{"id":503,"date":"2026-10-19T00:36:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T00:36:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/ketiv-and-qere-what-is-written-and-what-is-read\/"},"modified":"2026-10-19T00:36:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T00:36:51","slug":"ketiv-and-qere-what-is-written-and-what-is-read","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/ketiv-and-qere-what-is-written-and-what-is-read\/","title":{"rendered":"Ketiv and Qere: What Is Written and What Is Read"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Leah\">Leah<\/a>\u2019s maid <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Zilpah\">Zilpah<\/a> bears Jacob a son, Leah names him <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Gad_%28son_of_Jacob%29\">Gad<\/a>. The Hebrew text of Genesis 30:11 records her words in a way that puzzles every new reader of a Hebrew Bible. The consonants on the page spell one word, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05d2\u05d3<\/span> (<em>begad<\/em>, \u201cwith good fortune\u201d). The vowels printed under them belong to two words, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05b8\u05d3<\/span> (<em>ba gad<\/em>, \u201cfortune has come\u201d), and a note in the margin tells the reader to say those two words instead.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-1\"><a href=\"#note-1\">1<\/a><\/sup> The written form is called the <em>ketiv<\/em>, \u201cwhat is written\u201d. The form to be read aloud is the <em>qere<\/em>, \u201cwhat is read\u201d. Between about 850 and 1,550 places in the Hebrew Bible carry such a pair, depending on which manuscripts and which lists are counted.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-2\"><a href=\"#note-2\">2<\/a><\/sup> Together they are the most visible sign that the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Masoretes\">Masoretes<\/a> guarded two things at once: a written text they would not alter, and a reading tradition they would not abandon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group at-a-glance\"><div class=\"wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"at-a-glance\">At a glance<\/h3>\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n<li><strong>3rd century BCE:<\/strong> the Greek translators of the Pentateuch render the divine name <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4<\/span> as <em>Kyrios<\/em>, \u201cLord\u201d, following the custom of reading it as <em>Adonai<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>Rabbinic period:<\/strong> the Talmud lists words \u201cread but not written\u201d and \u201cwritten but not read\u201d, and Rabbi Yitz\u1e25ak calls them a law given to Moses at Sinai (<em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b\u201338a). A baraita lists coarse words that are \u201cread in a refined manner\u201d (<em>Megillah<\/em> 25b).<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>Rabbinic tradition:<\/strong> three Torah scrolls found in the Temple court are compared and the majority reading kept (<em>Sifrei Devarim<\/em> 356; Jerusalem Talmud <em>Ta\u02bfanit<\/em> 4:2; <em>Soferim<\/em> 6:4).<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>9th\u201310th centuries:<\/strong> Masoretic codices write the <em>ketiv<\/em> in the text and the <em>qere<\/em> in the margin, marked with <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e7<\/span>.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>c. 1400:<\/strong> Profiat Duran explains the pairs as Ezra\u2019s record of conflicting manuscripts. Isaac Abravanel later argues that they are corrections.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>1538:<\/strong> Elias Levita counts 848 pairs. Louis Cappel later counts 1,548 in the Second Rabbinic Bible and 1,566 in Plantin\u2019s Antwerp edition.<\/li>\n\n\n<li><strong>1937:<\/strong> Robert Gordis\u2019s <em>The Biblical Text in the Making<\/em> classifies every case and counts 1,350.<\/li>\n\n<\/ul>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"two-words-one-place\">Two Words, One Place<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-terms\">The Terms<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The words are Aramaic, the working language of the Masorah. <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (<em>ketiv<\/em>) means \u201cwritten\u201d. The other term is usually pronounced <em>qeri<\/em>, but Robert Gordis argued that this pronunciation arose from the unpointed spelling <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9<\/span> and that the word should be read <em>qere<\/em>, either an imperative (\u201cread!\u201d) or a passive participle with the force of the Latin <em>legendum est<\/em> (\u201cto be read\u201d).<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-3\"><a href=\"#note-3\">3<\/a><\/sup> Either way, the pair describes a single spot in the text where the written letters and the spoken word part company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-a-manuscript-shows-it\">How a Manuscript Shows It<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the great Masoretic codices, and in most printed Bibles that follow them, the <em>ketiv<\/em> stays in the line of text, but the scribe gives it the vowels of the <em>qere<\/em>. The consonants of the <em>qere<\/em> stand unpointed in the margin as part of the Masorah parva, followed by the letter <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e7<\/span> for <em>qere<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-4\"><a href=\"#note-4\">4<\/a><\/sup> A reader who knows the convention can recover both forms. One who does not will try to pronounce consonants and vowels that were never meant to go together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Gordis notes that this is the latest of several methods. Originally each <em>qere<\/em> was written in the margin beside the word and the <em>ketiv<\/em> was left without vowels. Christian D. Ginsburg followed that method in his editions. The Rabbinic Bibles that descend from <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/jacob-ben-hayyim-second-rabbinic-bible-venice-1525\/\">Jacob ben Hayyim<\/a>\u2019s Venice edition of 1524\u201325 use both: vowels of the <em>qere<\/em> under the <em>ketiv<\/em> in the text, and the bare <em>qere<\/em> again in the margin.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-5\"><a href=\"#note-5\">5<\/a><\/sup> Some modern editions print the <em>ketiv<\/em> without any vowels at all, since its own pronunciation was never transmitted.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-6\"><a href=\"#note-6\">6<\/a><\/sup> The open digital edition <em>Miqra according to the Masorah<\/em>, used on <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Sefaria\">Sefaria<\/a>, puts the <em>ketiv<\/em> in round brackets and the pointed <em>qere<\/em> in square ones: at Genesis 30:11, (<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05d2\u05d3<\/span>) [<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05a3\u05d0 \u05d2\u05b8\u0591\u05d3<\/span>].