2 Chronicles — Disparate Study

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes people following the Levites in seeking God; Greek explicitly introduces expulsion from the tribes. This changes the stated agency and cause of the movement, even though both groups reach Jerusalem to sacrifice.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 11:16:1 identifies the preceding group as the Levites and priests. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew describes people following the Levites in seeking God; Greek explicitly introduces expulsion from the tribes. The rabbinic comment identifies the preceding group as the Levites and priests. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek may make pressure or expulsion explicit where the Hebrew describes willing movement after the priests and Levites. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes prudent dispersal of royal sons and provisions given to them; Greek describes someone increasing above the sons and uses a feminine object for provisions, referring to the cities. The opening Greek subject is not named afresh; its relation to Rehoboam and Abijah needs review. Neither column adds for them to the request for wives.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 11:23:1 understands the action as dispersing royal sons across Judah. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew describes prudent dispersal of royal sons and provisions given to them; Greek describes someone increasing above the sons and uses a feminine object for provisions, referring to the cities. The rabbinic comment understands the action as dispersing royal sons across Judah. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different subject and pronoun attachments may turn the dispersal of sons into an account of predominance and provisions for cities. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew has Rehoboam entrust replacement shields to his own guard commanders. Greek explicitly introduces Sousakim appointing commanders over him, changing the agent and the political relationship; this is not harmonized away.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 12:10:1 explains the guards’ custody of the shields and considers the king’s fear of attack. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew has Rehoboam entrust replacement shields to his own guard commanders. The rabbinic comment explains the guards’ custody of the shields and considers the king’s fear of attack. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek may describe Egyptian political control where the Hebrew describes Rehoboam’s own guard arrangements. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes carrying and returning the shields to a guardroom. Greek instead lists guards, runners, and people returning to meet runners; it contains neither the carrying of shields nor their storage. The difficult Greek sequence is retained.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 12:10:1 explains the guards’ custody of the shields and considers the king’s fear of attack. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew describes carrying and returning the shields to a guardroom. The related rabbinic context explains the guards’ custody of the shields and considers the king’s fear of attack. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The difficult Greek may preserve a different construal of the procession personnel, without the Hebrew’s explicit shield-carrying and storage actions. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew repeats we sought and then narrates they built and prospered. Greek explicitly says He sought us and keeps the prospering within the king’s speech as a divine action. The change of subject in seeking and the added reciprocal divine seeking are preserved.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 14:6:1 connects fortification with a period of security while discussing the chronological difficulties. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew repeats we sought and then narrates they built and prospered. The rabbinic comment connects fortification with a period of security while discussing the chronological difficulties. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The repeated seeking may have been interpreted reciprocally, with God seeking the people, instead of repeating their seeking of God. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew removes Maacah from the royal office because of an Asherah image; Greek removes her from religious service to Astarte. Greek lacks the separate crushing action and does not name Asa here. Mother is retained in both without replacing it by grandmother through genealogical harmonization.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 15:16:1 reports a sexualized interpretation of Maacah’s idolatrous image. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew removes Maacah from the royal office because of an Asherah image; Greek removes her from religious service to Astarte. The rabbinic comment reports a sexualized interpretation of Maacah’s idolatrous image. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The office may have been construed as royal rank or cultic service within the description of Maacah’s removal. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew tells Jehoshaphat to wear his own robes; Greek makes them Ahab's clothing. Hebrew ends with both entering, Greek with the Israelite king alone as grammatical subject. The complete readings above locate this contrast within the verse; the difference in changed agent or recipient is the point to carry into the reception discussion.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:29:1 explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew tells Jehoshaphat to wear his own robes; Greek makes them Ahab's clothing. The rabbinic comment explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The clothing pronoun may reflect the same alternative royal identification found in the parallel Kings battle account. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes unknowing or unpremeditated shooting; Greek says with accurate aim. The wound location also differs, joints and armor versus lung and breastplate; neither is silently anatomically repaired. Key words: לְתֻמּוֹ (letummo, “in his innocence or without knowing”); εὐστόχως (eustochōs, “with good aim”). Checked in BHS 18:33 and Rahlfs–Hanhart 18:33.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:33:3 argues that an Israelite shot unintentionally and struck his own king. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew describes unknowing or unpremeditated shooting; Greek says with accurate aim. The rabbinic comment argues that an Israelite shot unintentionally and struck his own king. