KERI AND KETHIB
52 KERI AND KETHIB
same vie-H'. It is in accordance with this recondite sense ascribed to the origin of the Keri and Kethib that llashi remarks on Gen. viii, 16, "The Keri is jliltl, the Kethib XU^n, because he was first to tell tliem to go out; but if they should refuse to go, he was to make them go." Kimchi. however, is of the opposite opinion. &'o far from believing that these variations proceeded from the sacred writers them- selves, who designed to convey thereby various mysteries, he maintains that the Keri and Kethib originated after the Bab- ylonian captivity, when the sacred books were collected by the members of the Great Synagogue. These editors of the long-lost and mutilated inspired writings ''found dif- ferent readings in the volumes, and adopt- ed those which the majority of copies had, because these, according to their opinion, exhibited the true readings. In some N.B.-In this table, what are denoted by "Variations" are designated P^'''^''* ^^ey wrote down one word in the " Interpolations," n^^i ; "Deficiencies," t*^^^' ^"^'\"".^ P"""^S the vowel signs to it,
or noted it in the margin without insert-
BoniberK's Sec. Edit, ofliiljle, 1524, 16«.
The Plan- tin Bible, 1666.
The Ant- werp or Royal Bi- ble", 15T.'.
Elias Levitn.
Our Results.
Pent A- 1
TEtUMI. j
VaiiiUions
Interpolations Deticieucies . .
7a
1
"74
74 1 2
7T
69 1 1
71
05
76
Earlier 1 Prophets, j
Variations
Interpolations Deticieucies ..
ba7 11
2
350
239
25
5
2611
277
18
5
300
.301
Later 1 Peoi'Uets. 1
Variations
Interpolations Deficiencies . .
348 2
850
250
25
1
2T0
347 11
358
454
377
Five \ Megilloth.J
Variations
Interpolations
51 11
43 14 57
48
8
"50
71
Hagiogra- (. ruA. 1
Variations
Interpolations Deficiencies . .
362 60
1
423
1S7
34
1
222
242
20
1
263
329
408
total
1'25U
11(11
1048 1 f<4S 1 1353 1
by the llasorites as "^Ip; "lion.
is 'n"3 in the Kethib, and n"i"3 in the Keri; that the book of Joshua, which in quantity is about a tenth part of the Pentateuch, should have 32 ; and that the books of Samuel, which are merely about a fourth the size of the Pentateuch, should contain 133" {Massoreth II a- Mussonth, ed. Sulzbach, 1771, p. 8 sq.). It will be seen from tliis extract that Elias Levita not only gives si.x Keris less in Joshua than we ha\'e given, but also differs from Abrabanel in the number of Keris to be found in tlie books of Samuel.
III. Orlffin and Bate of the Keri and Kethib. — The Talmud traces the source of these variations to Moses himself, for we are distinctly told in Nedarhn, 57 b, that " the pronunciation of certain words according to the scribes (C'lS'iO X^p'O), the emendations of the scribes (S'^^SID "l^"), the not reading of words which are in the text ('^"ip Stbl 3'^r:), and the reading of words which are not in the text (3'^ri3 xbl ''"ip), etc., are a law of Moses from Sinai." Jacob b.-Chajim defends this view in his elaborate Introduction to the Pabbinic Bible. Elias h(fvita, who also expresses this Talmudic declaration, explains it as follows : " The Keri and Keth- ib of the Pentateuch only are a law of Moses from jNIount Sinai, and the members of the Great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Hananiali, INIishael, Azariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and Zcrubbabel, and other wise men from the craftsmen and artisans (1S0"^m "iTTrin^) to the number of a hundred and twenty, wrote down the Keri and the Kethib according to the tradition which they possessed that our teacher jNIo.ses (peace be with him !) read words differently from what they were written in the text; this being one of those mysteries which they knew, for Moses transmitted this mj'stery to Joshua, Joshua to the ciders, the elders to the prophet.i, etc., and these were put down in the margin as his readings, Ezra acting as a scribe. In the same manner they proceeded in the Prophets and Ha- giograiiha witli every word respecting which they had a tradition orally transmitted from the prophets and the .s.iges that it was read differently from wliat it was in the text. But they required no tradition for the ]K)St- exilian book.*, as the authors themselves were present with them ; hence, whenever they met with a word which did not seem to harmonize with the context and the sense, the author stated to them the reason why he used such anomalous expressions, and they wrote down the weird in the margin as it should Ijc read" (.Uassotxlh Ila-Massoreth, fol. 8 b, sq.). JMeudelssohn, in his valu- able introduction to his translation of the I'cntateuch, aud most of the ancient Jewish writers, propounded the
ing it in the text, whilst in other places they inserted one reading in the margin and another in the text" (Introduction to his Commentary on Josh- ua). Ephodi (flourished 1391-1403), who maintains the same view, remarks that Ezra and his followers " made the Keri and Kethib on every passage in which they found some obliterations and confusion, as they were not sure what the precise reading was." Abrabanel, who will neither admit that the Keris and Kethibs proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, nor that they took their rise from the imperfect state of the codices, pro- pounds a new theory. According to him, Ezra and his followers, who undertook the editing of the Scri]iturcs, found the sacred books entire and perfect ; but in pe- rusing them these editors discovered that they con- tained irregular expressions, and loose and ungrammat- ical phrases, arising from tlie carelessness and ignorance of the inspired writers. " Ezra had therefore to explain these words in harmony with the connection, and this is the origin of the Keri which is found in the margin of the Bible, as this holy scribe feared to touch the words which were spoken or written by the Holy Ghost. These remarks he made on his ow^l account to explain those anomalous letters and expressions, and he put them in the margin to indicate that the gloss is his own. Now, if you examine the numerous Keris and Kethibs in Jeremiali, and look into their connection, yon will find them all to be of this nature, viz., that they are to be traced to Jeremiah's careless and blundering writing. . . . . From this you may learn that the books which have most Keris aud Kethibs show that their authors did not know how to speak correctly or to wriljg jirop- erly" (Introduction to his Commentaiij on Jeremi^jji'). Though Abnabanel's hypothesis has more truth in it than the other theories, yet it is only by a comliination of the three views that the origin of the Keri and Kethib can be traced and explained. For there can be no doubt that some of the variations, as the Talmud, Kashi, etc., declare, have been transmitted by tradition from time immemorial, and have their origiii in some recondite meaning or m3-steries attached to tlie passages in question ; that some, again, as Kimchi, Ephodi, etc., rightly maintain, are due to the blunders and corrup- tions which have crept into the text in the course of time, and which the siiiritiial guides of the nation tried to rectify by a comparison of codices, as is also admitted by the Talmud (comp. Jerusalem Megillah, iv, 2; So- phe7-im,\i,4); and" that others, again, as Abrabanel re- marks, arc owing to the carelessness of style, ignorance of idioms and provincialisms, which the editors and suc- cessive interpreters of the Hebrew canon discovered in the different books, or, more yiroperly sjieaking, which were at variance with the grammatical rules and exe-