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

$5.00

Introduction to the Textual Issue

Genesis 36:2 presents a noteworthy textual question. In the Masoretic Text (the traditional Hebrew Bible), the verse reads that Esau’s wife Oholibamah is “the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon” (implying Anah is called the daughter of Zibeon). However, several ancient versions preserve a variant: they describe Oholibamah as “the daughter of Anah, the son of Zibeon.” In other words, the Masoretic Text (MT) calls Anah “daughter of Zibeon,” whereas the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Syriac Peshitta refer to Anah as the “son of Zibeon.” This discrepancy raises the question of which wording reflects the original Hebrew. Resolving this textual issue is important for accuracy: it affects how we understand the genealogy of Esau’s wives and prevents potential confusion or perceived contradiction within the passage. A sound textual decision ensures we interpret the verse as the ancient author intended, rather than relying on a copyist’s error or later alteration.

Masoretic Text as the Primary Authority

Masoretic Reading in Key Manuscripts: In the Masoretic Text tradition, Genesis 36:2 unquestionably reads “daughter of Zibeon.” The standard Hebrew editions based on the great medieval manuscripts reflect this. For example, Codex Leningradensis (B19A) (AD 1008), which underlies modern Hebrew Bibles, has בַּת צִבְעוֹן (“bat Tziv’on,” meaning “daughter of Zibeon”). The Aleppo Codex (10th century) would have had the same reading (though its text of Genesis is now fragmentary). In English translation this appears as “Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,” as in the KJV and other versions following the MT. There is no divergence among Masoretic manuscripts here – the Hebrew textual tradition uniformly transmits “daughter of Zibeon.”

MT as the Default Authority: In Old Testament textual criticism, the Masoretic Text is taken as the default authoritative text. It is the “authoritative Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible,” painstakingly preserved by generations of Jewish scribes. A conservative evangelical approach gives primacy to the MT, viewing it as the providentially preserved form of the text. Other witnesses (Greek, Samaritan, Syriac, etc.) are valuable but generally secondary; any departure from the MT must be justified by strong evidence. Thus, the MT reading “daughter of Zibeon” carries significant weight at the outset, and the burden of proof lies on anyone arguing that the original was different. Unless the internal evidence or early external evidence is compelling enough to suggest a copying mistake in the MT, one will favor the Masoretic reading by default. In Genesis 36:2, this means we initially accept “daughter of Zibeon” as authentic and examine if there is reason to doubt it.

Internal Consistency of the Masoretic Text: Within Genesis 36 itself, the MT’s wording is consistent. The phrase “the daughter of Zibeon” occurs not only in verse 2 but also again in verse 14 regarding Oholibamah. This shows that the MT transmits the same reading in both places, suggesting a deliberate or at least well-established textual formulation. Although verse 24 later in the chapter identifies Anah as a son of Zibeon (which could be seen as a narrative inconsistency), the Masoretic scribes did not alter the wording in verses 2 and 14. This indicates they were committed to faithfully copying the text as received, even if it created a difficulty. Indeed, traditional Jewish interpretation found ways to reconcile the MT wording – for example, by understanding “daughter of Zibeon” to mean granddaughter, since in Hebrew usage a grandchild can sometimes be called a “child” of the grandparent. In this view, Oholibamah is “the daughter of Anah” and also (through Anah) the granddaughter or female descendant of Zibeon, so the Hebrew phrasing can be harmonized within the genealogy. In short, nothing within the Masoretic Text itself compels us to reject “daughter of Zibeon” – it is the harder reading, but not an impossible one. On the contrary, the consistency of the MT and its careful transmission support retaining “daughter” unless strong evidence indicates a copyist error.

Genesis 36:2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV
Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter[1] of Zibeon the Hivite;
[1] SP LXX SYR “son of Zibeon” as opposed to MT “daughter of Zibeon” (also verse 14). Compare vs 24.

ESV: the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite
LEB: the daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite
CSB: granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite
NASB (1995, 2020): the granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite

Evaluation of External Manuscript Evidence

Textual critics also consider ancient versions and texts outside the Masoretic tradition. In Genesis 36:2, a number of these external witnesses do preserve a different reading (“son of Zibeon”). We must weigh their testimony:

Septuagint (LXX – Greek): The ancient Greek translation of the Pentateuch clearly reads “Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the son of Sebegon (Zibeon), the Hivite.” In Greek: “θυγατέρα Ανα τοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβεγων”, literally “daughter of Anah, the son of Zibeon.” This shows the LXX translators (3rd–2nd century BC) either had a Hebrew text that read בן צבעון (“son of Zibeon”) or they emended the wording for clarity. The LXX thus supports the “son of Zibeon” variant.
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP): The Samaritan Hebrew Torah, which represents an ancient textual tradition parallel to the Jewish MT, also reads “son of Zibeon.” According to textual notes, the SP for Gen 36:2 calls Anah the son (Hebrew ben) of Zibeon. The Samaritan scribes often harmonized genealogies, and here the SP aligns with Genesis 36:24 (where Anah is listed as Zibeon’s son) by using “ben” instead of the MT’s “bat.” This indicates an early Hebrew variant or deliberate correction in the Samaritan tradition in favor of “son of Zibeon.”
Dead Sea Scrolls: No known Dead Sea Scroll fragment contains Genesis 36:2, so Qumran evidence is unfortunately unavailable for this verse. We have no extant Hebrew manuscript from antiquity to confirm either reading directly. The absence of DSS data means we must rely on the later manuscripts and ancient translations for external evidence.
Syriac Peshitta: The Peshitta (an early Syriac translation of the Old Testament, dated roughly 2nd–3rd century CE) appears to agree with the LXX and SP here. Scholars note that the Peshitta renders Anah as the son of Zibeon in Genesis 36:2. This suggests that Syriac translators, like the Greek, understood the text to mean “son” – possibly reflecting either a Hebrew Vorlage with בן or an interpretation to resolve the issue. (It’s worth mentioning that the Aramaic Targums, such as Onkelos, are essentially Jewish translations of the MT; Targum Onkelos sticks with the Masoretic wording, effectively calling Anah the daughter of Zibeon, as in Hebrew.)
Latin Vulgate: Jerome’s Vulgate (late 4th century CE) was translated from the Hebrew. In Genesis 36:2 the Vulgate follows the Masoretic Hebrew strictly: “Oolibama filiam Anæ filiæ Sebeon Hevæi.” This Latin rendering means “Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,” mirroring the MT phrase filiae Sebeon (“daughter of Zibeon”). Jerome did not adopt the “son” reading, indicating that the Hebrew text available to him (likely identical to the proto-Masoretic text) read “daughter,” and he translated it literally. The Vulgate thus sides with the Masoretic Text on this point.

