in determining the existence of errors, the classification of variants as genetic, and typi-
cally corruptions, has been avoided wherever possible.^25
Conceptual Frameworks for Viewing the Texts
Textual critics have used various terms and expressions, often not exclusively, to describe
theories and phenomena in their field. The present study has neither the scope nor the
space to review the whole range of terminologies that are available to us to describe an-
cient texts in transmission. We will, however, be aided by a broad outline of the various
theories that impact on our study.
Texts are generally divided into two types: ‘substantive’ and ‘derived’ texts.^26 A substan-
tive text has distinguishing features that show it cannot have derived from any other ex-
tant text, but must be a copy of an unknown manuscript. A derived text, on the other
hand, contains variants that indicate it was derived from another known text. In this way,
we can talk about derived texts containing specific ‘genetic’ readings, i.e. variants that
are directly related to readings in other manuscripts, and substantive texts containing ‘al-
ternative’ readings, i.e. variants that are not related to other manuscript evidence and are
not clearly errors.^27 Substantive texts are not precluded from containing genetic variants,
but derived texts by definition do not contain a significant number of alternative readings.
(^25) See the discussion below on Errors (^).
(^26) R.B. McKerrow, Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare: A Study in Editorial Method (Oxford: Clar-
endon Press, 1939) 8. 27
Unlike McKerrow, Tov asserts that genetic variants “developed – by change, omission, addition, or in-
version – from another reading which may, or may not, be known today” (E. Tov, Textual Criticism, italics
added). McKerrow thought instead that derived manuscripts had to have a known predecessor to prove