Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

In the genealogical account of Esau’s descendants, Genesis 36:39 records, “And Baal-Hanan the son of Acbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Pau, and the name of his wife was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab.” In some manuscripts—including the Samaritans, Syriac, and certain Hebrew MSS—the reading is “Hadad” instead of “Hadar.” This difference arises from the similarity between the Hebrew letters dalet and resh, which were easily confused by scribes.

“1 Chronicles 1:50” confirms this variant with the text:
“Baal-hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place, the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.”
The external evidence noting “Hadad” is acknowledged; however, the Masoretic text—represented in the Updated American Standard Version—remains the foundational witness for the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Primacy of the Masoretic Text

The Masoretic text, preserved in manuscripts such as the Codex Leningrad and the Aleppo Codex, is the primary authority for the Hebrew Old Testament. Its careful transmission by generations of Jewish scribe-scholars, particularly the Masoretes from the 6th to the 10th century C.E., guarantees the reliability of its wording. This text is the starting point for textual criticism and is adopted unless there is an overwhelming burden of evidence to alter its reading. Although no text is without minor imperfections, external sources must meet a heavy standard before they can override the Masoretic text.

Analysis of the Variant

The variant in Genesis 36:39—“Hadar” in the Masoretic text versus “Hadad” in some external witnesses—is a prime example of a scribal uncertainty. The similarity between the Hebrew letters dalet (ד) and resh (ר) accounts for this discrepancy. Although 1 Chronicles 1:50 supports the “Hadad” reading, the internal consistency and meticulous preservation of the Masoretic text compel us to retain “Hadar” in Genesis. The textual variant is noted but does not undermine the overall reliability of the Masoretic tradition.

Weighing External Evidence

The external evidence is evaluated by first consulting the original language manuscripts. The Codex Leningrad and the Aleppo Codex serve as the standard bearers for the Hebrew Scriptures. When ancient translations—the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Syriac, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate—differ from the Masoretic text, their readings are not adopted unless there is a heavy burden of proof. For example, the Septuagint was once esteemed by Jews as divinely inspired; however, by the first century C.E. the Jews reverted exclusively to the Hebrew Scriptures, and the subsequent production of other Greek translations in the second century C.E. further underscored the primacy of the consonantal text. The work of the Sopherim from the time of Ezra until the advent of the Masoretes is acknowledged, yet it is the later Masoretic tradition—with its comprehensive marginal notes, the Small Masora, Large Masora, and Final Masora—that ensures the text’s fidelity. Every external witness is carefully considered, but unless all evidence indicates a corruption in the Masoretic text, its reading remains unchallenged.

Historical Context and Transmission

The process of textual transmission was rigorous. Scribes from the time of Ezra down to the era of Jesus—often called the Sopherim—worked to copy the Scriptures accurately, albeit with occasional unintentional errors. From the 6th to the 10th century C.E., the Masoretes perfected the art of textual preservation. They employed cross-checking methods by noting unusual word forms and counting letters in the margins to ensure accuracy. These practices established a stable transmission that modern textual criticism respects. The external evidence from other ancient sources, while valuable for identifying potential scribal errors, reinforces rather than undermines the high standard achieved by the Masoretes.

Conclusion

The textual variant in Genesis 36:39 is best understood as a minor scribal uncertainty resulting from the similarity between two Hebrew letters. The Masoretic text, maintained with scrupulous care by the Masoretes, provides the authoritative reading. External evidence—including the Septuagint and Syriac witnesses—is carefully weighed against this standard, and only with a heavy burden of proof could it justify departing from the Masoretic tradition. The reliability of the Masoretic text confirms that the historical account of Esau’s descendants is transmitted with remarkable precision.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does Historical-Archaeological Evidence Support the Textual Reliability of the Old Testament?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).