Deuteronomy — Disparate Study

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek lacks the entire clause about the little ones becoming plunder and compresses the description to every young child. This removes a substantial narrative link to the parents' expressed fear while retaining the children's inheritance. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Your little ones, whom you said would become plunder, and your children who today do …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Every young child who today does …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Numbers 14:29:1 explains: וכל פקדיכם לכל מספרכם AND ALL OF YOU THAT WERE NUMBERED IN ANY COUNTING OF YOU — i.e. all that are numbered of you in any census (מספר) in which you are numbered, as, for instance, on going to or coming back from war, or when giving the shekels: all who are numbered in all these censuses shall die, and these are, everyone מבן עשרים שנה וגו׳ FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARDS — The age is expressly mentioned to exclude the tribe of Levi because those who were numbered of them were not from twenty years old and upwards (but they were either numbered from one month old — cf. Numbers 3:40, or from thirty years old; Numbers 4:3) (Bava Batra 121b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The contrast between the parents' fear and the children's inheritance is more explicit in Hebrew. Rabbinic exposition develops the generation distinction; Christian wilderness teaching emphasizes response to God's promise. The shorter Greek should not be expanded merely to preserve a familiar narrative emphasis.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may compress the children's description around their eventual inheritance, omitting the recalled fear that they would become plunder. A shorter source is also possible. The omission affects this narrative link without removing the children or their promised future from the account.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew commands Israel to exercise caution; Greek makes Esau's descendants the subject of both fear and wariness. The instruction to Israel becomes a prediction about its neighbors. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… you, so be very careful.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you and be exceedingly wary of you.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:4:1 explains: ונשמרתם מאד TAKE YE GOOD HEED TO YOURSELVES — And what is this "taking heed”? What follows: אל תתגרו בם CONTEND NOT WITH THEM. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The encounter with Esau's descendants involves restraint and fear, but assigns wariness differently. Rabbinic interpretation explains Israel's conduct toward its kin. Christian teaching on peace offers a broader connection while leaving the actual addressee and grammatical force intact.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may attach the warning verb to the immediately preceding neighboring people rather than make it a renewed instruction to Israel. Such subject resolution is a plausible syntactic explanation. A source difference remains possible, and the text should preserve the distinction between command and prediction.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew affirms God's knowledge of Israel's journey; Greek commands Israel to consider its journey. Greek also adds fearsome and begins with our God rather than your God. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of your hands. He has known your journey through this great wilderness. These …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of your hands. Consider how you crossed that great and fearsome …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:7:1 explains: כי ה' אלהיך ברכך FOR THE LORD THY GOD HATH BLESSED THEE — therefore you should not show yourselves ungrateful to Him by behaving as though you were poor, but act as rich people.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The wilderness retrospect joins provision and the experience of travel. Rabbinic exposition highlights divine care; Christian reflection on dependence supplies a related application. Knowing the journey and commanding its remembrance can coexist, but remain different statements in the displayed columns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the remembered journey as something Israel is commanded to consider rather than something God knows. This changes the agency of reflection. A different source wording is possible, and the added fearsome description should be examined separately from the knowledge/consideration contrast.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The selected Greek text names Seir, whereas Hebrew names Ar. This changes the land explicitly granted to Lot's descendants and creates tension with Seir's grant to Esau in verse 5; it must not be silently harmonized. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… me: Do not harass Moab or provoke them …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… me: Do not act with hostility toward the Moabites or join battle …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:9:1 explains: ואל תתגר בם וגו׳ AND DO NOT CONTEND WITH THEM [IN WAR] — As regards Moab He forbade them (the Israelites) only war against them, but they may frighten them, appearing before them when equipped for war; therefore it is written, (Numbers 22:3) "And Moab was afraid because of the people", because they took plunder and loot from them. But about the children of Ammon it is said, (v. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The grants to Esau's and Lot's descendants establish boundaries on Israel's action. Rabbinic interpretation explains those distinct relationships. Christian recognition of God's providence beyond one people offers a thematic connection, but does not resolve the different place-names or justify merging their territorial grants.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek Seir may reflect an inherited geographic identification or influence from the neighboring Edomite notices. These are hypotheses to test, not a demonstrated correction of the Hebrew Ar. The tension within the Greek geography is real and requires witness comparison rather than silent harmonization.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English As in verse 9, Greek Seir differs from Hebrew Ar and changes the geographical identification within Moab's boundary notice. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Today you are passing through Moab's territory, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Today you will pass through Moab's territory, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:18:1 explains: אתה עבר היום את גבול מואב … וקרבת מול בני עמון THOU ART TO PASS THIS DAY THE BOUNDARY OF MOAB … AND THOU WILT APPROACH OPPOSITE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON — from here we see that the land of Ammon was on the north [of Moab].

