¹ I use the generic term. Septuagint rather than the Old Greek (OG) because in one case I cite from what has come to be termed “the καιγε recension.” Cross, Frank Moore (“The History of the Biblical Text in Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 [ 1964] 283Google Scholar) argues that the καιγε recension is “an early Jewish attempt to revise the standard Septuagint into conformity with a Proto-Massoretic Hebrew text.”

² Jelicoe, Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969) 283.Google Scholar

³ Note especially the work of Cross's students who have furthered Cross's hypotheses (for example, Shenkel, James, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings [HSM 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968]Google Scholar; McCarter, P. Kyle, I Samuel: A New Translation [AB 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980]Google Scholar; Ulrich, Eugene Charles, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus [HSM 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978]Google Scholar; and McKenzie, Steven, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History [HSM 33; Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1985])Google Scholar. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. provides an analysis of the history of research in his “The Book of Samuel—Hebrew and Greek—Hindsight of a Century,” Textus 14 ( 1988) 147—62.Google Scholar

⁴ Seeligmann, I. L., “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,” Textus 15 ( 1990) 226.Google Scholar Seeligmann further observes that “the origin of the LXX was in the synagogue, and its use in synagogal homilies and sermons allows us to qualify it as a Targum; its exegesis is that of the midrash and the very essence of true midrash is actualization” (p. 232).

⁵ 0ther “prospective” notes in the Septuagint may be found in Josh 16:10 (compare 1 Kgs 9:16); 2 Sam 8:7 (compare 1 Kgs 14:25); 2 Sam 14:27 (compare 1 Kgs 15:2). These notes are best explained by later editorial activity harmonizing and interpreting the text in line with later texts.

⁶ See Kalimi, Isaac, “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon's Temple in Biblical Historiography,” HTR 83 (1990) 345—62.Google Scholar

⁷ See, for example, Williamson, Hugh G. M., “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles,” in Horbury, William, ed., Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 15—31Google Scholar; Braun, Roddy L., “The Message of Chronicles: Rally Round the Temple,” Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971) 502—14.Google Scholar

⁸ Puech, Emile, “La Pierre de Sion et l'autel des Holocaustes d'après un Manuscrit Hébreu de la Grotte 4 (4Q522),” RB 99 (1992) 676—96.Google Scholar

⁹ Chronicles shows some variation, but the meaning is essentially the same as the Masoretic text of 2Sam 7:11: : “And I [YHWH] promise you [David] and YHWH shall build a house for you” (1 Chr 17:10).

¹⁰ In Samuel, ' (“he shall make”) has sometimes been emended on the basis of the Septuagint to either “” (“you shall build”) or “” (“he shall build”), since the Greek verb οἰκοδομεîν (“to build”) usually translates the Hebrew verb (“to build”) (see McCarter, P. Kyle, II Samuel: A New Translation [AB 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984] 193—94)Google Scholar. McCarter's reconstruction relies upon the LXX^L, where manuscripts read οἰκοδομήσει (]) (“he shall build”). However, the Hebrew phrase (“to make a house”) occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; for instance, in Abigail's blessing of David, she says that God will “build” (]) David's house (1 Sam 25:28; also note 1 Kgs 7:8; 2 Kgs 2:24; 12:14). It is noteworthy that at least one other time οἰκοδομεîν translates the Hebrew verb (“to make”) (2 Chr 32:29).

¹¹ McCarter (II Samuel, 193—94) suggests that ] in the Masoretic text of Samuel is a corruption of . This emendation, however, is based on the Septuagint, which is itself tendentious.

¹² The problem of naming of David instead of Solomon as temple builder in 2 Kingdoms 7:11 is more apparent than real. In the Books of Chronicles, David and Solomon are thought of as building the temple together (see Braun, Roddy L., “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL 92 [1973] 503—16)Google Scholar; a similar notion may underlie the Septuagint's translation of 2 Sam 7:11.

¹³ McCarter, II Samuel, 194.

¹⁴ Many commentators suggest that 2 Sam 7:13 is secondary to the original oracle; see Nelson, Richard D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 105—8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See my article, “The Dynastic Oracle and the Chronicler's Apologetic for the Second Temple,” VT, forthcoming. See also Braun, Roddy L., “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976) 581—90Google Scholar; Williamson, H. G. M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 134.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Chronicles presents a radically altered version in which God promises David that he will establish Solomon in “my house and my kingdom.” In this reference to “my house and my kingdom,” Chronicles reflects a tendentious theological change (compare 2 Chr 1:18 and 2:11; contra McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, 65). See also Schniedewind, “The Dynastic Oracle”; Rudolph, Wilhelm, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1955) 135Google Scholar; Brunet, Adrien M., “Le Chroniste et ses sources,” RB 60 (1953) 505.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See already Ehrlich, Arnold B., Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910) 3. 289.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See also m. [Abot 3.4 (citing Isa 28:8); and Cowley, A., “The Meaning of in Hebrew,” JTS 17 (1916) 174—76.Google Scholar 4QFlor 1—3 cites 2 Sam 7:10 (see comments by Allegro, John M., “Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāshîm,” JBL 77 [1958] 351)Google Scholar. For the use of for “temple” in earlier literature, see, for example, 1 Chr 21:22, 25.

¹⁹ For this literary technique, see Kuhl, Curt, “Die [Wiederaufnahme]—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?” TAW 64 (1952) 1—11Google Scholar; Fishbane, Michael (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985] 84—85Google Scholar, esp. n. 19) demonstrates the scribal use of this literary technique.

²⁰ On the Lucianic revision, see Lippi, Paul, “The Use of the Computerized Data Base for the Study of Septuagint Revisions,” BIOSCS 17 (1987) 48—62Google Scholar; Tov, Emanuel, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian,” in Cross, Frank Moore and Talmon, Shemaryahu, eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 293—305.Google Scholar

²¹ IH. St. Thackeray, J., Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927) 46—51.Google Scholar

²² The Books of Chronicles were thought to be of little value for textual studies since many of its variants are apparently tendentious or theologically motivated. Lemke, Werner (“The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History,” HTR 58 [1965] 349—63Google Scholar) challenged this claim, demonstrating that many of the Chronicler's variants resulted from a different Vorlage and not by tendentious alteration; see further Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus; and McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Chronicles must still be employed with caution, however, in textual criticism; see Dion, Paul, “The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II Chr 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context,” ZAW 97 (1985) 114—17.Google Scholar

²³ See my forthcoming monograph, The Word of God in Transition: the Decline of Prophets and the Rise of Inspired Text Interpreters in the Second Temple Period and the Book of Chronicles, chap. 3.