The Lucianic Text of 1 Samuel: A Revised and Augmented Edition of the Old Greek

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

These five manuscripts form a most unified family, clearly distinguishable from all other manuscript groups.

“These manuscripts form a most unified family, clearly distinguishable from all other manuscripts groups”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The influence of the Lucianic text-type is repeatedly shown in a number of further manuscripts (509, 56-246, 55, 158, 245, s, 318), which testify to its good reputation.

“the influence of this text-type is repeatedly shown in a number of further manuscripts (509 56-246 55 158 245 s 318), which thus testify to its good reputation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Lucianic textual tradition in 1 Samuel is represented by five manuscripts: 19, 82, 93, 108, and 127, for which the group siglum L is used.

“As far as the manuscripts are concerned, the Lucianic textual tradition is easily definable in 1 Samuel: there are five manuscripts 19-82-93-108-127 for which the group siglum L is used.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

L nevertheless changes the word-order (τούς λόγους μου / οὐκ ἔστησεν) at 1 Sam 15:11.

“L nevertheless changes something: the word-order (τούς λόγους μου / οὐκ ἔστησεν)!”

May combine two claims.

This problematic formulation is found in Rahlfs's edition, but it is actually based on two manuscripts only, A and 460, while B b f transmit another place name.

“This problematic formulation is found in Rahlfs's edition, but it is actually based on two manuscripts only, A and 460 -B b f transmitting another place name.”

May combine two claims.

The noun ἅλως occurs twice in 1 Samuel (19:22, 23:1) and has been changed in the Lucianic text to the feminine ἅλων.

“Another one, ἅλως 'threshing floor' (masculine in Koine) occurs twice (19:22, 23:1) and has been changed in the Lucianic text to the feminine ἅλων.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the Lucianic text, implicit subjects or objects are often made explicit, or some other clarification is added, and these changes are often limited to the Lucianic text.

“For instance, it is easy to find examples in which an implicit subject or object was made explicit, or some other clarification was added to the text.In these cases, the changes are often limited to the Lucianic text.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

An incomprehensible transliteration could also be omitted.

“An incomprehensible transliteration could also be omitted:”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

At 16:20 L combines renderings of two alternative Hebrew readings and complements the sentence independently.

“At 16:20 L combines renderings of two alternative Hebrew readings and complements the sentence independently.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic text, with a number of independent witnesses, stands for the Old Greek in the verb at 1 Sam 9:24, but reveals a few words later a Hexaplaric addition.

“The Lucianic text, with a number of independent witnesses, stands for the Old Greek in the verb, but reveals a few words later a Hexaplaric addition.”

May combine two claims.

In addition to L, the Old Greek at 1 Sam 1:18 is witnessed just by a few scattered manuscripts-except for Vetus Latina (La 115), which is a very important, independent witness.

“In addition to L, the Old Greek is witnessed here just by a few scattered manuscripts -except for Vetus Latina (La 115 ), which is a very important, independent witness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Sometimes these readings are buried under Atticizing corrections or changes of word-order or partial additions of Hexaplaric readings.

“Sometimes these readings are buried under Atticizing corrections or changes of word-order or partial additions of Hexaplaric readings.”

May combine two claims.

In the first person singular of the aorist of λέγω, the translator used εἶπα with one exception (εἶπον in 20:3), and in all six cases of εἶπα the Lucianic text has the classical form εἶπον.

“In the first person singular, the translator used εἶπα (with just one exception: εἶπον in 20:3) and in all the six cases of εἶπα the Lucianic text has the classical form εἶπον.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

None of the verbs at 1 Samuel 16:14 corresponds to the Hebrew.

“Interestingly, none of the verbs corresponds to the Hebrew.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic text retains ἐγενήθη in only two cases (1 Sam 30:1; 31:8); in all other cases it has ἐγένετο, occasionally accompanied by a few other manuscripts, but 13 times alone.

“The Lucianic text retains ἐγενήθη just in two cases (1 Sam 30:1; 31:8); in all other cases the Lucianic text has ἐγένετο, occasionally accompanied by a few other manuscripts (that may have made the same change independently), but 13 times alone.”

May combine two claims.

The translator of 1 Samuel used both ἐγένετο (15 times) and ἐγενήθη (38 times), as generally in Koine.

“For instance, the alternative forms ἐγένετο (med.)/ἐγενήθη (pass.)were both used by the translator (ἐγένετο 15 times; ἐγενήθη 38 times), as they were generally in Koine.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

At 16:20 L adds to the story a further detail informing the reader of the way of transporting the food supplies.

“This adds to the story a further detail informing the reader of the way of transporting the food supplies.”

