Textual Commentary on Genesis 46:16

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

$5.00

Verse (UASV): “And the sons of Gad: Ziphion, and Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, and Arodi, and Areli.”
Hebrew (MT): וּבְנֵי־גָ֖ד צִפְי֥וֹן וְחַגִּ֣י שׁוּנִ֔י וְאֶצְבּ֖וֹן עֵרִ֑י וַעֲרֹדִ֖י וַאֲרֵלִֽי׃

Analysis of the Variant: “Ziphion” vs. “Zephon”

1. Masoretic Text (MT) Evidence

The standard Masoretic Text, as represented in Codex Leningradensis (L), reads צִפְיוֹן (Ziphion). This is preserved in the principal Hebrew manuscript traditions and stands as the base reading of the UASV and many other literal English translations that prioritize the MT.

2. Septuagint (LXX) Evidence

The Septuagint (LXX), the earliest major translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, dating from the 3rd–2nd century B.C.E., reads Ζεφών (Zephon) in this passage. The Greek transliteration lacks the medial yod (י) that appears in the Hebrew צִפְיוֹן. This could reflect an alternate Hebrew Vorlage (underlying text) with צְפוֹן (Zephon), a shortened or alternate orthographic form of the name.

3. Samaritan Pentateuch (SP)

The Samaritan Pentateuch also supports the reading Zephon, in agreement with the LXX. While the Samaritan text is generally in close alignment with the MT in the Torah, it does contain approximately 6,000 variants, many of which reflect orthographic, linguistic, or theological adjustments. In this instance, the agreement with the LXX suggests either a shared textual tradition or an early divergence in the transmission of the name.

4. Internal Evidence: Comparison with Numbers 26:15

In Numbers 26:15, the genealogical list of Gad’s descendants uses the form צְפוֹן (Zephon), lacking the yod found in Genesis 46:16. This is strong internal evidence that supports the shorter form as an authentic variant. The consistency of Numbers 26:15 across textual traditions—including the MT—indicates that Zephon may be the original form or at least the more prevalent alternate form used in later genealogical records.

5. Paleographical and Linguistic Considerations

The variation likely arises from a scribal issue involving the presence or absence of the medial yod. Such discrepancies are well documented in Hebrew orthography, especially in the transmission of proper names. A scribe copying from dictation or a damaged exemplar might easily add or omit a yod in names that sound similar (Ziphion vs. Zephon).

Phonetically, both Ziphion and Zephon are plausible Semitic names. However, Ziphion with the yod might suggest a diminutive or augmentative form, while Zephon appears more archaic and simpler. Given that Genesis contains early patriarchal genealogies, the more complex form could have been later standardized into a simpler one in Numbers.

6. Historical Transmission and Harmonization

The presence of “Zephon” in both the LXX and SP suggests the possibility of an early variant tradition distinct from the proto-Masoretic lineage. Over time, especially under the Masoretes’ meticulous standardization processes, the MT stabilized with “Ziphion.” However, scribes could have harmonized the genealogies to reduce confusion or due to regional usage preferences.

Moreover, harmonization between texts (Genesis and Numbers) might have been resisted by the MT tradition to preserve distinct textual traditions, whereas the LXX translators and Samaritan scribes may have leaned toward uniformity.

Evaluation of Preferred Reading

From a textual critical standpoint grounded in the conservative evangelical methodology, Ziphion (צִפְיוֹן) as preserved in the MT is preferred unless strong external and internal evidence calls for emendation. Though the LXX and SP provide attestation for “Zephon,” the divergence is minor and easily explained as an orthographic variant. The inclusion of the yod in “Ziphion” does not alter the identification of the tribal family and aligns with the textual integrity upheld by the Masoretes.

The use of “Zephon” in Numbers 26:15, however, reveals an acceptable alternate form and does not constitute a contradiction but rather reflects common fluidity in ancient name transmission. Thus, Ziphion and Zephon are likely variant forms of the same name, with no theological or historical discrepancy implied.

Conclusion

Genesis 46:16 preserves the name Ziphion (צִפְיוֹן) in the Masoretic Text, supported by the earliest Hebrew manuscripts. The alternate form Zephon, found in the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and in the parallel passage of Numbers 26:15, likely reflects a scribal simplification or regional variation. Given the high degree of consistency and preservation in the MT tradition and the textual context of Genesis, the MT reading Ziphion should be retained in translations that follow the MT base. No doctrinal or historical issue is introduced by this variant.

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).