at the word-level of the text and in Polak’s language occupy whole or multiple syntactic
slots. Stylistic variants “do little to change the content of the text but affect the presenta-
tion and form of the text,” while hermeneutic variants “alter the text for the purpose of
presenting a different characteristic, perspective or message.”^87 A more detailed descrip-
tion of each category follows.
Textual Variants – Orthographic
Orthographic variations between the sources can be considered to be of relatively minor
significance. Such variants rather narrowly relate to the graphical representation of indi-
vidual phonemes and generally make no difference to the sense of the text. This seems to
be the case for all texts examined here, whether the script is logographic, syllabic or al-
phabetical, and whether the language is East or West Semitic. As a result matters of spell-
ing are frequently relegated to the most sundry category available as they have the least
impact on the text’s meaning. And, as orthography is that grammatical property most
readily updated throughout a text’s history of transmission, there is every reason for it to
be treated similarly here.^88
These variations are therefore labelled Orthographic Variants, which is abbreviated to
OV in the lists. In alphabetical texts this typically denotes a difference in the representa-
(^87) See D. Dobrusin, The Nature of Ancient Northwest Semitic Copying Practices as Reflected Through
Variants (Columbia University Ph.D. Dissertation: New York, 1987) 24. Dobrusin uses the term ‘substan-
tive’ rather than ‘hermeneutic,’ but the sense is the same. For the terminology used in the present analysis I
am indebted to Professor Avi Hurvitz, private conversation. 88
This much was already noted in W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the
Historical Process (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1940) 43-47.