3. Origin and date of the lieri and Kethiv.— The Talmud traces the source of these variations to Moses himself, for we are distinctly told in Nedarim 37 b, that the pronunciation of certain words according to the scribes (I:l"lnliD NIX), the emendations of the scribes (1:01t1ID l'IDY), the not reading of words which are in the text (N91 z+nn ,,p), and the reading of words which are not in the text (:,nn t61 4-1p), etc., are a law of Moses from Sinai.' Jacob b. Chajim defends this view in his elaborate introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. Elias Levita, who also exposes this Talmudic declaration, explains it as follows :—` The Keri and Kethiv of the Pentateuch only are a law of Moses from Mount Sinai, and the members of the Great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Ezra, Nehe miah, Mordecai, and Zernbbabel, and other wise men from the craftsmen and artizans (entirn naocrn) to the number of a hundred and twenty, wrote down the Keri and the Kethiv according to the tradition which tbey possessed, that our teacher Moses, peace be with him, read words differently to what they were written in the text for one of those mysteries which they knew, that Moses transmitted this mystery to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, etc., and they put down in the margin as his readings, Ezm act ing as a scribe. In the same manner they pro ceeded in the Prophets and Hagiographa with every word respecting which they had a tradition omlly tmnsmitted from the prophets and the sages, that it was read differently to what it was in the text. But they required no tradition for the post exile books, as the authors themselves were pre sent 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 expres sions, and they wrote down the word in the margin as it should be read' (illassoreth Ha-Massoreth, fol. 8 b, ff.) Mendelssohn in his valuable introduc tion to his translation of the Pentateuch, and most of the ancient Jewish writers, propounded the same view. It is in accordance with this recondite sense ascribed to the origin of the Kefri and Kethm, that Rashi remarks on Gen. viii. 16, .7'11Z N.V1 b'311 Cni nt4 Lim n•tv+ty ilmt Nvsn rim; nt.tv; the .geri is Nriri, the Kethiv tirrl, because he was first to tell them to go out ; bid if they thoulel refilse to go, he was to make them go.' Kimchi, however, is of the opposite opinion. So far from believing that these varia tions proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, who designed to convey thereby various mysteries, he maintains that the Keri and Kethiv originated after the Babylonish captivity, when the sacred hooks were collected by the members of the Great Synagogue. These editors of the long-lost and mutilated inspired writings found different read ings in the volumes, and adopted those which the majority of copies had, because they, according to their opinion, exhibited the true readings. In some places they wrote down one word in the text without putting the vowel signs to it, or noted it in the mar gin without inserting it in the text ; whilst in other places they inserted one reading in the margin and another in the text' (Introduction to his Com ment, on 7osizzea). Ephodi (flor. 1391-1.403), who maintains the same view, remarks that Ezra and his followers made the Keri and Kethiv on every passage in which they found some obliterations anil confusion, as they were not sure what the precise reading was.' Abravanel, who will neither admit that the Keris and Kethivs proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, nor that they took their rise from the imperfect state of the codices, propounds a new theory. According to him, Ezra and his followers, who undertook the editing of the Scriptures, found the sacred books entire and perfect, but in perusing them these editors discovered that they contained irregular expressions, and loose and ungrammatical phrases, arising from the carelessness and ignorance of the inspired writers. Ezra had therefore to explain these words in harmony with the connec tion, and this is the origin of the lieri 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 own account to explain those anomalous letters and expressions, and put them in the margin to indicate that the gloss is his own. Now, if you examine the numerous Kea's and Kethivs in Jeremiah, and look into their connection, you 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 Ken's and Kethivs show that their authors did not know how to speak correctly or to write properly' (Introduction to his Comment. on yeremiah). Though Abravangs hypothesis has more truth in it than the other theories, yet it is only by a combination of the three views that the origin of the Ken' and .A.'ethiv can be traced and explained. For there can be no doubt that some of the variations, as the Talmud, Rashi, etc., declare, have been transmitted by tra dition from time immemorial, and have their origin in some recondite meaning or mysteries attached to the passages in question ;4 that some again, as Kimchi, Ephodi, etc., rightly maintain, are due to the blunders and corruptions which have crept into the text in the course of time, and which the spiri tual guides of the nation tried to rectify by a com parison of codices, as is also admitted by the Talmud (comp. yerzisalem iV. 2 ; Sophe rim, vi. 4) ; and that others, again, as Abravanel, remarks, are owing to the carelessness of style, ignorance of idioms and provincialisms, which the editors and successive interpreters of the Hebrew canon discovered in the different books, or, more properly speaking, which were at variance with the grammatical rules and exegetical laws deve loped in aftertime by the Massorites. Such, how
ever, was their reverence for the ancient text, that these Massorites who made the new additions to it, left the text itself untouched in the very places where they believed it necessary to follow another explanation or reading, but simply in serted the emendation in the margin. Hence the distinction between the ancient text as it ?MS written, or Kethiv (21-1), and the more modern emended reading, or Kerr* Cip); 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.