May combine two claims.

In 1 Sam 25:5 and 25:35, the Lucianic variant represents more idiomatic Greek.

“Vocabulary of Symmachus is also found in the following two cases, in which the variant represents more idiomatic Greek:”

May combine two claims.

The two longer passages added in the MT are 1 Sam 17:12-31 and 17:55-18:5; whole sentences have been added in vv. 17:37, 38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 51; 18:6, 8, 10-11, 12, 17-19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29-30, and single words or phrases have been added all over the two chapters.

“The two longer passages added in the MT are: 1 Sam 17:12-31 and 17:55 -18:5; whole sentences have been added in vv.17:37, 38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 51; 18:6, 8, 10-11, 12, 17-19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29-30, and in addition to these, single words or phrases have been added all over the two chapters.”

May combine two claims.

The noun ἔλεος occurs four times in 1 Samuel (15:6, 20:8, 14, 15), and in all these occurrences it appears as a masculine in the Lucianic text.

“Of those nouns that have a different article in Koine, ἔλεος 'mercy' (neuter in Koine) occurs in 1 Samuel four times (15:6, 20:8, 14, 15): in all of these, the word appears as a masculine in the Lucianic text.”

May combine two claims.

In 1 Sam 15:11, L witnesses the Old Greek μεταμεμέλημαι with the majority of manuscripts against the kaige-type correction according to the Hebrew text, which appears as a marginal reading in two manuscripts of the L group.

“In the first case, L witnesses the OG μεταμεμέλημαι with the majority of manuscripts against the kaige-type (pre-hexaplaric, Jewish) correction according to the Hebrew text, which however appears as a marginal reading in two manuscripts of the L group.”

May combine two claims.

There are readings in the Lucianic text that are not supported by other witnesses and readings in which the Lucianic text is followed by certain typical companions.

“There are readings that are not supported by other witnesses and readings in which the Lucianic text is followed by certain typical companions.”

May combine two claims.

Vocabulary of Symmachus is found in 1 Sam 25:5 and 25:35.

“Vocabulary of Symmachus is also found in the following two cases, in which the variant represents more idiomatic Greek:”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The marginal notes attributing readings to Symmachus are reliable evidence of Symmachus's text.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In 1 Sam 30:1, the textual transmission is divided into four very different readings (ἐξελθόντος, εἰσελθόντος, ἐν τῷ παραγενέσθαι, and πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν), plus a fifth that changes the singular to plural (ἐξελθόντων).

“This is an extraordinary case in that the textual transmission is divided into four very different readings (ἐξελθόντος, εισελθοντος, εν τω παραγενεσθαι, and προ του ελθειν, plus a fifth one that changes the singular to plural: εξελθοντων).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In 1 Sam 1:18, the optative is stylistically the better form, but it also corresponds to the Hebrew imperfect, which is normally not rendered by the aorist.

“The optative is stylistically the better form here, but it also corresponds to the Hebrew imperfect, which is normally not rendered by the aorist.”

May combine two claims.

In 1 Sam 1:13, the Old Greek contains a quotation from the Rachel story (Gen 30:22), which must have been in Hebrew in the Vorlage.

“The Old Greek contains a quotation from the Rachel story (Gen 30:22), which must have been in Hebrew in the Vorlage.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

As a result, there are also many doublets.

“As a result, there are also many doublets.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic text reads εἶπαν just once (23:3), changes to the singular three times, to the historical present twice, and has εἶπον in all other cases.

“The Lucianic text reads εἶπαν just once (23:3) and changes to the singular three times, to the historical present twice, having in all other cases εἶπον.”

May combine two claims.

Rahlfs accepted ὕψωσεν which is Grabe's clever conjecture of ηψησεν.

“Rahlfs accepted ὕψωσεν which is Grabe's clever conjecture of ηψησεν.”

• cites RahlfsNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites GrabeNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The First Book of Samuel traditionally belonged to the non-kaige sections, but according to the author's studies it has its share of kaige readings as well.

“My focus is, of course, the First Book of Samuel, which traditionally belonged to the non-kaige sections, but according to my studies has its share of kaige readings as well.”

May combine two claims.

Jerome mentions the Lucianic text among the three main branches of the Septuagint text, so it must have existed towards the end of the 4th century.

“Jerome mentions the Lucianic text among the three main branches of the Septuagint text, so that it must have existed -whether or not fully developed -towards the end of the 4 th century.”

• cites Jerome, Praef. in lib. Paralip.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Frequent quotation by Chrysostom and Theodoret confirms both the dating and the provenance of the Lucianic text.

