Tigay’s proposed method for examining the transmission process behind the Gilgamesh
Epic is also important to our present investigation.^78 He groups variants into those that
reflect less extensive and more extensive differences in the text. Among the less exten-
sive changes that occur between copies of the Gilgamesh Epic, Tigay lists corruptions,
changes in grammatical forms, interchange of synonyms, addition or omission of words
or phrases, expansions and contractions, altered formulaic constructions, and minor
changes in word sequence. Listed as more extensive changes are the restructuring of
whole sections, assimilation of similar passages, and changes in characterisation.^79
Finally, we turn to the examination of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic by Young.^80 In
this study, Young classifies three types of variation between his sources: orthographic,
linguistic and content variants. This marks a development from the earlier distinction be-
tween orthographic and non-orthographic variants in Young’s examination of the Judean
Desert texts.^81 By including ‘linguistic’ variants as a separate category, Young distin-
guishes a difference between variants that affect, for example, the conjugation of verbs,
and variants that significantly alter meaning in the text.^82 This is an important distinction,
and is reflected, for example, in the classification of ‘grammatical’ type variants in the
(^78) J.H. Tigay, "Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives," 21-52.
(^79) See J.H. Tigay, "Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives," 40-41.
(^80) See I. Young, "Textual Stability," 174-183.
(^81) For example, see the method employed in I. Young, "The Stabilization of the Biblical Text," 370-378,
and I. Young, "The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran," 81-83. 82
See in particular the methodology outlined in I. Young, "Textual Stability," 6-7.