“…27 Further on, in MT 2:11, he explains the mention of Elkanah's name as an "explicitum" in the text and, therefore, not original, since there is no corresponding name in LXx. 28 Klostermann suggested that the ow of 1 :28b is a remnant of ~Nlnw and, therefore, the subject of 1nnw,1, but, as Budde pointed out against this, throughout this section Samuel is only referred to as "the boy", and has no active role in the narrative. 29 26 A certain number of authors, and most modern translations, have preferred the MT for these verses, although occasionally with slight modifications.…”