<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-7\"><a href=\"#note-7\">7<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"signs-in-the-codices\">Signs in the Codices<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The marking itself took more than one form. <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Wilhelm_Gesenius\">Gesenius\u2019 grammar<\/a> summarises the convention that became standard: \u201cA small circle or asterisk in the text always refers to the marginal reading.\u201d<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-8\"><a href=\"#note-8\">8<\/a><\/sup> Its example is Jeremiah 42:6, where the people promise to obey the Lord \u201cto whom we are sending you\u201d. The text writes the short pronoun <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5<\/span> (<em>anu<\/em>, \u201cwe\u201d) but gives it the vowels of the longer <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (<em>ana\u1e25nu<\/em>), which stands in the margin. Read as it stands in the line, the word cannot be pronounced. The reader has to carry the vowels across to the marginal form.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-9\"><a href=\"#note-9\">9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Tov records two older practices. In early manuscripts a <em>qere<\/em> was sometimes marked by a vertical sign shaped like a final <em>nun<\/em>, or perhaps a <em>zayin<\/em>. And some manuscripts of the Masorah describe a <em>qere<\/em> as <em>yatir<\/em>, \u201csuperfluous\u201d, usually <em>yatir yod<\/em> or <em>yatir waw<\/em>, meaning that the reader should skip that letter.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-10\"><a href=\"#note-10\">10<\/a><\/sup> Tov\u2019s example is Joshua 10:24, where Joshua summons the officers \u201cwho had gone with him\u201d. The written form <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b6\u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> ends in an <em>alef<\/em> that is not pronounced.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-11\"><a href=\"#note-11\">11<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These conventions are what the great Tiberian codices pass on: the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/the-aleppo-codex-and-the-tiberian-standard\/\">Aleppo Codex<\/a>, on which the MAM edition is based, and the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/the-leningrad-codex\/\">Leningrad Codex<\/a>, which Biblia Hebraica prints. In both, the <em>qere<\/em> note belongs to the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/the-masorah-parva-and-masorah-magna\/\">Masorah parva<\/a> in the side margin.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-12\"><a href=\"#note-12\">12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"constant-readings\">Constant Readings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A few words are read differently every time they occur, and these are not flagged with a marginal note. Scholars call this the <em>qere perpetuum<\/em>, the constant <em>qere<\/em>. The scribe simply gives the written word the vowels of the word to be spoken.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-13\"><a href=\"#note-13\">13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most important case is the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Tetragrammaton\">divine name<\/a>. <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4<\/span> is written thousands of times, and it is read <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (<em>Adonai<\/em>, \u201cmy Lord\u201d). The <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Talmud\">Talmud<\/a> puts the principle in God\u2019s own mouth: \u201cI am not read as I am written. I am written with <em>yod<\/em> and <em>he<\/em>, and I am read with <em>alef<\/em> and <em>dalet<\/em>.\u201d<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-14\"><a href=\"#note-14\">14<\/a><\/sup> When the name stands next to <em>Adonai<\/em>, it is read <em>Elohim<\/em> instead, and pointed accordingly, as in Genesis 15:2, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b1\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b4\u05d4<\/span>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-15\"><a href=\"#note-15\">15<\/a><\/sup> Gordis regarded this as the oldest attested case of a word written one way and read another. The <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Septuagint\">Greek translators of the Pentateuch<\/a>, working in Egypt in the third century BCE, already rendered the name as <em>Kyrios<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-16\"><a href=\"#note-16\">16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Three other constant readings are confined to particular books or names. In the Pentateuch the feminine pronoun \u201cshe\u201d is usually written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span>, the same letters as \u201che\u201d, and pointed <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span> so that it is read <em>hi<\/em>. When Adam blames Eve in Genesis 3:12, \u201cshe gave me of the tree\u201d, the text has <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-17\"><a href=\"#note-17\">17<\/a><\/sup> The Pentateuch writes <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> only eleven times. In Genesis 20:5 both spellings stand in a single verse: <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Abimelech\">Abimelech<\/a> protests that Abraham said \u201cshe (<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span>) is my sister\u201d and that \u201cshe herself (<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span>) said, \u2018He is my brother\u2019\u201d. The <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Samaritan_Pentateuch\">Samaritan Pentateuch<\/a> writes <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> throughout. The older explanation, that this was an archaic pronoun used for both genders, was rejected by Gesenius\u2019 grammar, which treats it as a spelling habit of one branch of the Pentateuch\u2019s transmission.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-18\"><a href=\"#note-18\">18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The word for \u201cgirl\u201d works the same way. The Pentateuch usually writes <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8<\/span>, the consonants of \u201cboy\u201d, and points it as if a final <em>he<\/em> were present, so that it is read <em>na\u02bfarah<\/em>. When Abraham\u2019s servant prays at the well in Genesis 24:14, \u201clet the maiden to whom I say\u2026\u201d, the text has <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05e0\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8<\/span>, a word that ends in a vowel with no letter to carry it. The one exception is Deuteronomy 22:19, where the word is spelled in full.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-19\"><a href=\"#note-19\">19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The tribal name <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Issachar\">Issachar<\/a> is written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05e9\u05e9\u05db\u05e8<\/span>, with a second <em>sin<\/em> that is never pronounced. The Masoretes left that letter without a vowel, so the name is read <em>Yissakhar<\/em>. At Genesis 30:18, where Leah names the child, the Hebrew has <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05e9\u05db\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> and the JPS translation notes the wordplay on <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (<em>sekhari<\/em>, \u201cmy reward\u201d).