This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Previously, this stub was published stating that כְּתִיב meant "to be written," as a passive infinitive. The Aramaic form XĕXîX is analogous to the Hebrew form XāXûX. Thus, כְּתִיב means the same as כָּתוּב in Hebrew, which is "written" as a passive participle. "To be written" would be expressed with an infinitive, as in the Hebrew לְהִתְכַּתֵּב (correction: לְהִכַּתֵּב; see below). - Yonah mishael 05:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, we need to find a way to resolve the content fork. Kethib really is not the best way to transliterate כתיב/ܟܬܝܒ. We should be able to resolve these issues in such a way as to honor older labelling traditions (perhaps by including them as possible transliterations) while listing the entries in more accurately-transliterated forms. - Yonah mishael 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Kethib is a problematic transliteration. The th (in appearance [θ] or [ð], but really [t]) represents the soft form of tav ת, which is written with aspiration on account of the lack of dagesh (תּ). It is inconsistent because the bet ב is also aspirated and would -- if this transliteration were consistent -- come across as bh, with the resultant form of Kethibh.
The better transliteration would be one that is recognizable to an English reader who has not been versed in transliteration schemes. This would be ketiv, which represents the apirated form of bet. Since the title of this article is based on a very imprecise transliteration, the article should be merged with Ketiv -- in other words, this article should be deleted. - Yonah mishael 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Hebrew article on this subject, and it is noteworthy that both the "Kethib" (= Ketiv, Kethiv) and the " Qere" (= Q're, Kerei) are included in a single, more expansive, article. Can we not combine the two and redirect it all on to one page so that the subject could be treated more completely without any content forks at all? What do you think? - Yonah mishael
Per the comment above, I am merging the two to a single article, Qere and Ketiv. It makes much more sense to take them together comprehensively on the one page. I'll use a move, so the new article will retain the history of this page. The individual words (and their variant spellings) will forward to there, as redirects.
IMO the spelling "Ketiv" is to be preferred. It's the spelling used by Encyclopedia Judaica, and by Kelley et al in The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The three are all about even in a google fight: "qere ketiv -wikipedia" gets 1380, "qere kethib -wikipedia" 1220, "qere ketib -wikipedia" 1690. -- Jheald 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Q're perpetuum has also been merged into this article, in the section Qere and Ketiv#Qere perpetuum. HYC ( talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We now have two paragraphs on Q're perpetuum right before the article section on Q're perpetuum... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot more on this in the relevant sections of article Tetragrammaton , but I don't feel like coercing the format of those citations (some to sources that I haven't personally seen) to fit this article... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this? Ty. -- Adamgold33 ( talk) 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I restored some material that was deleted along with a brief description of the meaning of Elokim. Regarding the meaning, I wouldn't say that it is "contested" or unknown. In Jewish traditional literature, especially in Kabbalah, all the meanings are unified quite nicely:
This is done by associating Elokim with the attribute of Gevurah, or power and constriction (in contrast, the Tetragrammaton itself is the attribute of unlimited kindness and revelation):
However, lacking a list of exact sources, I have refrained from restoring my explanation that Elokim refers to G-d as an all-powerful G-d for now, leaving only the citation from the Kestenbaum Tikkun and that Elokim is another Divine name. (In fact, if written in ink or engraved, halachah forbids erasing it, it being one of the seven sheimos she'eino nimchakim). And, a lengthy explanation is beyond the scope of this article's proper. I would like to edit the Elokim article, but that appears to be a difficult project for which I may not have time for a while. Musashiaharon ( talk) 10:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Qere and Ketiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Previously, this stub was published stating that כְּתִיב meant "to be written," as a passive infinitive. The Aramaic form XĕXîX is analogous to the Hebrew form XāXûX. Thus, כְּתִיב means the same as כָּתוּב in Hebrew, which is "written" as a passive participle. "To be written" would be expressed with an infinitive, as in the Hebrew לְהִתְכַּתֵּב (correction: לְהִכַּתֵּב; see below). - Yonah mishael 05:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, we need to find a way to resolve the content fork. Kethib really is not the best way to transliterate כתיב/ܟܬܝܒ. We should be able to resolve these issues in such a way as to honor older labelling traditions (perhaps by including them as possible transliterations) while listing the entries in more accurately-transliterated forms. - Yonah mishael 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Kethib is a problematic transliteration. The th (in appearance [θ] or [ð], but really [t]) represents the soft form of tav ת, which is written with aspiration on account of the lack of dagesh (תּ). It is inconsistent because the bet ב is also aspirated and would -- if this transliteration were consistent -- come across as bh, with the resultant form of Kethibh.
The better transliteration would be one that is recognizable to an English reader who has not been versed in transliteration schemes. This would be ketiv, which represents the apirated form of bet. Since the title of this article is based on a very imprecise transliteration, the article should be merged with Ketiv -- in other words, this article should be deleted. - Yonah mishael 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Hebrew article on this subject, and it is noteworthy that both the "Kethib" (= Ketiv, Kethiv) and the " Qere" (= Q're, Kerei) are included in a single, more expansive, article. Can we not combine the two and redirect it all on to one page so that the subject could be treated more completely without any content forks at all? What do you think? - Yonah mishael
Per the comment above, I am merging the two to a single article, Qere and Ketiv. It makes much more sense to take them together comprehensively on the one page. I'll use a move, so the new article will retain the history of this page. The individual words (and their variant spellings) will forward to there, as redirects.
IMO the spelling "Ketiv" is to be preferred. It's the spelling used by Encyclopedia Judaica, and by Kelley et al in The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The three are all about even in a google fight: "qere ketiv -wikipedia" gets 1380, "qere kethib -wikipedia" 1220, "qere ketib -wikipedia" 1690. -- Jheald 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Q're perpetuum has also been merged into this article, in the section Qere and Ketiv#Qere perpetuum. HYC ( talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We now have two paragraphs on Q're perpetuum right before the article section on Q're perpetuum... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot more on this in the relevant sections of article Tetragrammaton , but I don't feel like coercing the format of those citations (some to sources that I haven't personally seen) to fit this article... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this? Ty. -- Adamgold33 ( talk) 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I restored some material that was deleted along with a brief description of the meaning of Elokim. Regarding the meaning, I wouldn't say that it is "contested" or unknown. In Jewish traditional literature, especially in Kabbalah, all the meanings are unified quite nicely:
This is done by associating Elokim with the attribute of Gevurah, or power and constriction (in contrast, the Tetragrammaton itself is the attribute of unlimited kindness and revelation):
However, lacking a list of exact sources, I have refrained from restoring my explanation that Elokim refers to G-d as an all-powerful G-d for now, leaving only the citation from the Kestenbaum Tikkun and that Elokim is another Divine name. (In fact, if written in ink or engraved, halachah forbids erasing it, it being one of the seven sheimos she'eino nimchakim). And, a lengthy explanation is beyond the scope of this article's proper. I would like to edit the Elokim article, but that appears to be a difficult project for which I may not have time for a while. Musashiaharon ( talk) 10:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Qere and Ketiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)