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The difference may arise from how the archer’s action is characterized: without knowing the target or with effective aim. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew speaks of people who hate YHWH; Greek reverses the relation to someone hated by the Lord. The messenger is seer in Hebrew, prophet in Greek. The complete readings above locate this contrast within the verse; the difference in changed agent or recipient is the point to carry into the reception discussion.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:29:1 explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew speaks of people who hate YHWH; Greek reverses the relation to someone hated by the Lord. The related rabbinic context explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The relation between hatred and the Lord may have been construed in opposite directions, changing human hostility into divine rejection. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew introduces ambushers against all three hostile groups. Greek instead explicitly makes Ammon attack Moab and Seir; no unnamed ambushers appear. The complete readings above locate this contrast within the verse; the difference in changed agent or recipient is the point to carry into the reception discussion.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 20:22:1 understands the ambush through God turning the hostile groups against one another. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew introduces ambushers against all three hostile groups. The rabbinic comment understands the ambush through God turning the hostile groups against one another. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek may identify the hostile groups themselves as the agents of the ambush rather than introduce unnamed attackers. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew includes wives among the captives; Greek has daughters. The remaining son's names, Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, are retained rather than harmonized. Greek Ochozias is rendered by its recognizable form Ahaziah; the Hebrew Jehoahaz remains distinct.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 21:17:1 explains the verb as breaching or breaking through. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew includes wives among the captives; Greek has daughters. The rabbinic comment explains the verb as breaching or breaking through. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The family-capture notice may preserve different household categories, while the remaining son’s alternate name is an additional textual question. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The captured king is hiding in Hebrew but receiving medical treatment in Greek. Hebrew has a plural killing agent, Greek a singular one; both explain the burial through Jehoshaphat's piety.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:29:1 explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The captured king is hiding in Hebrew but receiving medical treatment in Greek. The related rabbinic context explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The king’s situation may have been understood through concealment or treatment for wounds; the surrounding pursuit does not determine the word’s transmission history. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew orders death for anyone following Athaliah and sends her beyond the ranks; Greek commands the officers to follow her outside the house and speaks of her death. Greek also makes the priest himself go out.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 23:14:1 discusses the ranks or passageway while admitting uncertainty about the word’s origin. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew orders death for anyone following Athaliah and sends her beyond the ranks; Greek commands the officers to follow her outside the house and speaks of her death. The rabbinic comment discusses the ranks or passageway while admitting uncertainty about the word’s origin. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The instructions may have been divided differently between following Athaliah and killing anyone who follows her. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew brings the king down from the sanctuary; Greek brings him up into it before the palace entry. Commanders become ancestral rulers, and the Upper Gate becomes the Inner Gate.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 23:14:1 discusses the ranks or passageway while admitting uncertainty about the word’s origin. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew brings the king down from the sanctuary; Greek brings him up into it before the palace entry. The related rabbinic context discusses the ranks or passageway while admitting uncertainty about the word’s origin. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The route may reflect a differently formulated movement through sanctuary and palace, alongside a distinct gate designation. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek connects all his sons with the preceding attackers and mentions five coming against him. Hebrew instead lists sons, numerous oracles, and sanctuary work as topics in a royal exposition. The Greek has no corresponding oracle or building notice; its pronoun and five remain unexplained.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:29:1 explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Greek connects all his sons with the preceding attackers and mentions five coming against him. The related rabbinic context explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek’s attackers, sons, and unexplained five may reflect a different division of the royal summary rather than a recoverable fluent paraphrase. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew confronts the captors with their own guilt; Greek instead has the prophet declare his presence as a witness to their God. The Greek does not reproduce the direct guilt question.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 18:29:1 explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Hebrew confronts the captors with their own guilt; Greek instead has the prophet declare his presence as a witness to their God. The related rabbinic context explains Ahab’s disguise through fear of recognition after Micaiah’s prophecy. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The prophetic address may have been reformulated from a question about the captors’ guilt to a declaration of the prophet’s witnessing role. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Hebrew masculine keeper identifies the husband; the Greek feminine participle identifies Huldah as keeping the robes, changing the holder of the office. The Greek supplies the king’s speaking verb, has Chelles for Hasrah, and transliterates the district name Masana.