At Leviticus 1:7, the Masoretic Text reads בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, literally, “the sons of Aaron the priest.” The singular הַכֹּהֵן, “the priest,” attaches naturally to Aaron, not to his sons. Grammatically, the expression identifies the sons by reference to their father, who bears the priestly office in the singular as the head of the line. Thus the Updated American Standard Version is correct to render the clause, “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire.” The singular reading is not awkward Hebrew, and it does not require correction. It is a precise expression that preserves the structure of the priesthood as Jehovah established it. Aaron is the priestly head, and his sons minister as those who belong to his house and office, as seen already in Exodus 28:1, where Jehovah distinguishes “Aaron your brother, and his sons with him,” and again in Leviticus 8:2, where Aaron and his sons are named together in the consecration narrative.

The variant reading “priests” shifts the force of the phrase. If the text read הַכֹּהֲנִים, then the description would fall directly on the sons: “the sons of Aaron, the priests.” That wording is also meaningful, and it appears elsewhere in the chapter. Leviticus 1:5 reads, “Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood,” and Leviticus 1:8 reads, “Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces.” In those two verses the plural is expected because the sons themselves are being directly identified as priests performing priestly actions. Leviticus 1:7, however, stands between those two plural expressions and preserves a different wording. The fact that the singular appears in precisely this setting is important. It explains why later scribes or translators would be tempted to smooth the text into conformity with the surrounding verses. In Old Testament textual criticism, that kind of harmonization is one of the most common and most understandable causes of variation.

External Evidence and the Weight of the Witnesses

The external evidence for the plural is not imaginary. The Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and a handful of Hebrew manuscripts support the plural “priests.” That evidence deserves to be noted, and the UASV footnote does right to register it. But the mere existence of broader versional support does not automatically overthrow the Hebrew reading preserved in the Masoretic tradition. The first question is not how many witnesses differ, but what kind of witnesses they are, how independent they are, and whether the variant can be explained as a secondary development.

That last point is decisive here. The plural is the easier reading. It fits the immediate context, it aligns the verse with Leviticus 1:5 and Leviticus 1:8, and it removes the slight distinctiveness of the singular. Because it is easier, it is also more likely to have arisen through regularization. The [Septuagint] frequently preserves useful evidence, but it also contains contextual smoothing in places where a translator or reviser preferred a more familiar or expected expression. The [Samaritan Pentateuch] is well known for harmonizing tendencies, especially where the text can be brought into closer conformity with nearby wording. The [Aramaic Targums], by their very nature, often paraphrase and clarify. The [Syriac Peshitta] is an important witness, but as a version it can also reflect an interpretive choice rather than a different original Hebrew text. When several such witnesses agree on a reading that is plainly smoother in context, the agreement can point to a common interpretive impulse rather than to originality.

The five Hebrew manuscripts that support the plural do not change the overall balance. A few later Hebrew witnesses, standing against the established Masoretic reading and agreeing with the easier contextual form, are not sufficient to justify abandoning the singular. Hebrew manuscripts are not weighed only by count. Their place in the transmission, their relation to other witnesses, and the nature of the variant must all be considered. Here, the plural carries the marks of assimilation. The singular carries the marks of originality. Therefore, the Hebrew base text should remain untouched.

Internal Evidence and the Cause of the Variant

Internal evidence is especially strong in this verse. Leviticus 1 is carefully structured. In Leviticus 1:5 the priests receive and manipulate the blood. In Leviticus 1:7, they put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. In Leviticus 1:8, they arrange the parts, the head, and the suet. The repeated involvement of Aaron’s sons naturally creates patterned phrasing. Because Leviticus 1:5 and Leviticus 1:8 explicitly say “Aaron’s sons, the priests,” a copyist encountering the singular in Leviticus 1:7 could very easily conform it to the surrounding pattern. This is exactly the sort of local harmonization that occurs in transmitted texts. It does not arise from malice or doctrinal tampering. It arises from familiarity, expectation, and the ordinary scribal desire for consistency.

