Leviticus 1:17, part of the detailed instructions on burnt offerings, contains a significant textual variant involving the Hebrew third-person pronoun. While the Masoretic Text (MT) reads the masculine pronoun הוא (hûʾ — “he”), certain other sources, including one Dead Sea Scroll manuscript and the Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, present the feminine form היא (hîʾ — “she/that”). This textual issue presents a case study in the intersection between textual criticism and Hebrew linguistics, particularly concerning the role of demonstrative pronouns functioning as non-verbal copulas. This article defends the integrity of the Masoretic reading while acknowledging how linguistic developments in Biblical Hebrew might explain the origin of the variant.

The Masoretic Text and Its Priority

In conservative textual criticism, the Masoretic Text serves as the baseline for the Old Testament due to its preservation and transmission fidelity. The Masoretes, working between the sixth and tenth centuries C.E., applied rigorous methods to ensure the accurate copying and standardization of the Hebrew Bible. The masculine pronoun הוא found in Leviticus 1:17 is supported by the primary Masoretic manuscripts such as the Codex Leningradensis B 19A and the Aleppo Codex. The wording in the MT reads:

וְשִׁסַּע אֹתוֹ בִּכְנָפָיו לֹא יַבְדִּיל וְהִקְטִיר אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ עֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לַיהוָה׃

“… It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to Jehovah.”

The phrase in question is: עֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לַיהוָה (“It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to Jehovah”). Here, הוא functions either as an anaphoric pronoun referencing the previous noun עֹלָה (“burnt offering”) or serves a more syntactic purpose.

The Textual Variant: Feminine Pronoun

In one fragment from Qumran (4QLevb), the text reads עֹלָה הִיא, using the feminine pronoun היא, which grammatically aligns with the feminine noun עֹלָה. Similarly, the Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan appears to support this reading. While the gender alignment may seem to favor היא, the question arises whether this variant represents an original reading or a later adjustment.

From a purely text-critical standpoint, the reading of the MT, הוא, is supported by the majority of extant Hebrew manuscripts and fits within the transmission history guarded by the Masoretes. Any deviation from this must be supported by both external manuscript weight and internal evidence.

Linguistic Perspective: Pronouns as Non-Verbal Copulas

Linguistic analysis reveals that Biblical Hebrew underwent a development wherein third-person pronouns began functioning as copulas within verbless nominal clauses. In earlier Hebrew, pronouns such as הוא and היא could serve not merely as stand-alone referents but also as syntactic bridges between a subject and a predicate. This usage is particularly evident in “tripartite verbless clauses,” where a noun phrase is linked to another via a pronominal element.

In these constructions, the pronoun does not point directly back to a preceding noun but operates syntactically to indicate a form of identity between two elements in the sentence. This usage aligns with a broader trend in Semitic languages—such as Imperial Aramaic and later Mishnaic Hebrew—where the demonstrative pronoun begins to assume a copular function.

In the case of Leviticus 1:17, if one accepts the possibility that היא was perceived by a scribe or translator as a copular element, then the feminine pronoun could have been introduced as a grammatically smoother or more theologically neutral bridge between the subject עֹלָה and the predicate אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לַיהוָה.

Evaluating Internal and External Evidence

From the external evidence, the masculine הוא is clearly dominant in the manuscript tradition. The feminine form appears only in limited sources: one Qumran scroll and a targum. These sources, while important, do not outweigh the MT, especially when weighed against the scribal practices of the Masoretes and the broader consistency across MT manuscripts.

Internally, one might argue for the feminine היא on the grounds of grammatical agreement with עֹלָה. Yet this argument assumes that Biblical Hebrew always maintains strict gender agreement in pronoun usage, which is demonstrably not the case in all contexts. The presence of הוא in connection with a feminine antecedent is attested elsewhere, particularly where the pronoun carries an anaphoric or syntactic role rather than one of direct referential alignment.

Further, the structure of Leviticus 1:17 does not require a copula for clarity. The masculine הוא serves well as an anaphoric link or an identity marker, confirming that what was described in the preceding phrases is, indeed, a legitimate burnt offering. Therefore, it is unlikely that הוא is either a mistake or an unnecessary inclusion.

Explanation for the Variant: Linguistic Reanalysis

The most plausible explanation for the appearance of היא is a later linguistic reanalysis influenced by the syntactic trends in Second Temple Hebrew or Aramaic, where the pronoun increasingly took on copular functions. A scribe familiar with this evolving usage may have introduced היא to bring grammatical alignment with עֹלָה, assuming the pronoun’s function as a syntactic rather than referential element.

This development reflects a non-theological motivation behind the textual change. It does not indicate corruption of doctrine or an intentional alteration but rather illustrates how scribes operating under new linguistic norms might “correct” what they perceived as grammatical incongruity. In this way, the variant demonstrates how textual and linguistic analysis can explain the origin of minor differences without undermining the authority or reliability of the MT.

Textual Stability and Evangelical Perspective

From an evangelical standpoint committed to the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, this variant affirms the stability and integrity of the biblical text. The MT’s preservation of הוא is consistent with both the scribal precision of the Masoretes and with known usages of Biblical Hebrew grammar. While secondary variants like היא may offer insights into linguistic shifts or translation tendencies, they do not challenge the reliability of the received text.

In fact, the ability to trace and explain such variants through linguistic study strengthens confidence in the transmission history of the Hebrew Bible. It also highlights the importance of evaluating textual issues not solely through manuscript collation but in light of historical syntax and the evolving nature of language.

Conclusion

Leviticus 1:17 illustrates how textual criticism and linguistics can intersect to provide a fuller understanding of a textual variant. The variant between הוא and היא can be accounted for by recognizing the gradual grammatical shift in Hebrew toward using demonstrative pronouns as copular elements. This development likely influenced a scribe or translator, leading to the substitution of the feminine pronoun in some manuscripts. However, the Masoretic reading remains original and preferable, both in light of external manuscript support and internal grammatical coherence.

The case exemplifies the methodological rigor required in evangelical textual criticism—affirming the authority of the biblical text while engaging with linguistic scholarship to clarify the origins of variant readings.

You May Also Enjoy

Reading the Apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS