ment.^52 While this approach is certainly careful, it may on occasion be overcautious. In
the present analysis we will prefer the approach of P. Pulikottil: “unless a deviant reading
does not fit in the grammatical or linguistic context of the passage, or disrupt the logical
flow of the passage, it cannot be considered to be an error.”^53
Variants in Reconstructive Approaches
Even a brief survey of the literature will inform the scholar that there are a variety of
models available for classifying variant readings in ancient Near Eastern texts. Those
models termed ‘reconstructive’ typically divide variants into categories that reflect a
judgement on the overall quality of the manuscript in which they are found. As such,
these models only provide certain tools that can be applied in the present context. That
said, it will be beneficial to permit a brief review of some of the theories proposed by
those scholars, if only to form an appreciation of the scope of methodologies available to
the text critic in this instance.
An example already referred to above is supplied by Tov, who groups variants into ‘ge-
netic’ and ‘alternative’ readings, based on the relationship of a given reading to readings
in different biblical manuscripts. Genetic readings, the majority of which are corruptions,
are further divided into four subcategories that reflect the different effects of scribal
transmission: minuses, pluses, changes in orthography, and differences in word se-
(^52) R.B. McKerrow, Prolegomena, 35.
(^53) See P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran. The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa
(LSTS 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 24.