<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-20\"><a href=\"#note-20\">20<\/a><\/sup> Finally, <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Jerusalem\">Jerusalem<\/a> is almost always written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd<\/span>, without the <em>yod<\/em> of the later spelling. The consonants suggest <em>Yerushalem<\/em>, but the Masoretes placed a <em>\u1e25ireq<\/em> between the <em>lamed<\/em> and the final <em>mem<\/em>, so the name is read <em>Yerushalayim<\/em>, as in the first mention of the city\u2019s king in Joshua 10:1.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-21\"><a href=\"#note-21\">21<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"read-but-not-written-written-but-not-read\">Read but Not Written, Written but Not Read<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two special kinds stretch the system further. Sometimes the Masorah tells the reader to say a word that is not in the text at all: <em>qere we-la ketiv<\/em>, \u201cread but not written\u201d. The manuscript then carries only the vowels, on blank parchment. At 2 Samuel 8:3, David defeats <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Hadadezer\">Hadadezer<\/a> \u201con his way to restore his monument at the river\u201d. The text has only <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8<\/span>, \u201cat the river\u201d. The reader adds <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea<\/span> (<em>Perat<\/em>, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Euphrates\">Euphrates<\/a>\u201d), as the Greek, the other versions and the parallel in 1 Chronicles 18:3 all have.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-22\"><a href=\"#note-22\">22<\/a><\/sup> In Ruth 3:17, <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Ruth_%28biblical_figure%29\">Ruth<\/a>\u2019s report \u201cfor he said to me\u201d has a \u201cto me\u201d, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (<em>elay<\/em>), that is spoken but not written.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-23\"><a href=\"#note-23\">23<\/a><\/sup> Jeremiah\u2019s promise that Jerusalem will be rebuilt, in 31:38, opens \u201cSee, days are coming\u201d, but the word for \u201care coming\u201d, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (<em>ba\u02beim<\/em>), has vowels and no letters. MAM prints it in square brackets on its own, with no written form beside it; the Talmud includes it in its list of such words.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-24\"><a href=\"#note-24\">24<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The opposite case, <em>ketiv we-la qere<\/em>, is a word written but not read. It is left without vowels. In Ruth 3:12 <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Boaz\">Boaz<\/a> says \u201cit is true that I am a redeemer\u201d, and between \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201credeemer\u201d the text has an extra <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05dd<\/span> (<em>im<\/em>, \u201cif\u201d), which is skipped in reading. In 2 Kings 5:18, <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Naaman\">Naaman<\/a>\u2019s plea \u201cmay the Lord forgive your servant\u201d contains a written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e0\u05d0<\/span> (<em>na<\/em>, \u201cplease\u201d) that is not pronounced.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-25\"><a href=\"#note-25\">25<\/a><\/sup> In Ezekiel 48:16 the measurements of the restored city give each side as four thousand five hundred cubits, but on the south side \u201cfive\u201d, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d7\u05de\u05e9<\/span> (<em>\u1e25amesh<\/em>), is written twice. The second, unvocalised copy is passed over, and the Talmud names it with Boaz\u2019s \u201cif\u201d among the words written but not read.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-26\"><a href=\"#note-26\">26<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-the-pairs-contain\">What the Pairs Contain<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"euphemism\">Euphemism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A baraita in the Babylonian Talmud states the principle plainly: \u201cAll of the verses that are written in the Torah in a coarse manner are read in a refined manner.\u201d Its examples are still marked in every Masoretic Bible.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-27\"><a href=\"#note-27\">27<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Among the curses of Deuteronomy 28, verse 30 threatens: \u201cIf you pay the bride-price for a wife, another man shall enjoy her.\u201d The written verb is <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05e9\u05d2\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4<\/span> (<em>yishgalennah<\/em>), which the rabbis considered crude. The reader says <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (<em>yishkavennah<\/em>, \u201cshall lie with her\u201d).<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-28\"><a href=\"#note-28\">28<\/a><\/sup> Three verses earlier, the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (<em>uva\u02bfofalim<\/em>), probably \u201cwith swellings\u201d, is read <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05d8\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (<em>uva\u1e6d\u1e6de\u1e25orim<\/em>). The same exchange appears five times in the story of the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Philistines\">Philistines<\/a> and the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Ark_of_the_Covenant\">Ark<\/a> in 1 Samuel 5\u20136.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-29\"><a href=\"#note-29\">29<\/a><\/sup> In 2 Kings 18:27, where the Assyrian <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Rabshakeh\">Rabshakeh<\/a> taunts the defenders of Jerusalem that they will \u201ceat their dung and drink their urine\u201d, both nouns are softened in reading.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-30\"><a href=\"#note-30\">30<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Talmud records a dissent. 2 Kings 10:27 says that <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Jehu\">Jehu<\/a> turned the temple of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Baal\">Baal<\/a> into <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea<\/span>, latrines, and the reading tradition softened the word. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor\u1e25a held that it should be read as written, because coarse language was permitted when used in contempt of idolatry.