Genesis 47:21 and the Question of Joseph’s Treatment of the Egyptians

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

$5.00

Introduction: The Textual Controversy in Genesis 47:21

Genesis 47:21 is one of the most debated verses in the Hebrew Bible regarding textual transmission, primarily due to a striking variation between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX), along with support from the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and Latin Vulgate (VG). The Masoretic reading conveys a relatively benign administrative act—Joseph relocating the Egyptians to cities. In contrast, the LXX, SP, and VG portray this act as enslavement. Such divergence invites a thorough textual-critical investigation rooted in sound manuscript weighing, historical context, and linguistic analysis.

Textual Evidence: A Comparison of the Key Witnesses

The Hebrew Masoretic Text (Codex Leningrad B 19A), preserved with extreme care by the Masoretes, reads:

Genesis 47:21 (MT): הֶעֱבִ֥יר אֹת֖וֹ לֶעָרִ֑ים
“he removed them to the cities”

The wording הֶעֱבִיר is from the root עבר (“to pass over, move”), here used in the hiphil form, suggesting causative action—Joseph “caused them to move” or “relocated them.” This reflects a bureaucratic relocation, likely for the purposes of managing labor and resources during a prolonged famine.

However, the Septuagint (LXX) reads:

Genesis 47:21 (LXX): κατεδουλώσατο αὐτῷ εἰς παῖδας
“he enslaved them to himself as slaves”

The verb καταδουλόομαι (“to enslave”) clearly shifts the tone from logistical relocation to enforced servitude.

The Samaritan Pentateuch and Latin Vulgate also support this reading. The Latin Vulgate reads:

Genesis 47:21 (VG): “et servitutis eos iugo subjecit”,
“and he subjected them to the yoke of servitude”

The Samaritan Pentateuch (as far as reconstructed from available sources) also agrees conceptually, using wording akin to enslavement, although its precise Hebrew differs.

This textual split—between relocation (MT) and enslavement (LXX/SP/VG)—necessitates a careful assessment of internal and external evidence.

External Evidence: Evaluating the Manuscript Weight

From a textual-critical perspective, the Masoretic Text must receive the initial preference. The Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex represent the apex of scribal fidelity, with the Masoretes employing rigorous cross-checking methods, marginal annotations, and letter-counting systems to ensure precision. The Masoretic tradition embodies a consolidated Hebrew consonantal text that stabilized between the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E., succeeding the more variant-rich period of the Sopherim.

While the Septuagint is invaluable, especially where the MT contains demonstrable corruptions, it must not be weighed in isolation. Its translation process, particularly in the Pentateuch, was uneven. Some portions of the Septuagint show clear evidence of interpretative translation rather than word-for-word fidelity.

In this case, the agreement of the LXX with the SP and VG does lend weight to the alternative reading. However, this alignment is not decisive in overturning the MT. The Syriac Peshitta, while not explicitly quoted here, often follows the MT and should be consulted for further confirmation.

Therefore, external evidence slightly favors the MT, given its stronger preservation pedigree and absence of corruption in this context.

Internal Evidence: Analyzing the Likelihood of Originality

From an internal perspective, textual critics apply two main principles: the harder reading is often the original, and the reading that best explains the rise of others is to be preferred.

The reading “he removed them to the cities” is both simpler and less theologically charged. It could have prompted later scribes or translators, especially in the context of Egyptian oppression narratives, to “clarify” the passage by interpreting Joseph’s administrative policy as enslavement. In this light, the LXX translators may have opted for an explanatory paraphrase to align with Egypt’s broader image as an oppressor in later Israelite tradition.

Moreover, the hiphil verb הֶעֱבִיר, meaning “to cause to move,” is unambiguous and does not suggest enslavement. There is no textual corruption in the MT word itself. Its clarity reduces the likelihood that this is a corruption of a term for enslavement, such as שָׁעַבֵד (to enslave) or עָבַד (to serve), which are absent in this verse.

The Septuagint translation could reflect a contextual interpretation influenced by Genesis 47:19, where the Egyptians, having sold themselves and their land, plead, “Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be slaves to Pharaoh.” However, the formal status of that transaction is not repeated in verse 21.

Thus, the LXX may have interpreted Joseph’s relocation of the people (as recorded in MT) through the lens of verse 19, resulting in a harmonizing translation that communicates servitude instead of mere geographical redistribution.

Historical Considerations and the Administrative Context

Understanding the administrative policies of Egypt in the Hyksos or early 18th Dynasty context (with Joseph’s time dating approximately to the 18th century B.C.E.) further supports the MT reading. Ancient Egyptian practice, particularly under strong centralized rule, often involved relocating populations for labor organization, taxation, and storage during times of crisis. The idea of moving rural farmers into cities fits Egyptian bureaucratic logic during a seven-year famine (Genesis 41:30).

Nothing in the MT suggests harsh treatment or chattel slavery at this point in the narrative. Joseph’s policies were described as preserving life (Genesis 47:25), not destroying it. Moreover, the people’s own words, “You have saved our lives” (Genesis 47:25), support the idea of an administrative, not oppressive, action.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Role of the Masora and Preservation of the MT Reading

The Masoretic scribes were not unaware of difficult or unusual readings. Yet they preserved הֶעֱבִיר without substitution or correction. This further argues against the reading being a corruption. The marginal notes (Masora Parva and Masora Magna) do not indicate textual concern for this word. The absence of any scribal alert suggests the Masoretes regarded this reading as correct.

Their work, grounded in the earlier Sopherim tradition, was meticulous and deeply reverent toward the Hebrew consonantal text. They did not hesitate to preserve even grammatically awkward or theologically difficult readings, as shown elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Hence, their silent transmission of הֶעֱבִיר supports its authenticity.

Conclusion on the Preferred Reading

Weighing the manuscripts and internal evidence, the Masoretic Text’s reading of Genesis 47:21—“he removed them to the cities”—is to be preferred. The Septuagint, while valuable, likely reflects an interpretive gloss motivated by surrounding context and later theological concerns.

Joseph did not enslave the people in this verse. He relocated them as part of a large-scale response to famine conditions, fitting both the lexical evidence and historical Egyptian administrative practices. The support of the Samaritan and Latin traditions for enslavement is secondary to the reliability of the MT and the absence of scribal doubt in its transmission.

This is a clear case where the external consistency, linguistic clarity, and historical plausibility all support the Masoretic reading, in harmony with the conservative textual-critical principles that guide our faithful understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

You May Also Enjoy

Alphabetic Writing in the Ancient Near East

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).