4. Importance of the E'er/ and Xelhiv, especially as relating to the English versions of the Hebrew Seripures.—Some idea of the importance of the Keri and Kethiv may be gathered from the following analysis of the seventy-six variations which Occur in the Pentateuch. Of the seventy-six Kerii, twenty one give rilv) instead of 'V) (Gen. xxiv."14, 16, 28, 55, 57 ; xxxiv. 3 [twice], 12 ; Dent. xxii.
[twice], 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 [tWiCe], 27, 28, 29), which was evidently epicene in earlier periods (comp. Gesenius, Gra1117/1., sec. 23, sec. 32, 6 ; Ewald, Lehrbuch, sec. 175, b); fifteen have the plural termination .1" affixed to nouns instead ot the singular in the text (Gen. xxxiii. 4 ; Exod. xxvii. ; xxviii. 28 ; xxxii. 19 ; xxxix. 4, 33 ; Lev. ix. 22 ; XVi. 21 ; Ni4M. xii. 3 ; Deut. ii. 33; v. to ; vii. 9 ; viii. 2 ; Xxvii. 10 ; XXXiii. 9), which soine think is no real variation, since in earlier periods the termination 'I was both singular and plural, just as 'in stands for both "1112 and ; seventeen give more current and uniform - , forms of words (Gen. viii. 17 ; x. 19 ; xiv. S ; xxiv. 33 with 1. 26 ; xxv. 23 with xxxv. ; xxvii. 3 with 5, 7 ; xxvii. 29 with the samc word in the next clause ; xxxvi. 6, 14, with vet% 18 ; xxxix. 20, 22 ; 23 With XxVii. 29 ; Exod. xvi. 2 ; xvi. 7 with Num. xvi. II ; Num. xiv. 36 with xv. 24 ; Num. xxi. 32 with xxxii. 39 ; xxxii. 7 with. xxx. 6; Deut. xxxii. 13 with Amos iv. 13) ; five substi tute the termination third person singular, 1 for n (Gen. xlix. It [twice]; Exod. xxii. 26 ; xxxii. 17 ; Num. x. 36), which is a less common prono minal suffix (comp. Gesenius, Gramm., sec. 91 ; Ewald, Lehrbzich, sec. 247, a); two make two words of one (Gen. xxx. II; Exod. iv. 2); two have instead of .6c, (Exod. xvi. 13 : Num. xi. 32); three give pluml verbs instead of singular (Lev. xxi. 5 ; Num. xxxiv. 4 ; Deut. xxxi. 7), which are no doubt an improvement, since Num. xxxiv. 4 is evidently a mistake, as may be seen front a com parison of this verse with verse 5 ; three substitute the relative pronoun for the negative particle (Exod. xxi. 8 ; Lev. xi. 21 ; XXV. 30), WhiCh is very important ; two substitute euphemisms for cacophonous expressions (Deut. xxviii. 27, 3o) ; and two are purely traditional, viz., Num. i. 16 ; xxvi. 9, which are explained in the note of the pre ceding section. The Pentateuch, however, can hardly be regarded as giving an adequate idea of the importance of the Kepi and liethiv, inasmuch as the Jews, regarding the law as more sacred than any other inspired book, guarded it against being corrupted with greater vigilance than the rest of the canon. Hence the comparatively few and un important ECris when contrasted with those occur ring in the other volumes. Still, the Pentateuch contains a few specimens of almost all the different As to the question how far our English versions have bcen influenced by the Keri and Kahl this will bcst be answered by a comparison of the translations with the more striking variations which occur in the Prophets and Hagiographa.
In Josh. v. 1, the textual reading is, ' till we were passed over' (13-12.V); the Ken* has nim3), 'until they passed over ;' and though the Sept., Vulg., Chaldee, Luther, the Zurich Bible, Cover dale, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Version, etc., adopt the Keri, the A. V., following Kimchi, ad heres to the Kethiv ; whilst in Josh. vi. 7, where the textual reading is, and they said onnwl) unto the people,' and the marginal emendation is, and he said' (1IDN'1), and where the Vulg., Chaldee, Luther, the Zurich Bible, Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Veision, again adopt the Keri, as in the former instance, the A. V. abandons the textual reading, and espouses the eniendation. In Josh. xv. 47, again, where the Keri is the bordering sea (.1.3,1n n+ri) and its territory ;' and the Kethiv has, and the great sea 6-1,1n wri) and the territory,' which is again followed by the ancient versions and the translations of the Re formers, 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 (01:4) 11171111, noticing however the emendation (C.1)4) yanus in the margin. All the ten emendations of the second class, which propose the insertion of entire words into the text (n,n t.6) +1p), are adopted in the A. V. without the slightest indica cation by the usual italics that they are not in the text. Of the eight omissions of entire words in the third class onp 14117), nothing decisive can be said, inasmuch a.s 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 only two instances, however, where there can be no mistake (Jer. xli. 3 ; Ezek. xlviii. 16) clearly shew that the A. V. follows the marginal gloss, and accordingly rejects the words which are in the text. Had the limits of this article allowed it, we could have shewn still more unquestionably, that though the A. V. gene rally adopts the marginal emendations, yet in many instances it proceeds most arbitrarily, and adheres to the textual reading ; and that, with very few exceptions, it never indicates by italics, or in the margin, the difference between the textual and the marginal readings.