The singular, by contrast, is more difficult only in the sense that it is less expected. Yet it is not difficult in meaning. It says that the sons who are serving are the sons of Aaron the priest. That is a fully coherent way to identify them. In fact, it has a subtle force that the plural loses. The verse does not merely classify the sons by their office. It locates them under Aaron’s priestly identity. The house is active because the priestly line has already been established in its head. Exodus 28:1 presents the order plainly: Jehovah calls Aaron and then his sons with him to serve in the priesthood. Numbers 3:3 can speak of Aaron’s sons as “the anointed priests,” but Numbers 18:1-7 still distinguishes Aaron and his sons in a way that keeps Aaron at the center of priestly responsibility. Leviticus 1:7 fits that framework. The sons act, yet the wording reminds the reader whose priestly house they belong to.

This means the singular is not an error waiting to be corrected. It is a meaningful textual form. Once that is recognized, the plural becomes easier to explain as a secondary adjustment. Scribes and translators often simplify what is distinctive. They often replace an unusual but accurate expression with a more common one. That is what best explains the plural here. The singular is the reading that a later hand would tend to replace. The plural is the reading a later hand would tend to create.

The Priestly Structure Preserved in the Singular

The significance of the singular goes beyond grammar. It preserves the organizational reality of the Aaronic priesthood at this point in the book. Leviticus opens with sacrificial legislation given through Moses, but the priestly system is not presented as a loose collection of individuals. It is a divinely ordered service centered in Aaron and continued through his sons. Leviticus 8:2 names “Aaron and his sons with him.” Numbers 18:2 says, “Bring with you also your brothers, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may be joined with you and minister to you, while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony.” The sons are indeed priests, but they are priests within the household and authority structure that proceeds from Aaron. The wording of Leviticus 1:7 reflects that institutional order.

The plural “priests” weakens that nuance. It is not false, because Aaron’s sons are priests. Yet it recasts the statement from a genealogical-priestly identification into a direct class designation. The Masoretic singular says more precisely what the verse intends to say at this point: these officiants are the sons of Aaron the priest. In other words, the verse does not simply identify their function; it identifies their place within the divinely appointed priestly line. This is consistent with the broader language of the Pentateuch, where lineage, office, and cultic responsibility are tightly connected.

It is also worth observing that no doctrine rises or falls on the variant. Both readings leave the action in priestly hands. The sons of Aaron prepare the altar either way. The issue is not theological instability but textual precision. That is often the case in the Old Testament textual tradition. Many variants do not create contradiction or doctrinal confusion. They reveal the normal processes of transmission, where a text that is already clear may still be slightly adjusted for smoothness. Here the singular should be retained because it is both better attested in the primary Hebrew tradition and better explained as the source of the competing plural.

Why the Masoretic Reading Should Be Retained

The decision, then, is straightforward. The [Masoretic Text] preserves a sensible, contextually rich, and grammatically natural reading. The plural found in the [Septuagint], [Samaritan Pentateuch], [Syriac Peshitta], [Aramaic Targums], and a few Hebrew manuscripts is best understood as a harmonization to the neighboring verses. Since Leviticus 1:5 and Leviticus 1:8 both use the plural, the impulse to make Leviticus 1:7 match them is easy to explain. The reverse process is not easy to explain. A scribe would have little reason to change a perfectly normal plural into a singular that momentarily stands out from its context unless the singular were already there in the exemplar being copied.

For that reason, the singular “priest” is the superior reading. It is the more original wording, the more distinctive form, and the reading that best preserves the priestly structure assumed by the passage. The UASV translation is therefore justified in keeping “the sons of Aaron the priest” in the text while placing the plural in the footnote. That is sound textual judgment. It respects the Hebrew base, acknowledges the ancient versions, and refuses to abandon the Masoretic reading without compelling necessity.

Conclusion

Leviticus 1:7 should remain as the [Masoretic Text] gives it: “the sons of Aaron the priest.” The singular הַכֹּהֵן describes Aaron, not his sons. The plural “priests” found in several ancient witnesses is understandable, but it is secondary. It arose because the surrounding verses use the plural and because copyists and translators often regularized distinctive wording. The singular is not a problem to be solved. It is the original text to be preserved. It keeps the focus on the sons as ministers within the priestly house headed by Aaron, and it fits the covenantal arrangement established by Jehovah in Exodus 28:1, Leviticus 8:2, and Numbers 18:1-7. The verse therefore offers a small but instructive example of how careful textual judgment restores and defends the precise wording of the Hebrew Scriptures.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the Talmud, and How Should Christians Evaluate It?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS