The advantages of this method are that the statistical evidence is easy for the scholar to
represent and for the reader to interpret. Representing variance as a ratio against non-
variance renders often confusing data readily understandable.
Polak published an important study in 1992 that employed adroit methods of differentiat-
ing between variants and statistically analysing the data.^62 His method was to classify
variants according to their quality, in terms of impact on the sense of the text, and in
terms of their quantity. Polak made the distinction between variants that occupy single
syntactic slots and variants that encompass whole clauses or sentences. He also recog-
nised changes in word order as being distinct from other variants, whereas minor changes
in sequence appear to be considered as genetic by Tov, and not intentionally created by
scribes.^63
In Polak’s system, variants are categorised as mechanical variants (i.e. genetic corrup-
tions), exchange of synonyms, expansion or condensation of syntactic slots, omission or
addition of syntactic slots or whole phrases, complicated redactional processes, and
changes in word order.^64 His system agrees with the distinctions made by Tov, in that it
identifies expansive, clarifying, and extraneous forms of variation.
(^62) See F.H. Polak, "Statistics and Textual Filiation," (^) 215-76. The Chi-squared mathematical function that
features heavily in Polak’s treatment of the data is essentially used for determining genetic relationships
between the sources, and so is not employed in the present study. 63
64 E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 258.
F.H. Polak, "Statistics and Text Filiation," 217-18.