"... we record cases in which scribes adapted elements in the text to other details appearing either in the same verse or in the immediate or remote context. The decision regarding whether or not a certain detail reflects a harmonization to another verse is always subjective since it is never certain that this thought process indeed took place. Likewise, it is equally subjective to decide that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch agree against the Masoretic text because sometimes secondary developments took place independently in both sources, such as the change from singular to plural or vice versa ... by definition, all harmonizing additions represent secondary developments. They were made in order to adapt one context to another one. /However, the fullness of the wording is often artificial and, in some cases, the additions are clearly secondary, a feature that is more recognizable in Genesis and Deuteronomy than in Leviticus ... This verse in the Septuagint of Leviticus 10:9 exemplifies the expertise of the scribe/editor who remembered the parallel verse in Exodus in which the approaching of the Tent of Meeting was mentioned together with the nearing of the altar with similar implications of danger ..."