4QGenj 9 i-10 7 r#( expansive plus lacking in the
MT.^832
Q102 MT Gen 45:17 w)b SV(2) – 4QGenj has a possible
expansive plus lacking in the
MT.^833
4QGenj 9 i-10 7 ]xb
Q103 MT Gen 1:9 h)rtw OV(l) – Possible difference in
4QGenk 1 1 )rtw grammatical form.^834
Q104 MT Gen 1:14 Myn#w SV(1) – The MT lacks the prepo-
4QGenk 2 3 ]#lw sition l.
Q105 MT Gen 3:1 P) SV(1) – The MT lacks the in-
4QGenk 5 2 P)h terogative particle.
Q106 MT Exod 1:5 My(b# HV – Difference in cardinal num-
832
The meaning of the form r#( in 4QGenj is difficult to determine, particularly as the LXX, the SP and
the Tgs. all agree with the reading as it appears in the MT, which has a plural imperative verb √h#(, “to
do.” The phrase in the MT is: Mkyry(b t) wn(+ w#( t)z Kyx) l) rm), “say to your brothers, ‘do this: load
up your cattle.’” The reading in 4QGenj can be restored: Mkry(b t) wn(+ r#( t)z Kyx) l) rm), which sug-
gests two possible interpretations. We may read the form r#( as a number, and thus translate the phrase
“say to your brothers this: ‘load up a tenth of your cattle.” Alternatively we may read r#( as a noun,
“wealth,” and the object marker as the conjunctive particle t), “with,” which produces the translation “say
to your brothers this: ‘load up wealth with your cattle.” Either reading amounts to an interchange of lex-
emes in 4QGenj that is not reflected in any of the other witnesses. This is taken as an expansive plus on
account of the fact that the variant introduces additional information, being either a restriction on the num-
ber of cattle to be taken, or an additional object of the imperative verb wn(+. J. Davila, "New Qumran Read-
ings for the Joseph Story," 173 n. 18, instead reads the form r#( in 4QGenj as “clearly a scribal slip for w#(
... The error arose through a waw-reš confusion.” However, in light of Rule 1 the variant form in 4QGenj is
considered here to be a genuine reading. 833
The form in 4QGenj is restored as My+xb, “provisions,” which finds support in some manuscripts of
LXX and in the Syriac (see E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4. VII, 72, and J. Davila, "New Qum-
ran Readings for the Joseph Story," 173-74). 834
The form in 4QGenk is either imperfect or an apocopated jussive form (without final heh). If the form in
4QGenk is to be read as jussive it could reflect a difference in pronunciation, where the long form of the
jussive in the MT “appears to have been preferred before a guttural” (P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, Grammar
of Biblical Hebrew, 208, [§79]).