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-31\"><a href=\"#note-31\">31<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"grammar-spelling-and-sense\">Grammar, Spelling and Sense<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Most pairs are smaller. Many concern a single letter: <em>waw<\/em> against <em>yod<\/em>, which were easily confused in the square script, or a form that looks like a plural against one that looks singular. In Genesis 25:23 Rebekah is told that \u201ctwo nations\u201d are in her womb. The written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d2\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> has a <em>yod<\/em> where the reading <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (<em>goyim<\/em>) has a <em>waw<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-32\"><a href=\"#note-32\">32<\/a><\/sup> In Joshua 6:7 the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5<\/span> (\u201cand they said\u201d) is read <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (\u201cand he said\u201d), so that the instruction to march around <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Jericho\">Jericho<\/a> comes from Joshua alone.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-33\"><a href=\"#note-33\">33<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Some small differences carry real weight. In <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Psalm_100\">Psalm 100:3<\/a> the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5<\/span> means \u201cand not we\u201d, giving \u201cit is he who made us, and not we ourselves\u201d, the reading behind the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/King_James_Version\">King James Version<\/a>. The reader says <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (<em>we-lo<\/em>, \u201cand his\u201d): \u201che made us, and we are his\u201d. Psalm and verse turn on a single letter, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0<\/span> or <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5<\/span>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-34\"><a href=\"#note-34\">34<\/a><\/sup> The same pair, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05d0<\/span> (\u201cnot\u201d) against <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (\u201cto him\u201d), appears in Job 13:15. The written text gives the despairing line \u201cHe may slay me; I have no hope.\u201d The reading gives the famous \u201cThough he slay me, yet will I trust in him.\u201d The <a href=\"https:\/\/jps.org\/\">Jewish Publication Society<\/a>\u2019s recent translation follows the <em>ketiv<\/em> here and says so in a note.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-35\"><a href=\"#note-35\">35<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"old-variants\">Old Variants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Other pairs look like two different texts. At Joshua 3:16 the written text says the waters stood \u201cat Adam\u201d, while the <em>qere<\/em> says \u201cfrom Adam\u201d. At 2 Kings 16:6 the written text has the Arameans settling in <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Elath\">Elath<\/a>, while the <em>qere<\/em> has the Edomites. In Hebrew the two names differ only in the easily confused letters <em>resh<\/em> and <em>dalet<\/em>. At 2 Samuel 23:13 the written text speaks of \u201cthirty\u201d of David\u2019s warriors, while the <em>qere<\/em>, like the Greek, the other versions and 1 Chronicles 11:15, reads \u201cthree\u201d.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-36\"><a href=\"#note-36\">36<\/a><\/sup> Emanuel Tov points out that several <em>qere<\/em> readings are already found in ancient witnesses that are centuries older than the Masoretic manuscripts. At Leviticus 11:21, for example, the Greek and other versions follow the <em>qere<\/em> <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (\u201cwhich have\u201d) against the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05d0<\/span> (\u201cnot\u201d).<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-37\"><a href=\"#note-37\">37<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"an-odd-letter-in-isaiah\">An Odd Letter in Isaiah<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Book_of_Isaiah\">Isaiah 9:6<\/a>, part of the passage read at Christmas as \u201cFor unto us a child is born\u201d, begins in the reading tradition with <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (<em>le-marbeh<\/em>, \u201cof the increase of\u201d). The written text divides the word in two, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4<\/span>, so that a final, closed <em>mem<\/em> appears in the middle of the phrase. Jewish commentators drew lessons from the anomaly, and Gordis records that Christian interpreters found the name of Mary hidden in it.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-38\"><a href=\"#note-38\">38<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-types-at-a-glance\">The Types at a Glance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main kinds of pair can be set out with one example each.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-39\"><a href=\"#note-39\">39<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><thead><tr><th>Type<\/th><th>Verse<\/th><th>Written (<em>ketiv<\/em>)<\/th><th>Read (<em>qere<\/em>)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Euphemism<\/td><td>Deut 28:30<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05e9\u05d2\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4<\/span><\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Waw<\/em> and <em>yod<\/em><\/td><td>Gen 25:23<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d2\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd<\/span><\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd<\/span><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Word division<\/td><td>Isa 9:6<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4<\/span><\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Different word<\/td><td>2 Kgs 20:4<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (\u201cthe city\u201d)<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (\u201ccourt\u201d)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Shorter and longer form<\/td><td>Jer 42:6<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5<\/span><\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Read but not written<\/td><td>2 Sam 8:3<\/td><td>\u2014<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea<\/span><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Written but not read<\/td><td>Ruth 3:12<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05dd<\/span><\/td><td>\u2014<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Constant reading<\/td><td>Gen 3:12<\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span><\/td><td><span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span> (<em>hi<\/em>)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-rabbis-and-the-reading\">The Rabbis and the Reading<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"a-law-given-to-moses-at-sinai\">\u201cA Law Given to Moses at Sinai\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The clearest early discussion is in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b\u201338a. Rabbi Yitz\u1e25ak lists four things that are \u201chalakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai\u201d: the vocalisation of the scribes, the ornamentation of the scribes, words that are read but not written, and words that are written but not read. The Gemara then gives examples. Among words read but not written are \u201cEuphrates\u201d in 2 Samuel 8:3, \u201ccome\u201d in Jeremiah 31:38, and \u201cto me\u201d in Ruth 3:17. Among words written but not read are the \u201cplease\u201d of 2 Kings 5:18, \u201cbend\u201d in Jeremiah 51:3, \u201cfive\u201d in Ezekiel 48:16, and the \u201cif\u201d of Ruth 3:12.