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 34:22:1 reports a rabbinic explanation that the king sought Huldah because of her expected compassion. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Hebrew masculine keeper identifies the husband; the Greek feminine participle identifies Huldah as keeping the robes, changing the holder of the office. The rabbinic comment reports a rabbinic explanation that the king sought Huldah because of her expected compassion. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The robe-keeping participle may have been attached to Huldah rather than her husband, changing the officeholder through grammatical agreement. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Greek explicitly includes Jerusalem and ends with singular he and his fathers, evaluating the king. The Hebrew ends with plural they and their fathers, evaluating the people’s continued allegiance during his lifetime.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context; not a direct comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 34:22:1 reports a rabbinic explanation that the king sought Huldah because of her expected compassion. This related interpretation supplies context for comparison; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. Acts 7:45-50 recalls David’s desire and Solomon’s building, then questions any confinement of God to handmade dwellings. This directly receives the sanctuary history while making a further theological argument. It does not supply a measurement missing from this verse or turn different architectural objects, locations, or priestly roles into the same thing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Greek explicitly includes Jerusalem and ends with singular he and his fathers, evaluating the king. The related rabbinic context reports a rabbinic explanation that the king sought Huldah because of her expected compassion. The Christian connection concerns the sanctuary’s history and the meaning of God’s dwelling. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The final evaluation may summarize the king’s fidelity rather than the people’s conduct during his reign. A distinct underlying formulation is also possible. The explicit agents remain different even where a broader theological reading can accommodate both, and the wording alone does not identify the direction or date of change.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Hebrew identifies male and female singers; the Greek identifies male and female rulers, changing the people assigned the lamenting role. The Hebrew also has their laments and a plural ordinance object, while the Greek has one lament.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 35:25:1 understands the participants as singers whose voices serve both song and lament. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 12:4-7 describes different gifts and services as contributing to a common good. This is a thematic comparison with assigned work in Israel’s worship and administration, not a claim that Paul comments on this roster. Different offices, named workers, and musical or treasury duties should remain explicit even when a common principle of service is drawn.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Hebrew identifies male and female singers; the Greek identifies male and female rulers, changing the people assigned the lamenting role. The rabbinic comment understands the participants as singers whose voices serve both song and lament. The Christian connection concerns different duties serving a common good. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The consonantal similarity of words for singers and rulers offers a possible lexical route to the different participants in the lament. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Greek names Zedekiah where the Hebrew has the young man, shifts to plural attackers, and describes elders being carried away rather than included in the unspared groups. The Hebrew has their sanctuary and his hand; the Greek has his sanctuary and their hands. The antecedent of the Greek sanctuary pronoun is not made certain by capitalization.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 36:17:2 connects the sanctuary violence with earlier defilement and prophetic judgment. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Greek names Zedekiah where the Hebrew has the young man, shifts to plural attackers, and describes elders being carried away rather than included in the unspared groups. The rabbinic comment connects the sanctuary violence with earlier defilement and prophetic judgment. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The judgment scene may preserve different identifications of the young victim and the fate of the elders, alongside shifted pronoun references. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The Hebrew explicitly identifies survivors of the sword and ends the servitude with Persia’s reign. The Greek gives the kingdom of the Medes, a materially different dynastic endpoint.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Commentary printed as Rashi on 2 Chronicles 36:20:1 relates the exile’s duration to the land’s neglected Sabbaths. This interpretation addresses the Hebrew passage; it does not establish the origin of the Greek wording. Its scope should be kept distinct from the source text and from the Christian connection below.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical connection. 1 Corinthians 10:6-14 uses Israel’s past as a warning against idolatry and presumption. The cited examples concern the wilderness, so applying that warning here is a thematic comparison. It offers a Christian question about faithfulness without claiming that Paul explains this verse’s named actor, genealogy, or disputed expression.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The Hebrew explicitly identifies survivors of the sword and ends the servitude with Persia’s reign. The rabbinic comment relates the exile’s duration to the land’s neglected Sabbaths. The Christian connection concerns warnings about idolatry and unfaithfulness. These observations can be read together without making the interpreter’s explanation the wording of the base text or proof of its historical origin.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The endpoint may be designated through different imperial succession traditions, but identifying Medes and Persians as interchangeable would erase the wording. Different interpretation and a distinct source formulation remain possibilities. The proposed explanation identifies what needs testing; it does not establish a translator’s intention, a reconstructed manuscript, or the direction of alteration.