“Frequent quotation by Chrysostom and Theodoret confirm both the dating and the provenance.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The Lucianic text (εν τω παραγενεσθαι L 554 mg) uses the verb παραγίνομαι and a Hebraistic construction with ἐν τῷ + infinitive, yielding an exact rendering of the Hebrew verbal expression, but it also diverges from the Hebrew by having David stop at Keilah; this cannot be the original translation either.

“The Lucianic text (εν τω παραγενεσθαι L 554 mg ) uses another verb παραγίνομαι that frequently occurs as a rendering of ‫בוא‬ and a Hebraistic construction with ἐν τῷ + the infinitive.The result is an exact rendering of the Hebrew verbal expression:”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic editor found the Symmachus expression appropriate to be used in the first place, but did not want to leave out the Old Greek rendering, either, and thus created a kind of doublet.

“The Lucianic editor found this expression appropriate to be used in the first place, but did not want to leave out the Old Greek rendering, either, and thus created a kind of doublet.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Lucianic editors' intentions can be inferred from the textual features they produced.

May combine two claims.

In many cases, the Hexaplaric additions seem to be in contradiction with the stylistic ideals of the Lucianic editors because the formulation is strongly Hebraistic, but in the case examined the improvement of the style of these additions was also possible.

“In many cases, the Hexaplaric additions seem to be in contradiction with the stylistic ideals of the Lucianic editors, because the formulation is so strongly Hebraistic, but here we can see that the improvement of the style of these additions was also possible.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The early editors may have consciously chosen their basic text from a number of manuscripts available to them.

“Scholars often remark that the basic text of the Antiochene tradition was a good old manuscript, but they seldom seem to think that these early editors may have consciously chosen their basic text from a number of manuscripts available to them.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Readings that enhanced the readability of the story could be chosen and added to the text.

“Readings that enhanced the readability of the story could be chosen and added to the text.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The main principle for the Lucianic editors was to enhance the readability and comprehensibility of the text and if possible to give more effect to the story.

“It seems to me that the main principle for them was to enhance the readability and comprehensibility of the text and if possible to give more effect to the story.”

May combine two claims.

In these complementations, the Lucianic text is clearly dependent on Hexaplaric materials but uses them in a distinctive way, often diverging from the other manuscripts that also complement the story according to the MT.

“In these complementations, the Lucianic text is clearly dependent on Hexaplaric materials but uses them in a distinctive way, often diverging from the other manuscripts that also complement the story according to the MT.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The characterization of the Lucianic text in 1 Samuel should be applicable to the other books of Samuel-Kings as well.

“Accordingly, the characterization of the Lucianic text in 1 Samuel should be applicable to the other books as well.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Some readings not represented in the traditional text were perhaps first placed in the margin of the edition from where they would eventually have slipped into the main text.

“Some of the readings that were not represented in the traditional text were perhaps first placed in the margin of the edition from where they would eventually have slipped into the main text, as suggested by Anna Kharanauli.”

• cites Anna KharanauliNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

The Lucianic editors were not comparing the Greek text directly with the Hebrew.

“One explanation is that the editors were not comparing the Greek text directly with the Hebrew, and so, they were not aware that the different expressions that were combined actually derived from one and the same Hebrew text or variant forms of the same.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

In this respect, the Lucianic text is no special case.

“In this respect, the Lucianic text is no special case.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In some cases, this may have been due to a coincidence with the Hexaplaric material that was used frequently to improve or complement the text with interesting details.

“In some cases, this may have been due to a coincidence with the Hexaplaric material that was used frequently to improve or complement the text with interesting details.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The Lucianic editors understood that an old manuscript that was the result of relatively few times of copying would contain fewer errors.

“Even if the Lucianic editors did not follow our text-critical principles, they certainly understood that an old manuscript that was the result of relatively few times of copying would contain fewer errors.”

May combine two claims.

In the third person plural of the aorist of λέγω, there are 33 cases, all probably originally εἶπαν, although Rahlfs, following B, reads εἶπον in eight cases.

“In the third person plural, there are 33 cases, all probably originally εἶπαν -although Rahlfs, following B, reads in eight cases εἶπον.”

May combine two claims.

The Hexaplaric variant (προ του ελθειν O) changes the verb, leaves out the unusual prefix, uses an infinitive construction with πρό, and is logical but not what the Hebrew text says.

“The Hexaplaric variant (προ του ελθειν O) changes the verb, leaving out the unusual prefix, to accord more closely with the Hebrew, and uses a construction with the infinitive, but surprisingly chooses the preposition πρό in order to coordinate the events:”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

This might have happened over a longer period of time and concerned especially the asterisked additions.

“This might have happened over a longer period of time and concerned especially the asterisked additions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

According to Sebastian Brock, certain stylistic changes in the Lucianic text were motivated by the desire to make the text more easily readable and comprehensible for those listening to its public reading.

“According to Sebastian Brock, certain stylistic changes were motivated by the desire to make the text more easily readable and comprehensible for those listening to its public reading.”

• cites Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel, 252.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In 1 Sam 30:1, the infinitive construction was perhaps adopted from one of the columns of the Hexapla.

“In this case the infinitive construction was perhaps adopted from one of the columns of the Hexapla.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The traditional Old Greek text used by the Church seems to have been highly valued and authoritative as such.

“The traditional Old Greek text used by the Church seems to have been highly valued and authoritative as such; however, it could be improved in its grammatical formulation and if there were any incomprehensible details they could be clarified.”

May combine two claims.

The emergence of the various alternatives in 1 Sam 30:1 can only be explained from the majority reading, which is exceptional but as a contextual rendering also corresponds to this translator's characteristic way of proceeding.

“However, the emergence of the various alternatives can only be explained from the majority reading, which is exceptional but as a contextual rendering also corresponds to this translator's characteristic way of proceeding.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

According to Brock, the Lucianic text is the best witness of Hexaplaric readings in 1 Samuel.

“According to Brock, the Lucianic text is the best witness of Hexaplaric readings in 1 Samuel.”

• cites BrockNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

It is important for the Lucianic editor that the storyline is logical; it is a question of the readability and comprehensibility of the text.

“It is important for the editor at work here that the storyline is logical.It is a question of the readability and comprehensibility of the text.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In many cases, the Lucianic text provides a translation which is likely to have originated with one of the Three.

“In many cases, the Lucianic text provides a translation which is likely to have originated with one of the Three.”

May combine two claims.

In the B text (εἰσελθόντος), the original formulation with genitive absolute is retained, but the verb is corrected to εἰσέρχομαι, and the strategy removes the storyline problem by changing the name of the town to Keilah.

“In the B text (εἰσελθόντος), the original formulation with gen.abs. is retained, but the verb is corrected to εἰσέρχομαι.The strategy by which the B text removes the problem with the storyline is to change the name of the town: David is not yet arriving in his hometown Ziklag but stopping in Keilah.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The situation in the kaige sections is probably different.

“In this respect the situation in the kaige sections is probably different.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic editor takes great trouble to make clear to the reader David's position in the different phases of the story, achieving this by correction at the beginning and by additions, and in these additions he shows that he knows at least two other versions of v. 1.

“The Lucianic editor takes great trouble in making it clear to the reader what is the position of David in the different phases of the story.He achieves this by the correction at the beginning and by additions, and in these additions he shows that he knows at least two other version of v. 1.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

There are no shortcuts, no a priori probabilities of finding original readings in the Lucianic textual tradition.

“There are no shortcuts, no a priori probabilities of finding original readings in the Lucianic textual tradition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

In many cases, these readings can be recognized and established as part of the original text, but the only way to achieve this is a full text-critical and translation-technical analysis.

“In many cases, they can be recognized and established as part of the original text, but the only way to achieve this is a full text-critical and translation-technical analysis.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Origen's work was misused in the Lucianic textual tradition.

“In a sense, one could say that Origen's work was misused in the Lucianic textual tradition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The first verses of 1 Sam 30 show how freely the Lucianic editor could deal with the different manuscripts that were at his disposal.

“Already the first verses of the chapter show how freely the Lucianic editor could deal with the different manuscripts that obviously were at his disposal.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The Lucianic editors had several manuscripts at their disposal, among them good old manuscripts and ones with kaige-type readings.

“It is obvious that the Lucianic editors had several manuscripts at their disposal, among them good old manuscripts and ones with kaige-type readings.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In many examples, the Lucianic editor or editors could be quite creative in combining different readings and adding their own clarifications.

“In many of these examples we can observe that the Lucianic editor or editors could be quite creative in combining different readings and adding their own clarifications.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Lucianic text is well known for its interest in Greek style and grammatical correctness.

“The Lucianic text is well known for its interest in Greek style and grammatical correctness.”

May combine two claims.

The translator's strategy for solving the problem in 1 Sam 30:1 was to use a verbal form with the prefix ἐξ-, meaning 'as David had gone out of Ziklag'; this diverges from the Hebrew text but makes the storyline logical.

“The translator's strategy solving the problem was to use a verbal form with the prefix ἐξ-:”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the following examples, it seems that the Lucianic editor is making improvements of his own to enhance the readability of the story.