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-40\"><a href=\"#note-40\">40<\/a><\/sup> The examples are exactly those still marked in the Masorah. Elsewhere the Talmud notes that in 2 Kings 20:4 \u201cit is written \u2018the city\u2019, but we read \u2018court\u2019\u201d, which again matches the later marginal note.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-41\"><a href=\"#note-41\">41<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Synagogue practice kept the two forms strictly apart. A Torah scroll must be written with the <em>ketiv<\/em>, and the reader must pronounce the <em>qere<\/em>. Gordis notes that <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Maimonides\">Maimonides<\/a> and the <em><a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Arba'ah_Turim\">\u1e6cur<\/a><\/em> disqualify a scroll in which the <em>qere<\/em> has been written into the text in place of the <em>ketiv<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-42\"><a href=\"#note-42\">42<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"three-scrolls-in-the-temple-court\">Three Scrolls in the Temple Court<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A tradition preserved in several rabbinic works describes a different kind of decision. Three Torah scrolls were kept, or found, in the Temple court. They differed in small details, and in each case the sages kept the reading of two scrolls and set aside the reading of one. One scroll had <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (<em>me\u02bfon<\/em>, \u201cdwelling\u201d) in Deuteronomy 33:27, where the others had the feminine form <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (<em>me\u02bfonah<\/em>). One called the young men sent to offer sacrifices in Exodus 24:5 by the rare word <em>za\u02bfa\u1e6du\u1e6de<\/em> instead of <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (<em>na\u02bfare<\/em>). And the scrolls disagreed on how many times the Pentateuch spells the feminine pronoun \u201cshe\u201d as <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span>, rather than with the usual Pentateuchal spelling, which looks like the masculine <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0<\/span>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-43\"><a href=\"#note-43\">43<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The story is not about <em>ketiv<\/em> and <em>qere<\/em> as such. Still, it shows a method of fixing a text by comparing copies, and it has been used to explain them. Tov suggests, cautiously, that when such a comparison was made the <em>qere<\/em> might preserve a majority reading and the <em>ketiv<\/em> a minority one. He also notes the difficulty: if so, why was the majority reading not simply written into the text?<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-44\"><a href=\"#note-44\">44<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"not-the-same-as-do-not-read\">Not the Same as \u201cDo Not Read\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The rabbis had another formula that is easily confused with the <em>qere<\/em>. A sermon may say \u201cdo not read (<em>al tiqre<\/em>) X, but Y\u201d, playing on a different vocalisation or spelling to draw out a lesson. In <em>Berakhot<\/em> 64a, Isaiah 54:13, \u201call your children (<em>banayikh<\/em>) shall be taught of the Lord\u201d, is read as \u201cyour builders (<em>bonayikh<\/em>)\u201d. Tov stresses that such formulas are exegetical wordplay, not readings that the rabbis knew from manuscripts, although a few happen to coincide with variants now found at <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Qumran\">Qumran<\/a>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-45\"><a href=\"#note-45\">45<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"why-two-texts-four-centuries-of-explanations\">Why Two Texts? Four Centuries of Explanations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"medieval-answers\">Medieval Answers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Gordis traces the debate from the Middle Ages. The earliest recorded view, that of Profiat Duran in his <em>Ma\u02bfaseh Efod<\/em>, was that <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Ezra\">Ezra<\/a> and his successors found conflicting manuscripts and recorded their doubt through the <em>ketiv<\/em> and <em>qere<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/David_Kimhi\">David Kim\u1e25i<\/a>, in the introduction to his commentary on the Former Prophets, blamed the Babylonian exile for scattering scholars and corrupting copies.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-46\"><a href=\"#note-46\">46<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Isaac_Abarbanel\">Isaac Abravanel<\/a>, in the introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, took the opposite line. If the <em>qere<\/em> were only a variant, he asked, why must it always be read? He argued that Ezra found irregularities of language in the text, which he would not alter, and wrote his corrections in the margin. Jeremiah has so many <em>qere<\/em> readings, Abravanel suggested, because the prophet himself wrote carelessly. Gordis observes that a view which found errors in the biblical authors was bound to cause offence.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-47\"><a href=\"#note-47\">47<\/a><\/sup> Others, including <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Nachmanides\">Na\u1e25manides<\/a>, Jacob ben Hayyim and <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Elia_Levita\">Elias Levita<\/a>, saw mysteries in the pairs.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-48\"><a href=\"#note-48\">48<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"counting-and-classifying\">Counting and Classifying<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Christian Hebraists took up the question in the age of the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/the-vowel-point-controversy-who-pointed-the-hebrew-bible\/\">vowel-point controversy<\/a>. The Buxtorfs, father and son, defended the variant view. Louis Cappel proposed a mixed theory in his <em>Critica sacra<\/em> (1650): some <em>qere<\/em> readings were manuscript variants, some were euphemisms, and some were corrections that the Masoretes, out of reverence, confined to the margin. Gordis says that this \u201ceclectic\u201d view was still the dominant one in his own day.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-49\"><a href=\"#note-49\">49<\/a><\/sup> In 1692 Matthias Hiller argued that Ezra had deliberately varied synonyms when he wrote more than one copy, and that the variants were later gathered into a single manuscript. Johann Gottlob Carpzov\u2019s <em>Critica sacra<\/em> (1728) blamed the persecution of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes\">Antiochus IV<\/a> and the destruction of Torah scrolls in the 160s BCE.