ing of a root; roots and phrases common to the language of the scribe; interchanges of
synonymous readings; changes in content and style; errors; and other changes.^58
These models provide an insight into how to weigh the significance of variant readings.
Talmon shows us that variant readings in ancient copies cannot all be neatly classed into
‘genetic’ and ‘alternative’ readings, without the critic making a subjective judgement.
This effectively levels the playing field for all of the readings in the early manuscripts.
Japhet’s model indicates that differences in expression and language can be driven by
shifts in the textual milieu, an observation that can apply regardless of whether the differ-
ences are explained as diachronic or synchronic developments. Tov’s model shows us
that variants regarded as alternative readings are essentially expansionistic, updating, or
revisionist. Expansionistic changes, such as harmonisations and additions, add to but do
not change the sense of the text. Updating changes, such as lexical interchanges and lin-
guistic-stylistic changes, also leave the sense of the text intact while bringing its use of
lexical or grammatical expression into line with what the scribe felt was suitable. Revised
exegetical changes, though, seem to be different in that they affect the meaning of the
text according to a personalised view of what seems appropriate. Such changes can alter
the meaning of the text, something that expansionistic and updating changes are not
aimed towards.
(^58) See primarily the description of variant types in S. Japhet, "Interchanges of Verbal Roots in Parallel
Texts in Chronicles," Hebrew Studies 28 (1987) 10-48. ‘Errors’ are characterised as the corruption of let-
ters, phonetic confusion, metathesis, and corruption leading to omission of superfluous material. ‘Other
changes’ include the correction of awkward or problematic phrasing by changing word sequence, and the
substitution of verbs as a means of avoiding confused phrasing.