Q85 MT Gen 48:7 trp) Krdb M# hrbq)w SV(2) – 4QGenf lacks additional
4QGenf 1 13 omits narrative information.^818
Q86 MT Gen 48:7 )wh SV(1) – Difference in gender.^819
4QGenf 1 13 )yh
Q87 MT Gen 48:9 wyb) l) SV(2) – The MT clarifies the ad-
4QGenf 1 14 omits dressee.^820
Q88 MT Gen 48:10 Nqzm SV(1) – Difference in gender.^821
4QGenf 1 16 hnqzm
Q89 MT Gen 48:10 Mhl qbxyw Mhl q#yw SV(3) – 4QGenf has a different
4QGenf 1 17 Mhl q#yw Mhl qbxyw word order to the MT.^822
Q90 MT Gen 1:5 Mwy SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^823
4QGeng 1 4 Mmwy
bly a secondary addition in MT Gen 35:16 and in the SP. “The reading in 4QGenf resulted from a misread-
ing of this secondary article as a locative suffix on the previous word” (J. Davila, "New Qumran Readings
for the Joseph Story," 174). 818
The omission from 4QGenf may have been caused through haplography (J. Davila, "New Qumran Read-
ings for the Joseph Story," 174). 819
820 See note above. Here the pronoun refers to the city Bethlehem.
The MT reads: wyb) l) Pswy rm)yw. J. Davila, "New Qumran Readings for the Joseph Story," 175, calls
the phrase wyb) l) in the MT an “explicating plus.” As Davila notes, the additional phrase appears in all
versions except some manuscripts of the LXX. 821
The form in the MT only appears here. E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4. VII, 55, assumes that
the form in the MT is “a scribal slip,” but in light of Rule 1 we read a difference in gender between the
sources. 822
Targum Neofiti seems to agree with 4QGenf, although Tg. Neof. does appear to have an extra verb: Ppgw
Nwhty q#nw Nwhty rbxw, “and he hugged and embraced him, and he kissed him.” All of the other witnesses
agree with the reading in the MT. 823
4QGeng uses the abstract noun Mmwy, “daytime,” against the absolute Mwy in the MT, the LXX and the SP.
The Tgs. have forms equivalent to Mmwy throughout in Gen 1-2:4a whenever the word refers to daytime in
the abstract sense, and from this E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4. VII, 59, assume that 4QGeng
and the Tgs. stem from the same corrupted textual predecessor. This view was first expressed in J. Davila,
"New Readings for Genesis One," Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental
Judaism, and Christian Origins (eds H.W. Attridge, J.J. Collins, and T.H. Tobin; Maryland: University
Press of America, 1990) 5-6.