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-50\"><a href=\"#note-50\">50<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The counts varied as widely as the theories. Levita fixed the number at 848, a figure Gordis notes is also the numerical value of the Hebrew words <em>qeryan u-ketivan<\/em>, \u201c<em>qere<\/em> readings and <em>ketiv<\/em> forms\u201d. Cappel found 1,548 in Jacob ben Hayyim\u2019s Bible and 1,566 in the Antwerp edition printed by Plantin. Jean Morin counted 1,544 in ben Hayyim\u2019s edition. Gordis, collating the editions of Baer and Ginsburg against ben Hayyim\u2019s Masorah and Norzi\u2019s <em>Min\u1e25at Shai<\/em>, arrived at 1,350, and admitted that his figure \u201ccan make no claim to finality\u201d.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-51\"><a href=\"#note-51\">51<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"modern-theories\">Modern Theories<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"corrections\">Corrections?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The simplest modern answer was that each <em>qere<\/em> corrects an error in the <em>ketiv<\/em>. Hermann Strack and Christian Ginsburg held this view in its pure form.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-52\"><a href=\"#note-52\">52<\/a><\/sup> Tov sets out the objections. Exactly the same word is sometimes the <em>ketiv<\/em> in one verse and the <em>qere<\/em> in another. A form \u201ccorrected\u201d in one place is left alone elsewhere: the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05e9\u05dd<\/span> of Genesis 24:33 is read <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05dd<\/span>, but the same spelling in Genesis 50:26 carries no note. Some <em>qere<\/em> forms are less plausible than the <em>ketiv<\/em>, such as the imperative <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0<\/span>, read for the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0<\/span> in Genesis 8:17. And the <em>qere<\/em> is almost always close to the <em>ketiv<\/em> in its letters, which would be strange if editors had been correcting freely.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-53\"><a href=\"#note-53\">53<\/a><\/sup> Gordis put numbers on the point. By his reckoning the <em>qere<\/em> is the better reading in only 18 per cent of cases, the <em>ketiv<\/em> is better in 12 per cent, and in 62 per cent the two are equally good.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-54\"><a href=\"#note-54\">54<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"variants\">Variants?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Harry Orlinsky argued that the <em>qere<\/em> readings began as variants copied into the margins from one or more other manuscripts. Many pairs are indeed the same kinds of small difference, such as similar letters exchanged, that separate manuscripts everywhere, and some <em>qere<\/em> readings are attested in ancient translations. Against this, Tov notes that a manuscript tradition would hardly produce only one alternative in every case. A compromise is that a single manuscript was collated against another source, or against the majority of several, and the differences were noted.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-55\"><a href=\"#note-55\">55<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"guides-then-variants\">Guides, Then Variants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Gordis\u2019s own answer was historical. He began from the literal sense of the terms. The earliest <em>qere<\/em> readings, he argued, were instructions to the synagogue reader: say <em>Adonai<\/em> for the divine name, use a decent word for an indecent one, and, in a text without vowels, read an ambiguous word correctly. Later, when one manuscript was adopted as the standard copy, good readings from other respected manuscripts were noted in its margin. These became the remaining <em>qere<\/em> readings, while the <em>ketiv<\/em> preserved the text of the standard copy. Gordis rejected the common date for that choice, 135 CE, and argued that it must be earlier than the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29\">destruction of the Temple in 70 CE<\/a>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-56\"><a href=\"#note-56\">56<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"a-reading-tradition\">A Reading Tradition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A fourth view, associated with S. Levin, Mordechai Breuer and James Barr, holds that the <em>qere<\/em> did not come from written sources at all but from the oral reading tradition. Barr pointed out that a manuscript never gives more than one <em>qere<\/em>, which is what one would expect if the source were a single remembered way of reading aloud.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-57\"><a href=\"#note-57\">57<\/a><\/sup> Tov concludes that most scholars now hold an intermediate view: some <em>qere<\/em> readings began as corrections, and the notation was later used for optional variants, which in time became obligatory. On that view most of the pairs are an ancient collection of variants.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-58\"><a href=\"#note-58\">58<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"east-and-west\">East and West<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <em>ketiv<\/em> and <em>qere<\/em> were not identical everywhere. The Masoretic lists record differences between the <em>Madin\u1e25a\u02bee<\/em>, the \u201cEasterners\u201d of Babylonia, and the <em>Ma\u02bfarba\u02bee<\/em>, the \u201cWesterners\u201d of the Land of Israel. Sometimes a word that was a <em>ketiv<\/em>\u2013<em>qere<\/em> pair for one school was simply written one way by the other. Gordis showed that many of these Eastern readings were much older than the schools themselves, since they are reflected in the Greek, the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Peshitta\">Peshitta<\/a>, the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Vulgate\">Vulgate<\/a> and the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Targum\">Targums<\/a>. He also noted that the Babylonian Talmud quotes the Eastern form three times, including two words read but not written in <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-59\"><a href=\"#note-59\">59<\/a><\/sup> The Easterners had their own system of vowel signs as well, now known as the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/babylonian-vocalisation-the-eastern-pointing-of-the-hebrew-bible\/\">Babylonian vocalisation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ketiv-and-qere-today\">Ketiv and Qere Today<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Every modern edition has to decide how to show the pairs. <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/biblia-hebraica-quinta-the-fifth-edition-of-the-hebrew-bible\/\">Biblia Hebraica Quinta<\/a> prints the Leningrad Codex with its Masorah, so the marginal notes stand as the scribe wrote them, and its apparatus reports cases of <em>ketiv<\/em> and <em>qere<\/em> wherever they affect the meaning.