meaning of the text is taken as the default reading. In general this will mean that a choice
between the reading of an orthographic or linguistic variant will result in an orthographic
variant being read, while a choice between an expansive plus and a difference in herme-
neutic will result in the reading of an expansive plus, and so on. This rule ensures that the
least amount of conscious alteration to the meaning of the text is assumed on the part of
the scribe in any instance of variation between the sources.^86
Another important element in our methodology is the delineation of different types of
‘content’ or ‘substantive’ variants into categories that reflect common observations in the
systems surveyed above. That is, we will categorise variants with an emphasis on deline-
ating between updating, expanding and extraneous differences. As was noted in relation
to Dobrusin’s study, every effort should be made to keep categories of variation relatively
uncomplicated, to allow for their adaptation to as many textual environments as neces-
sary. In this way some of the mechanisms defined in the models surveyed above, for ex-
ample the delineation between expansive verbs and other grammatical forms, will be
abandoned in the interests of keeping the analysis as broad and adaptable as possible.
Variations are thus described as textual, stylistic or hermeneutic. Textual variants denote
those that are manifested in the texts at a graphical level only, such as spelling or dialect
differences. Such variations exist at the letter-level of the text, and typically represent up-
dates towards what the scribe perceives as ‘correct’ forms. On a more substantial level
we will define stylistic and hermeneutic variations in the sources. These variations exist
(^86) See the rationale described in I. Young, "The Stabilization of the Biblical Text," 372 n. 28.