“In the following examples it seems that the Lucianic editor is making improvements of his own to enhance the readability of the story.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

In 1 Sam 18:1, the Lucianic editor adds more details to the story ('David came to Saul,' and 'Jonathan saw him'), and changes who was talking to whom so that it appears the king talks to the young hero; these changes are hardly based on any Hebrew or Greek Vorlage but must have been authored by the Lucianic editor.

“In 1 Sam 18:1 the story may have seemed too abrupt: when David quits talking to Saul, Jonathan is immediately attracted to him.The Lucianic editor adds more details to the story:”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Approximations to the Hebrew text came to the attention of the Lucianic editors either through Origen's Hexapla, or manuscripts copying excerpts from its various columns, or possibly also directly from the versions of Theodotion or Symmachus or Aquila.

“Approximations to the Hebrew text came to the attention of the Lucianic editors either through Origen's Hexapla, or manuscripts copying excerpts from its various columns, or possibly also directly from the versions of Theodotion or Symmachus or Aquila -the Three that were known to adhere closely to the Hebrew text.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic editor deliberately chose the reading ἐβασίλευσα because it made sense to him, whereas in the previous case it did not.

“I would not say that L is affected by the kaige recension or contaminated by it, but prefer to say that the editor deliberately chose the reading, because it made sense to him, whereas in the previous case it did not.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The numerous transliterations in 1 Samuel were a problem for someone who cared for the comprehensibility of the text.

“The numerous transliterations in 1 Samuel were of course a problem for someone who cared for the comprehensibility of the text.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The reading of the B text εἰσελθόντος Δαυίδ is used in v. 3, which returns to the main storyline after the flashback; in v. 3 the genitive absolute half corresponds to the Hebrew wording, but the expression 'on the third day' is also added from v. 1.

“The reading of the B text εἰσελθόντος Δαυίδ... is used in v. 3, which returns to the main storyline after the flashback.In v. 3, the gen.abs.halfway corresponds to the Hebrew wording, but the expression”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Using Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion was felt to be safe because they were known to be in harmony with the Hebrew.

“Using Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion was felt to be safe because they were known to be in harmony with the Hebrew.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The scribes and scholars of Antioch must have worked like editors of a text normally do.

“In several respects, the scribes and scholars of Antioch must have worked like editors of a text normally do.”

May combine two claims.

The quotation from the Rachel story is not present in the MT and was thus left out through an early approximation.

“It is not present in the MT and was thus left out through an early approximation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Lucianic text is a truly eclectic text, as many other textual traditions are.

“It is a truly eclectic text, as many other textual traditions are.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The changes were consciously planned and carried out rather than resulting from random slips.

“Otherwise, I think that the changes were consciously planned and carried out rather than resulting from random slips.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The Lucianic editors were not aware that the different expressions they combined derived from one and the same Hebrew text or variant forms of the same.

“One explanation is that the editors were not comparing the Greek text directly with the Hebrew, and so, they were not aware that the different expressions that were combined actually derived from one and the same Hebrew text or variant forms of the same.”

May combine two claims.

The Lucianic editors did not work with the Hebrew text but received even their Hebraistic corrections from other Greek translations.

“The Lucianic editors, however, did not work with the Hebrew text but received even their Hebraistic corrections from other Greek translations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In 1 Sam 18:6, the Lucianic editor has simply improved the style and grammatical correctness.

“This is also true in the second example 1 Sam 18:6, in which the editor has simply improved the style and grammatical correctness.”

May combine two claims.

In 1 Sam 30:1, the aorist ἐπέθετο can be taken as a normal narrative aorist, and combined with the B text reading εἰσελθόντος it produces an impossible story: 'When David came to Ziklag, the Amalekites raided the town.'

“In Greek, however, the aorist ἐπέθετο can be taken as a normal narrative aorist, and especially, combined with the reading of the B text (εἰσελθόντος B A b f 460) it produces an impossible story:”

May combine two claims.

A and 460 are the only manuscripts that follow the Hebrew text in both details (the verb and the place name), but this cannot possibly be the original translation.

“As mentioned above, A and 460 are the only manuscripts that follow the Hebrew text in both details (the verb and the place name), but this cannot possibly be the original translation.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Hebrew Masoretic Text is a valid reference point for determining whether a Greek reading is original or secondary.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The traditional Old Greek text could be improved in its grammatical formulation and incomprehensible details could be clarified.

“The traditional Old Greek text used by the Church seems to have been highly valued and authoritative as such; however, it could be improved in its grammatical formulation and if there were any incomprehensible details they could be clarified.”