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-60\"><a href=\"#note-60\">60<\/a><\/sup> Translators also have to choose. Most follow the <em>qere<\/em>, but not always, as the Jewish Publication Society\u2019s notes on Job 13:15 and Jeremiah 2:20 show. In the latter verse, Israel\u2019s boast is translated \u201cI will not work!\u201d, following the written <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3<\/span>, rather than \u201cI will not transgress\u201d, following the <em>qere<\/em> <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b6\u05e2\u05b1\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-61\"><a href=\"#note-61\">61<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The system still works much as the Masoretes designed it. The written text keeps the letters exactly as they were received. The vowels, the marginal notes and the voice of the reader carry the way those letters were to be heard. Neither replaces the other. That, more than any single theory of their origin, is what the <em>ketiv<\/em> and <em>qere<\/em> show: a scribal culture that preferred to keep two forms side by side, under strict rules, rather than lose either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"notes\">Notes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list post-notes\">\n\n<li id=\"note-1\">Genesis 30:11 in <em>Miqra according to the Masorah<\/em> (MAM), on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Genesis.30.11\">Sefaria<\/a>; English glosses after <em>The JPS Tanakh: Gender-Sensitive Edition<\/em>, note ad loc. (\u201cSo the kethib, which reads <em>begad<\/em>; the qere reads <em>ba\u02be gad<\/em> \u2018luck has come\u2019\u201d). <a href=\"#ref-1\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-2\">Emanuel Tov, <em>Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible<\/em>, 2nd rev. edn (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001), p. 58 (\u201cranging from 848 to 1566 in the different traditions\u201d); Robert Gordis, <em>The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere<\/em> (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1937), pp. 2, 8\u20139. <a href=\"#ref-2\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-3\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 7 n. 1. <a href=\"#ref-3\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-4\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 58. <a href=\"#ref-4\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-5\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 7\u20138. <a href=\"#ref-5\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-6\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 58, citing the Koren and Adi editions. <a href=\"#ref-6\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-7\">MAM, Genesis 30:11, on Sefaria. The edition\u2019s conventions are described in its version notes there. <a href=\"#ref-7\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-8\">Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a717 a. <a href=\"#ref-8\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-9\">Jeremiah 42:6 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Jeremiah.42.6\">Sefaria<\/a>, where the pair appears as (<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5<\/span>) [<span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span>]; Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a717 a. <a href=\"#ref-9\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-10\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 59, citing Yeivin. <a href=\"#ref-10\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-11\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 59, 227; Joshua 10:24 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Joshua.10.24\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-11\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-12\">On MAM\u2019s basis in the Aleppo Codex and related manuscripts, see the version notes to <em>Miqra according to the Masorah<\/em> on Sefaria; Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 58\u201359. <a href=\"#ref-12\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-13\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 59. <a href=\"#ref-13\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-14\">Babylonian Talmud, <em>Pesa\u1e25im<\/em> 50a, William Davidson translation, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Pesachim.50a\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-14\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-15\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 59; Genesis 15:2 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-15\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-16\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 29\u201330. <a href=\"#ref-16\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-17\">Genesis 3:12 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Genesis.3.12\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-17\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-18\">Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a732 l; Genesis 20:5 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Genesis.20.5\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-18\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-19\">Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a717 c; Genesis 24:14 and Deuteronomy 22:19 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-19\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-20\">Genesis 30:18 in MAM and the JPS translation, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Genesis.30.18\">Sefaria<\/a>; Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a717 c. <a href=\"#ref-20\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-21\">Joshua 10:1 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Joshua.10.1\">Sefaria<\/a>; Wilhelm Gesenius, <em>Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), \u00a717 c, which notes that the form is \u201cproperly\u201d <em>Yerushalem<\/em>. <a href=\"#ref-21\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-22\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 60; 2 Samuel 8:3 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-22\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-23\">Ruth 3:17 in MAM, on Sefaria; Babylonian Talmud, <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b. <a href=\"#ref-23\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-24\">Jeremiah 31:38 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Jeremiah.31.38\">Sefaria<\/a>; Babylonian Talmud <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b lists it among the words read but not written (the Sefaria translation cites the verse as Jeremiah 31:37), on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Nedarim.37b\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-24\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-25\">Ruth 3:12 and 2 Kings 5:18 in MAM, on Sefaria; Babylonian Talmud, <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b\u201338a. <a href=\"#ref-25\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-26\">Ezekiel 48:16 in MAM, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Ezekiel.48.16\">Sefaria<\/a>; Babylonian Talmud <em>Nedarim<\/em> 38a, which lists Jeremiah 51:3, Ezekiel 48:16 and Ruth 3:12 together, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Nedarim.38a\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-26\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-27\">Babylonian Talmud, <em>Megillah<\/em> 25b, William Davidson translation, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Megillah.25b\">Sefaria<\/a>. <a href=\"#ref-27\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-28\">Deuteronomy 28:30 in MAM, on Sefaria; <em>Megillah<\/em> 25b; Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 63. Tov notes the same pair in Isaiah 13:16, Jeremiah 3:2 and Zechariah 14:2. <a href=\"#ref-28\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-29\">Deuteronomy 28:27 and 1 Samuel 5:6 in MAM, on Sefaria; Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 63, listing 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 5. <a href=\"#ref-29\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-30\">2 Kings 18:27 in MAM, on Sefaria; <em>Megillah<\/em> 25b. <a href=\"#ref-30\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-31\"><em>Megillah<\/em> 25b. <a href=\"#ref-31\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-32\">Genesis 25:23 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-32\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-33\">Joshua 6:7 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-33\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-34\">Psalm 100:3 in MAM, on Sefaria, with the JPS note (\u201cSo qere; kethib and some ancient versions \u2018not we ourselves\u2019\u201d). <a href=\"#ref-34\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-35\">Job 13:15 in MAM, on Sefaria, with the JPS note (\u201cSo with kethib\u201d). <a href=\"#ref-35\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-36\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 61\u201362. <a href=\"#ref-36\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-37\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 62, citing Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 55\u201356. <a href=\"#ref-37\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-38\">Isaiah 9:6 in MAM, on Sefaria; Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 13 n. 31. <a href=\"#ref-38\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-39\">Verse texts from MAM on Sefaria; classification after Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, and Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 58\u201363. <a href=\"#ref-39\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-40\">Babylonian Talmud, <em>Nedarim<\/em> 37b\u201338a, William Davidson translation, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Nedarim.37b\">Sefaria<\/a>. The Talmud cites Jeremiah\u2019s verse as 31:37, following a different verse division. <a href=\"#ref-40\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-41\">Babylonian Talmud, <em>\u02bfEruvin<\/em> 26a, as cited in Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 59. <a href=\"#ref-41\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-42\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 15\u201316 and n. 3, citing Maimonides, <em>Mishneh Torah<\/em>, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 7:11, and <em>\u1e6cur<\/em>, Yoreh De\u02bfah 275. <a href=\"#ref-42\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-43\"><em>Sifrei Devarim<\/em> 356, trans. Martin Jaffee, on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Sifrei_Devarim.356\">Sefaria<\/a>; Jerusalem Talmud, <em>Ta\u02bfanit<\/em> 4:2, trans. Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, on Sefaria; <em>Soferim<\/em> 6:4, trans. A. Cohen, on Sefaria. The versions differ in their details, including the count of the irregular pronouns. <a href=\"#ref-43\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-44\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 62 n. 42. <a href=\"#ref-44\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-45\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 59 and n. 40. <a href=\"#ref-45\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-46\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 9. <a href=\"#ref-46\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-47\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 12\u201313. <a href=\"#ref-47\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-48\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 13 n. 31. <a href=\"#ref-48\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-49\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 9, 13\u201314 and n. 32. <a href=\"#ref-49\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-50\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 10\u201311. <a href=\"#ref-50\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-51\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 8\u20139. <a href=\"#ref-51\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-52\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 13. <a href=\"#ref-52\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-53\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 60\u201361; Genesis 8:17 and 24:33 in MAM, on Sefaria. <a href=\"#ref-53\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-54\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, p. 3. <a href=\"#ref-54\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-55\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, pp. 61\u201362, citing H. M. Orlinsky, \u201cThe Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach\u201d, <em>VTSup<\/em> 7 (1960), pp. 184\u201392. <a href=\"#ref-55\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-56\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 3\u20135. <a href=\"#ref-56\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-57\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 63, citing J. Barr, \u201cA New Look at Kethibh-Qere\u201d, <em>OTS<\/em> 21 (1981), pp. 19\u201337. <a href=\"#ref-57\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-58\">Tov, <em>Textual Criticism<\/em>, p. 63. <a href=\"#ref-58\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-59\">Gordis, <em>Biblical Text<\/em>, pp. 70\u201371, 77. <a href=\"#ref-59\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-60\">David L. Baker, \u201cWhich Hebrew Bible? Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Hebrew University Bible, Oxford Hebrew Bible, and Other Modern Editions\u201d, <em>Tyndale Bulletin<\/em> 61.2 (2010), pp. 214\u201315. <a href=\"#ref-60\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n<li id=\"note-61\">Jeremiah 2:20 and Job 13:15 in MAM, on Sefaria, with the JPS notes. <a href=\"#ref-61\" aria-label=\"Back to text\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\n\n<\/ol>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When Leah\u2019s maid Zilpah bears Jacob a son, Leah names him Gad. The Hebrew text of Genesis 30:11 records her words in a way that puzzles every new reader of a Hebrew&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":504,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hebrew-language-script","category-text-transmission"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/503\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}