preference for one copy of a text over another. This is the only way that we can ensure
our investigation begins free of the anachronisms and subjectivity described by Ulrich.^50
Many of the terms associated with describing genetic readings will not be prevalent in a
strictly comparative analysis. Accordingly, we will make only relatively infrequent refer-
ence to phenomena such as dittography, haplography, parablepsis (homoioteleuton and
homoioarchton), and any other slips of the pen, in keeping with our intention to treat each
variant as properly alternative unless error is certain. Such terms will only be used when
noting the views of the scholarly authorities on how particular variants may have arisen,
but will not colour the categorisation of the variants themselves. In this way we are mind-
ful of Tov’s observation that “at the level of content, that is, at the descriptive level, all
readings are equal, and no one reading is from the outset superior to another one.”^51
In many cases it cannot be determined without conjecture which differences are truly ge-
netic readings and which are alternative readings. It then becomes impossible to decide
which variants should be considered genuine, and which should be considered corrup-
tions. Clearly, each variant reading will need to be considered as ostensibly genuine to
avoid discarding potentially significant data. This appears to have motivated McKerrow’s
view that the only certain errors are those that involve metathesis, or some combination
of letters that make no sense – all other variants are only errors in the critic’s judge-
(^50) As well as E. Ulrich, "The Qumran Biblical Scrolls," see also E. Ulrich, "The Bible in the Making," 79-
- 51
E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 234.