did not address those answers. They repeated the same claims, reframed my words, shifted categories, and added personal remarks. That is why I stepped out. Not because the arguments stood, but because they had already been answered and the discussion had degraded into noise.

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.

 

[Logos1560]

Anthony, perhaps you stepped out of the discussion because your unproven claims or assertions were either countered or refuted. New evidence or information was presented so your assertion is proven not to be true. You fail to prove your assertions in your above post to be true. You avoid direct answers and make false claims about the motives of others. You reframed and misrepresented what others posted. You do not practice what you preach. You repeat the same post in several threads so you would seem to be the one guilty of what you incorrectly accuse others. You could be regarded to be bearing false witness. Your pattern is to dodge serious discussion.