In summary, the external manuscript evidence is divided: the primary versions (LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac) support “son of Zibeon,” whereas the main Hebrew tradition (MT, followed by Aramaic Targum and Latin Vulgate) supports “daughter of Zibeon.” The critical question is whether the combined testimony of LXX/SP/Syriac is strong enough to outweigh the MT’s reading. These versions are early and not dependent on each other (the Samaritan Pentateuch is a separate Hebrew line, and the Septuagint and Peshitta are translations likely made independently), which means their agreement on “son of Zibeon” could point to an ancient variant. On the other hand, it is also possible that each of these non-MT sources independently corrected an awkward phrasing. Notably, 1 Chronicles 1:38, 40 (which lists the same genealogy) unambiguously calls Anah the son of Zibeon. Scribes or translators may have been motivated to harmonize Genesis 36:2 with the obvious genealogical fact that Zibeon’s child Anah was male. Thus, the external evidence for “son” might reflect a resolution of a perceived error rather than preservation of an original reading. This possibility must be considered when weighing the evidence.

Textual Decision: Establishing the Original Reading

In deciding the original text of Genesis 36:2, we start with the strong presumption in favor of the Masoretic Text (“daughter of Zibeon”) and then ask if the evidence to overturn it is sufficiently compelling. A conservative evangelical textual approach will uphold the MT unless there are clear and convincing reasons to prefer an alternate reading. In this case, the internal evidence actually favors the MT: “daughter of Zibeon” is the more difficult reading, prone to cause confusion, whereas “son of Zibeon” is an easy harmonization. Textual critics often observe the principle of lectio difficilior potior (“the more difficult reading is stronger”), since scribes were more likely to smooth out problems than to create them. It is probable that no Jewish scribe would intentionally turn “son” into “daughter” and create a contradiction; but a scribe or translator might well change “daughter” to “son” to fix a discrepancy. This internal consideration suggests that the MT’s “daughter” could indeed be the original wording that subsequent traditions felt needed correction. Additionally, the MT reading occurs twice (verses 2 and 14), indicating a consistent transmission rather than an isolated slip, and it can be coherently explained (with “daughter” of Zibeon understood as a female descendant). These factors put a significant burden of proof on the variant reading.

What about the external evidence? The Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Peshitta do present a united front for “son of Zibeon,” which is notable. However, we must remember that all these sources are either translations or a secondary Hebrew tradition; none is an extant original-language manuscript predating the MT with absolute authority. The Samaritan Pentateuch, while Hebrew, is well-known for harmonizing textual issues, and Genesis 36:2 is exactly the kind of place the Samaritans might adjust for consistency. The Septuagint translators could have been working from a Hebrew text that already had “son,” but it is equally plausible they made an on-the-fly correction (the LXX often reflects interpretive decisions). The Syriac likely followed either the Hebrew or even the LXX in this verse. In sum, the external witnesses, though ancient, can be explained as derivative corrections rather than independent proof of an original reading. There is no Hebrew manuscript evidence (outside the Samaritan community) that “son of Zibeon” ever existed in the Torah’s text; the Dead Sea Scrolls provide no data here, and all Masoretic copies have “daughter.” Therefore, the threshold to overturn the MT is not met in this case.

Conclusion: After weighing all factors, we conclude that “daughter of Zibeon” is the more likely original reading of Genesis 36:2. The MT’s reading should be retained, given its superior pedigree and the lack of probative evidence against it. The agreement of LXX, SP, and Syriac on “son” is best understood as a very early textual gloss or harmonization to resolve a perceived difficulty. In a conservative evangelical framework, we uphold the inspired text as preserved in the Masoretic tradition, noting the variant in the ancient versions but not adopting it without clear warrant. Thus, Genesis 36:2 in the original Hebrew most likely referred to Oholibamah as “the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon.” This reading, though superficially problematic, can be understood as indicating Oholibamah’s lineage (Anah being the daughter or female descendant of Zibeon), and it aligns with the principle that the harder reading is more authentic. In the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Masoretic Text stands. The phrase “daughter of Zibeon” should be accepted as the authentic text, with “son of Zibeon” relegated to a noteworthy variant preserved in the ancient translations but not original to the Book of Genesis.

You May Also Enjoy

Does Genesis 22:13 Confirm the Ram’s Position in the Masoretic Text, or Does the Variant “One Ram” Reflect the Original Intent?

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).