Genesis 1:3—“יְהִי אוֹר”—shows no variation across Hebrew sources like the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Dead Sea Scrolls, pointing to a highly stable transmission. However, ancient translations introduce subtle shifts: the Septuagint and Vulgate use verbs that emphasize the process of becoming, while the Peshitta stays closer to the Hebrew’s volitional tone. These differences aren’t textual variants but interpretive choices that shaped how creation and divine speech were understood over time. The contrast between linguistic fidelity and theological nuance reveals how translation can influence doctrine even when the original text remains unchanged.
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ יְהִ֣י אוֹר וַֽיְהִי־אוֹר
Textual Stability and the Question of Variants
In the field of textual criticism, “variant readings” refer to differences in wording found among manuscripts or textual traditions. Before analyzing any potential variants, it is essential to determine whether the phrase under study has any attested divergence in the Hebrew manuscript tradition. For יְהִ֣י אוֹר in Genesis 1:3, the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the extant fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls present the same wording. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) apparatus records no Hebrew manuscript variation, indicating exceptional stability for this verse.
Ancient Witnesses and Their Renderings
While the Hebrew is stable, ancient translations sometimes exhibit differences that may reflect interpretive choices rather than underlying textual variants. Comparing major witnesses reveals that the divergence here is translational, not textual.
| Witness | Reading | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Masoretic Text (BHS) | יְהִי אוֹר | Qal jussive; expresses volitional command. |
| Septuagint (LXX) | γενηθήτω φῶς | Aorist passive subjunctive; frames creation as an event of becoming. |
| Peshitta | ܢܶܗܘܐ ܢܽܘܗܪܳܐ | Jussive form; closely parallels the Hebrew in structure and mood. |
| Vulgate (1592) | fiat lux | Latin subjunctive; influenced by the LXX rather than directly reflecting Hebrew syntax. |
Morphological and Semantic Considerations
The Hebrew יְהִי is the Qal jussive third masculine singular of היה, used to express a volitive or decreative act. The Greek and Latin renderings introduce an aspectual shift: the Hebrew emphasizes intent and command, while the LXX and Vulgate highlight the process or result of coming into existence. The Peshitta preserves the volitional nuance more directly, suggesting deliberate fidelity to the Hebrew modal structure.
Implications for Translation and Theology
Although there is no textual variant in the Hebrew, the differences in ancient translations have shaped theological interpretation. The MT’s volitional form portrays God’s speech as the authoritative declaration that initiates creation. The LXX and Vulgate, by choosing verbs of becoming, encourage a reading that accentuates the ontological change from non-being to being. Over centuries, such nuances influenced doctrinal understandings of creation, divine power, and the nature of God’s word as inherently effective.
Evaluating the Broader Significance
This example illustrates why evaluating so-called “variant readings” must begin with a careful distinction between genuine textual variants in the base language and interpretive differences introduced by translators. In Genesis 1:3, the Hebrew text’s stability anchors the passage’s meaning, while the variations among ancient versions offer a window into how different linguistic and cultural contexts shaped the reception of the creation account. This dual perspective—firm textual grounding combined with awareness of interpretive diversity—remains vital for both scholarly analysis and informed theological reflection.
