GENESIS 46:23: A Textual Analysis of “Hushim” vs. “Hashum”

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

$5.00

The Hebrew Text (Masoretic Tradition)

The Masoretic Text (MT), represented in authoritative manuscripts such as the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.) and the Aleppo Codex (10th century C.E.), preserves the reading חֻשִׁים (“Hushim”) in Genesis 46:23. This form is a plural masculine noun, consistent with the phrase “the sons of Dan,” although only one name is provided. The plural form has been the basis of significant discussion in textual criticism, especially given the singular nature of the Septuagint (LXX) reading.

The phrase in the MT is:

וּבְנֵי־דָן חֻשִּׁים׃
“And the sons of Dan: Hushim.”

This phrasing is syntactically consistent with the listings throughout Genesis 46, which detail the descendants of Jacob who went to Egypt during the famine (circa 1707 B.C.E.). The MT maintains uniformity in listing the sons of each of Jacob’s sons, even when a tribe, such as Dan, had only one prominent descendant recorded at this time.

Septuagint (LXX) Witness

The Greek Septuagint (LXX), originating in the 3rd–2nd centuries B.C.E. and preserved in codices such as Vaticanus (4th century C.E.), Alexandrinus (5th century C.E.), and Sinaiticus (4th century C.E.), renders this verse differently. Instead of “Hushim,” it reads “Hashoum” (Ἀσοὺμ or Ἀσούμ in some manuscripts), reflecting the Greek transliteration of an alternate Hebrew name: חָשׁוּם.

This variation raises questions of textual transmission. The name “Hashum” (חָשׁוּם) is otherwise known in Scripture as a post-exilic name (cf. Ezra 2:19; Nehemiah 7:22), associated with returnees from Babylon in 537 B.C.E., not with the sons of Dan in Genesis 46.

Comparative Manuscript Evidence

There are no significant variants among the Dead Sea Scrolls for Genesis 46:23, as no extant fragment preserves this portion of the text in any of the Qumran scrolls. The Samaritan Pentateuch, which reflects a proto-Masoretic tradition, also agrees with the MT in retaining “Hushim.” The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the late 4th century C.E., reads “Husim,” in direct correspondence with the MT reading.

The Syriac Peshitta and Targum Onkelos both support the reading “Hushim.” The Peshitta, translated from a Hebrew Vorlage similar to the MT in the 2nd century C.E., preserves the consonantal structure faithfully. The Aramaic Targums, particularly Targum Onkelos, also maintain the name חֻשִׁים transliterated into Aramaic without alteration.

Analysis of the Variant “Hashum”

The Septuagint’s variant “Hashum” may have arisen from a scribal misunderstanding or an alternate Vorlage. However, this reading is not supported by any known Hebrew manuscript tradition, nor does it appear in any ancient versions other than the Greek. The substitution of “Hashum” for “Hushim” may reflect either a scribal error in Greek transmission or confusion due to the relative obscurity of the name “Hushim” and the known post-exilic figure “Hashum.”

Given that “Hushim” is plural and consistent with “sons of Dan” (בְּנֵי־דָן), and that “Hashum” is singular and unrelated to Dan’s lineage, the MT reading must be considered original. The weight of textual evidence overwhelmingly supports “Hushim” as authentic.

Paleographical and Linguistic Considerations

The similarity in Hebrew orthography between חֻשִׁים and חָשׁוּם could have contributed to the LXX translator’s confusion, especially in an uncial script where rounded and similarly shaped characters might be misread. In earlier scripts, especially in the paleo-Hebrew or transitional square script, the letters שׁ and שׂ could be confused if not properly pointed, although they are distinct in pronunciation and meaning. The presence of a final mem in “Hashum” rather than the final mem-sofit in “Hushim” would also indicate a misreading or reanalysis, not a faithful translation.

Genealogical and Theological Implications

The presence of only one name under Dan, rendered in the plural as “sons,” may suggest a clan formed from Hushim’s lineage or that other sons were not named due to lack of prominence. The textual integrity of this passage is crucial for preserving the genealogical structure leading into the Exodus account, where tribal identity and genealogical continuity play a central role. There is no justification to prefer the LXX reading over the MT in this case, given the consistent manuscript support for the MT and the lack of contextual fit for “Hashum.”

Conclusion on Textual Authenticity

Based on the internal consistency of the MT, the lack of any Hebrew manuscript support for “Hashum,” the agreement among the Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshitta, Targums, and Vulgate, and the lack of any compelling contextual or linguistic reason to accept the LXX variant, “Hushim” is undoubtedly the original reading of Genesis 46:23. The LXX reading “Hashum” should be considered a secondary development, likely a scribal or translational anomaly.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

You May Also Enjoy

Old and New Testament Textual Criticism: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation

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).