Q91 MT Gen 1:9 Mym#h txtm SV(1) – The prepositional phrase
lacks the preposition l in the
MT.^824
4QGeng 1 10 Mym#l txtm
Q92 MT Gen 1:14 wyhw OV(l) – Difference in grammati-
4QGeng 2 3 wyhyw cal form.^825
Q93 MT Gen 1:22 bry OV(l) – Possible difference in
4QGeng 2 14 hbry pronunciation.^826
Q94 MT Gen 1:9 Mwqm SV(2) –4QGenh has a different
4QGenh 3 hwqm phrase to the MT.^827
824
The particle txt plus preposition Nm can be used adverbially when followed by the preposition l, for
which usage see W. Gesenius, E. Kautzsch, and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew Grammar, 377-78, §119c, P. Joüon
and T. Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 346-47, §103n, and B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, Biblical
Hebrew Syntax, 221, 11.3.2. 4QGeng appears to use the particle txt in this sense, perhaps harmonising
with the use in Gen 1:7 (yqrl l(m r#) Mymh Nybw (yqrl txtm r#) Mymh Nyb ldbyw. The phrase in MT Gen
1:9 Mym#h txtm regularly appears when the particle txt plus preposition Nm precedes the noun Mym# (Gen
1:9; 6:17; Exod 17:14; Deut 7:24; 9:14; 25:19; 29:19; 2 Kgs 14:27), but this is in contrast to other adverbial
forms of the particle txt plus the preposition Nm preceding the preposition l (cf. Cr)l txtm in Exod 20:4;
Deut 4:18; 5:8; tybl txtm in Gen 35:8; 1 Sam 7:11; and wrzl txtm in Exod 30:4; 37:27; etc.). Apparently
the MT reflects a usage of the phrase Mym#h txtm that does not utilise the preposition l to give adverbial
force, whereas the use of the preposition l for adverbial force when pairing the complex preposition txtm
with other nouns is normal. The scribe of 4QGeng apparently treated the noun Mym# in the same way as
other nouns when constructing the adverbial phrase with the complex preposition 825 txtm plus preposition l.
4QGeng appears to have an imperfect verb plus waw, against the perfect verb plus waw in the MT. The
force of the waw, whether conjunctive or consecutive, in either source is debatable but there appears to be
little problem in assuming that the waw functions as consecutive in the MT and conjunctive in 4QGeng. In
this case the difference in aspect between the sources amounts to a variant of type OV(l). 826
The form in each source is presumed to be the jussive masculine singular of √hbr, “increase” in line
with Rule 4 (for this reading see J. Davila, "New Readings for Genesis One," 6). 4QGeng preserves the long
form of the jussive with additional final heh, perhaps on analogy with the long Qumran Hebrew cohortative
form hl+q). Perhaps a better alternative is to read 4QGeng as in agreement with the SP which also has the
form with final 827 heh.
4QGenh has hwqm, “gathering,” against the reading in MT Gen 1:9 Mwqm, “place.” J. Davila, "New Read-
ings for Genesis One," 9-11, presumes that the original reading in 4QGenh was txtm Mymh wwqy Myhl) rm)yw
dx) hwqm l) Mym#h, “And God said let the waters gather into one collection.” According to this reading the
Wortbericht is continued in 4QGenh and 4QGenk (and reflected in the LXX) by the Tatbericht that contin-
ues the expected format of the creation account: h#byh )rtw Mhywqm l) Mym#h txtm Mymh wwqyw, “And the
waters were gathered from under the heavens to their gatherings and the dry land appeared.” The Tatbericht
is lacking from the MT, presumably through haplography.