Q78 MT Gen 41:3 twqdw SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^813
4QGene 4 i-5 10 twqrw
Q79 MT Gen 41:4 twqdw SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^814
4QGene 4 i-5 11 twqrw
Q80 MT Gen 41:6 tpwd#w twqd Mylb# SV(2) – 4QGene lacks the femi-
nine plural adjective √qd, “fine,
thin.”^815
4QGene 4 i-5 13 twpd#w Myl[b#
Q81 MT Gen 41:36 trkt SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^816
4QGene 4 ii, 6 4 dxkt
Q82 MT Gen 43:9 ydym SV(1) – The MT lacks the con-
4QGene 8 1 y]dymw junction.
Q83 MT Gen 48:6 Mhyrx) OV(l) – Possible difference in
4QGenf 1 10 Myrx) pronunciation.
Q84 MT Gen 48:7 Cr) trbk SV(1) – The MT lacks the loca-
4QGenf 1 13 Cr) htrbk tive h.^817
813
It is possible that 4QGene harmonised the readings √qd, “fine, thin,” and √qr, “thin, gaunt,” throughout
the narrative of Pharaoh’s dreams, also reflected in the LXX. Alternatively, 4QGene could be restored to
retain both terms and refer to the cows as twqr and the ears of grain as twqd (so J. Davila, "New Qumran
Readings for the Joseph Story," 170). The fragmentary state of the scroll makes a definitive reading impos-
sible. It is likely that the textual tradition from which the MT stems suffered some confusion between the
two graphically similar terms (see J. Davila, "New Qumran Readings for the Joseph Story," 169). 814
815 See note above.
Cf. Q74 above. The writing of the conjunction before the adjectival phrase Mydq twpd#, “burned by the
east (wind),” in 4QGene suggests that the first adjective twqd was omitted erroneously by the scribe. How-
ever, a stylistic variant is counted in light of Rule 1. 816
The opinion expressed in J. Davila, "New Qumran Readings for the Joseph Story," 172, is that the lexi-
cal interchange occurred when a scribe of the tradition from which the MT stems replaced the difficult lex-
eme √dxk, “to be destroyed, effaced,” with a more familiar term √trk, “to cut off.” All of the versions ap-
pear to follow the wording reflected in the MT, although the LXX has the 3ms indicate future passive
εκριβησεται, “it will be rubbed out, destroyed,” often used elsewhere in Genesis to translate √tx#, “ruin,
annihilate” (cf. Gen 19:13, 14, 29). The use of the passive in the LXX suggests affiliation with the niph‘al
form in the MT, though this is hardly conclusive. 817
The form in 4QGenf probably reflects a corruption of the phrase Cr)h trbk, as found in MT Gen 35:16,
and in Gen 35:16 and 48:7 of the SP. The article is lacking in the phrase in MT 2 Kgs 5:19 and so is proba-