Exodus 39:24 in the Updated American Standard Version reads: “And they made upon the hem of the robe pomegranates of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and twisted linen.” The textual question centers on whether the final descriptive term should stand by itself, as in the Masoretic Text, or whether the noun “linen” should be supplied more explicitly, as reflected in the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate. The issue is not whether the verse is understandable, for it is, but whether the shorter Hebrew form should be retained as the original reading. The evidence supports keeping the Hebrew text as it stands and treating the added noun in the ancient versions as a clarifying expansion rather than as the superior reading.

The Hebrew Reading in Its Immediate Form

The Hebrew of the verse ends with the word מָשְׁזָר, a term that carries the sense of “twisted” or “twined.” In the immediate context, the text reads that they made on the hem of the robe pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet, followed by this final descriptive term. The ancient versions insert “linen” in order to identify more specifically what was twisted, but the Hebrew itself does not require that addition in order to communicate its meaning. The verse is describing textile ornamentation, and the final word functions naturally as a material or workmanship description within that setting. Hebrew often expresses itself with a compactness that later translators, copyists, or revisers seek to smooth out. Here, the Hebrew is brief, direct, and fully suitable to the tabernacle context.

This is especially important because the wording in Exodus 39 is a fulfillment report, and fulfillment reports in Exodus regularly echo the wording of the earlier instructions. That pattern must govern the textual judgment. The text is not merely offering a fresh description of priestly garments; it is deliberately recording that the craftsmen made the articles exactly as Jehovah had commanded through Moses. Because of that literary and theological pattern, the shorter Hebrew form is not a defect to be corrected. It is part of the precision of the account itself, a precision that appears throughout Exodus 36–40.

The Parallel in Exodus 28 Establishes the Best Reading

The strongest argument for the shorter reading is the direct parallel in Exodus 28:33–34. There Jehovah commanded, “And upon its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet all around its hem, and bells of gold between them all around.” Then Exodus 39:24–26 records the fulfillment of that command. The wording is intentionally parallel. The command passage does not require an added noun after the textile description, and the fulfillment passage does not need one either. The relationship between Exodus 28:33 and Exodus 39:24 strongly favors the Masoretic Text because it preserves the expected correspondence between command and fulfillment.

That point is decisive. Where Exodus intends to specify “fine linen” or “fine twisted linen,” it does so plainly. One sees this in Exodus 26:1, where the tabernacle curtains are made of “fine twisted linen,” and in Exodus 28:39, where the tunic material is named directly. The same explicit wording appears again in Exodus 39:27, where the tunics are said to be of fine linen. In other words, the book of Exodus knows perfectly well how to state “linen” when linen is the focus. Therefore, when Exodus 39:24 does not state it explicitly, that omission should not be treated as an accidental loss. It is better understood as the original wording of the verse, preserved faithfully in the Hebrew tradition.

Why the Ancient Versions Added “Linen”

The agreement of the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate is noteworthy, but it is not controlling. Their agreement is best explained as interpretive clarification. The translators or transmitters encountered the concise Hebrew expression and supplied the noun they believed was implied by the textile setting. That is a normal scribal and translational tendency. A difficult or abrupt expression is often expanded to make the sense explicit for readers. By contrast, it is much less likely that multiple witnesses independently preserved an original noun that the Hebrew tradition then removed without clear cause, especially in a passage whose fulfillment language is closely tied to the earlier command.

The expansion is understandable. In many tabernacle contexts, twisting is associated with linen, and a translator familiar with repeated phrases such as “fine twisted linen” could readily supply the noun for clarity. Yet clarity is not the same as originality. The textual critic must distinguish between a reading that explains and a reading that preserves. Here the longer form explains. The shorter Hebrew form preserves. That is precisely the kind of distinction that sound Old Testament textual criticism must maintain. The role of the versions is to illuminate the Hebrew text, not to displace it when the Hebrew is coherent, contextually anchored, and strongly supported by parallel structure.

The Meaning of מָשְׁזָר in This Context

The final word מָשְׁזָר points to twisted or twined workmanship. In context, it qualifies the colored materials just mentioned, namely the blue, purple, and scarlet textile elements fashioned into pomegranate forms on the hem of the robe. Nothing in the syntax demands that a separate noun be inserted. The word naturally conveys that the pomegranates were made from twisted material, that is, carefully worked colored thread or yarn suitable for decorative textile construction. The reader does not lose the sense by retaining the Hebrew reading as it stands.

Exodus 39:24 therefore should not be treated as though it were incomplete. It is concise, but not obscure. The ornamentation on the robe was not made of loose dye names floating without substance. The colored materials named in the verse are textile materials, and the concluding descriptor explains their worked condition. This kind of compact expression is entirely at home in Hebrew craftsmanship descriptions. The ancient versions make the phrase more explicit for their readers, but the Masoretic Text preserves the more restrained and original form of the statement.

The Variant Does Not Alter the Sense of the Passage

It should also be stated plainly that this variant is explanatory, not substantive. Whether one reads the shorter Hebrew form or the expanded reading of the versions, the verse still describes the making of pomegranate ornaments on the hem of the priestly robe. No doctrine changes, no event changes, and no object changes. What changes is only the degree of explicitness. The Hebrew text leaves the material description slightly compressed. The versions unfold it. That is why the shorter reading deserves preference. It best accounts for the rise of the longer reading, whereas the reverse explanation is weak.

This conclusion fits the broader theology of the passage as well. Exodus 39 repeatedly emphasizes obedience to Jehovah’s revealed pattern. Exodus 39:1, Exodus 39:5, Exodus 39:7, Exodus 39:21, Exodus 39:26, Exodus 39:29, Exodus 39:31, and Exodus 39:42 all stress that the work was done as Jehovah had commanded Moses. That repeated refrain supports the preservation of a wording in verse 24 that remains tightly aligned to the command pattern already given earlier in the book. The textual form itself reflects the disciplined consistency of the narrative. For that reason, the Hebrew reading should stand without emendation.

The Best Textual Judgment on Exodus 39:24

The correct conclusion is that Exodus 39:24 should be read on the basis of the Masoretic Text, with the added “linen” in the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate understood as a secondary clarification. The Hebrew is neither corrupt nor deficient. It is concise and contextually exact. The addition arose because later witnesses wanted to identify more explicitly the kind of material being twisted, but the original text did not need that explanatory supplementation. The command in Exodus 28:33 and the fulfillment in Exodus 39:24 belong together, and the preserved Hebrew wording reflects that relationship with precision.

Accordingly, the verse is best explained this way: the craftsmen made pomegranate ornaments for the hem of the robe out of blue, purple, and scarlet twisted material. The inserted noun “linen” is interpretive, not original. The ancient versions are valuable because they show how early readers understood the phrase, but they do not overturn the Hebrew text. On this verse, the Masoretic Text remains the proper base, and the variant should be classified as an explanatory expansion that aids interpretation without replacing the preserved Hebrew wording.

You May Also Enjoy

Texts in Transition: How Old Testament Scripture Adapted Over Time

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS