KERI AND KETHIB
53
KERI AND KETHIB
getical laws developed in aftertime by the ISrasorltcs. Such, however, was their reverence for the ancient text, that these Masorites who made the new additions to it left the text itself untouched in the very piaces where they believed it necessary to follow another explanation or reading, but simply inserted tlie emendation in the margin. Ilencc the distinction between the ancient text as it was written, or Kethib (l^n:), and the more modern emended readinij, or Keri ("'"ip) ; and hence, also, the fact that the Keri is not inserted in the syna- gogal scrolls, though it is followed in the public reading of the Scriptures.
IV. Importance of the Keri and Kethib, especially as reluting to the EnriU^h Version of the Hebreio Scriptures. —Some idea of the importance of the Keri and Kethib may be gathered from the following analysis of the seventy-six variations which occiur in the Pentateuch. Of the seventy-six Keris, twenty-one give rn"3 in- stead of "isa (Gen. xxiv, li, IG, 28, 55, 57; xxxiv, 3 [twice], 12; Deut. xxii, 15 [twice], 16, 20, 21, 23, 2-1, 25, 2t3 [twice], 27, 28, 2D), which was evidently epicene in earlier periods (comp. Gesenius, Granim. sec. 23, sec. 32, G ; Ewald, Lehrbuch, sec. 175, b) ; fifteen have the plural termination "11° affixed to nouns instead of the singular 1 in the text (Gen. xxxiii, 4; Exod. xxvii, 11 ; xxviii, 28; xxxii, 10; xxxix, 4, 33; Lev. ix, 22; xvi, 21; Numb, xii, 3; Deut. ii, 33 ; v, 10; vii, 9; viii, 2 ; xxvii^ 10 ; xxxiii, 9), which some think is no real variation^ since in earlier periods the termination 1 was both sin- gular and plural, just as 11^3 stands for both ■''n.)2 and ■^■Ija ; seventeen give more ciurrent and m:ilbrm forms of words (Gen. viii, 17; x, 19; xiv, 8; xxiv, 33 with 1, 2G; XXV, 23 with xxxv, 11; xxvii, 3 with 5, 7; xxvii, 29 with the same word in the next clause; xxxvi, G, 14 with ver. 18 ; xxxix, 20, 22 ; xliii, 28 with xxvii, 29 ; Exod. xva, 2; xvi, 7 with Numb, xvi, 11; Numb, xiv, 36 with XV, 24 ; Numb, xxi, 32 with xxxii, 39 ; xxxii, 7 with XXX, G ; Deut. xxxii, 13 with Amos iv, 13) ; five substitute the termination third person singular, 1 for n (Gen. xlix, 11 [twice]; Exod. xxii, 26; xxxii, 17; Numb. X, 36), which is a less common pronominal suf- fix (comp. Gesenius, Granitn. sec. 91 ; Ewald, Lehrbuch, sec. 247, a) ; two make two words of one (Gen. xxx, 11 ; Exod. iv, 2); two have lip^n instead of ib':^ (Exod. xvi, 13; Numb, xi, 32); three give plural verbs instead of singular (Lev. xxi, 5 ; Numb, xxxiv, 4 ; Deut. xxxi, 7), which are no doubt an improvement, since Numb. xxxiv, 4 is evidently a mistake, as may be seen from a comparison of this verse with verse 5 ; three substitute the relative pronoun 1? for the negative particle XP (Exod. xxi, 8 ; Lev. xi, 21 ; xxv, 30), which is very important; two substitute euphemisms for cacophonous expressions (Dent, xxviii, 27, 30) ; and two are purely traditional, viz., Numb, i, IG ; xxvi, 9. The Pentateuch, however, can hardly be regarded as giving an adequate idea of the importance of tlie Keri and Kethib, inasmuch as the Jews, regarding the law as more sacred than any other inspired book, guarded it against being corrupt- ed with greater vigilance than tlie rest of the canon. Hence the comparatively few and unimportant Keris when contrasted with those occurring in the other vol- umes. Still, the Pentateuch contains a few specimens of almost all the different Keris.
As to the question how far our English versions have been influenced by the Keri and Kethib, this will best be answered by a comparison of the translations with the more striking variations whicli occur in the I'roph- ets and Hagiographa. In Josh, v, 1, the textual read- ing is "till ire were passed over" 13"i3"), the Keri has D"l3", "untU the// passed over;" and though the Sept., Vulg., Chaldee, Luther, the Zurich Bible, Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible, the (Jeneva Version, etc., adopt the Keri, the A. v., foUowuig Kimchi, adheres to the Kethib ;
whilst in Josh, vi, 7, where the textual reading is "and they said (ll'^X"''!) unto the people," and the marginal emendation is "and he said" ("I'CN'^I), and where the Vulg., Chaldee, Luther, the Zurich Bible, Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Version again adopt the Keri, as in the former instance, the A. V. abandons the textual reading and espouses the emendation. In Josh. XV, 47, where the Keri is "the borderimj sea (""^H binsn) and its territory," and the Kethib has " and the fjreat sea (bi;\n C^!!) and the territory," which is again followed by the ancient versions and the translations of the Reformers, the A. V., without taking any notice of the textual reading in the margin, as in Josh, viii, 16, adopts the emendation, whereas in Josh, xv, 53 the A. V. follows the textual reading (013^) Janum, noti- cing, however, the emendation (012'') Janus in the mar- gin. AU the ten emendations of the second class, wliich propose the msertion of entire words into the text C^p '2.T.'2 xbl), are adopted in the A. V. without the slight- est indication by the usual italics that they are not in the text. Of the eight omissions of entire words in the third class ('^"ip 5<bl S'^nr) nothing decisive can be said, inasmuch as six of them refer to simple particles, and they might either be recognised by the translators or not without its being discernible in the version. The onlv two instances, however, where there can be no mis- take (Jer. xli, 3 ; Ezek. xlviii, 16), clearly show that the A. V. follows the marginal gloss, and accordingly re- jects the words which are in the text. Had the limits of this article alloAved it, we could have shown still more unquestionably that, though the A. V. generally adopts the marginal emendations, yet in many instances it pro- ceeds most arbitrarily, and adheres to the textual read- ing ; and that, with very few exceptions, it never indi- cates, l)y italics or in tlie margin, the difference between the textual and the marginal readings.