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The grants to Esau's and Lot's descendants establish boundaries on Israel's action. Rabbinic interpretation explains those distinct relationships. Christian recognition of God's providence beyond one people offers a thematic connection, but does not resolve the different place-names or justify merging their territorial grants.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek Seir may reflect an inherited geographic identification or influence from the neighboring Edomite notices. These are hypotheses to test, not a demonstrated correction of the Hebrew Ar. The tension within the Greek geography is real and requires witness comparison rather than silent harmonization.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew makes God the singular agent of doing and destroying; the printed Greek has plural verbs, they did and they wiped out. The plural agents are not identified clearly, and the translation preserves that difficulty. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… Horites before them. They dispossessed them and settled in …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Horites before them, inherited the land, and settled in …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:12:1 explains: יירשום — This is a present tense form of the verb; it is as much as to say, I gave them power that they might go on driving them out continuously. This supplies a related rabbinic explanation of the passage or its subject; it is not a direct discussion of this particular Hebrew–Greek difference.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The comparison draws on the displacement of earlier inhabitants. Rabbinic explanation can trace the named peoples, while Christian providential interpretation considers the larger history. Divine and human agency may coexist theologically, but the Greek's unexpressed plural subject must not be replaced with a confident identification.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may resolve the surrounding collective peoples as agents where Hebrew explicitly attributes the action to God. The unnamed plural remains difficult. A source difference is also possible, and identifying those agents confidently would go beyond what the selected Greek wording makes explicit.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek identifies Hivites rather than Avvim and Cappadocians from Cappadocia rather than Caphtorim from Caphtor. These are substantive ethnic and geographical differences. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… who came from Caphtor destroyed them and settled …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… who came from Cappadocia wiped them out and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:23:1 explains: והעוים הישבים בחצרים וגו׳ BUT THE AVIM WHO DWELL IN HAZERIM etc. —The Avim are part of the Philistine people, for they are enumerated together with them in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3), as it is said, “The five lords of the Philistines, the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, and the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avim”. But because of the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech, king of the Philistines (Genesis 21:24), Israel would have been unable to take their land out of their possession; […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The verse remembers earlier displacement within the region. Rabbinic geographical explanation and Christian historical reflection supply context, while the ethnic identifications remain distinct evidence. A modern reconstruction of population movement should not be built by treating each Greek name as a transparent transliteration of Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify unfamiliar peoples and places through names current in its geographic world. Cultural identification or a different inherited tradition can explain more than mere spelling variation here. The equivalence of Caphtor and Cappadocia cannot be assumed from the translation itself.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew promises I will begin, with God as agent; Greek commands begin, addressing Israel. Greek also substitutes hearing your name for hearing reports of you. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… heaven. They will hear reports of you, tremble, and writhe because …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… name, they will be troubled and suffer pangs …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 2:25:1 explains: תחת כל השמים [THIS DAY I BEGIN TO PUT THE DREAD OF THEE … UPON THE NATIONS THAT ARE] UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN — This (the statement that the nations under the entire heaven will dread the Israelites) teaches that the sun stood still for Moses on the day of the battle with Og, and the matter was consequently known under the whole heaven (Avodah Zarah 25a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Divine action and Israel's advance are connected, but the opening assigns agency differently. Rabbinic interpretation emphasizes the promise's reach; Christian discussions of trust and obedience provide a thematic comparison. The command/promise distinction should remain visible before those themes are combined.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the opening as an imperative to Israel rather than God's first-person promise. The shift can arise through verbal reading or a different source form. The shared fear motif does not remove the difference in who initiates the stated action.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew explicitly describes divine anger; Greek says the Lord disregarded Moses. Greek also lacks to Me in the final prohibition. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “But YHWH was angry with me because of …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “But the Lord disregarded me because of …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 3:26:2 explains: למענכם ON ACCOUNT OF YOU — You caused this for me (that God was wroth with me); similarly it states, (Psalms 106:32) “And they provoked Him at the waters of Meriba, and He did evil to Moses on their account".

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Moses' request is refused in both columns, yet the response is portrayed differently. Rabbinic explanation examines the reason and limit of intercession, while Christian reception can compare persevering prayer. Anger and disregard should not be treated as the same emotional or relational description.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret divine anger through its consequence for Moses' request, disregard or refusal to heed. This is a plausible shift from disposition to response. It does not establish that the Greek tradition denies divine anger elsewhere or that Moses' exclusion carries no moral significance.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew states dispossession; Greek explicitly states destruction. The change affects what the conquest is said to do to the other nations. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… their land as an inheritance, as is the case today.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… to inherit, as you possess it today.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 4:38:1 explains: ממך מפניך — Invert it (the order of the words) and then explain it accordingly: to dispossess from before thee (מפניך) nations greater and mightier than thee (ממך) This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of wilderness and inheritance. Hebrews 3:7–19; 4:1–11 reads the wilderness generation’s response as a warning and discusses the promise of rest. This is direct reception of the larger history, not a commentary on each name or pronoun here. Geographic grants and conquest verbs must retain their own explicit wording.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew promises life; Greek promises that God will give rest. Greek also joins the opening to the preceding injunction. The rest promise must remain visible without replacing it with the Hebrew wording. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Walk in the whole way …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “along the whole way …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 30:19:2 explains: ובחרת בחיים THEREFORE CHOOSE THE LIFE — I show you these (“I set life and death before thee) in order that you may choose the portion of life. It is like a man who says to his son, “Choose for yourself a good portion of my real estate”, and sets him in the best portion saying to him, “Choose this!” And concerning this it states, (Psalms 16:5) “The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup, אתה תומיך גורלי”, i.e. “You place my hand on the good lot, saying, ‘Choose this!'”

Christian teaching and understanding Patristic reception of the commandments. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.16 argues that the Decalogue’s moral commands continue, while interpreting ritual signs within his Christian framework. Hebrews 4:1–11 supplies a related discussion of rest. These are theological readings, not a proof that life and rest are interchangeable words in this verse.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Obedience is related to a good future in the land, but life and divinely given rest emphasize different goods. Rabbinic exposition follows the command's practical force; Hebrews develops rest within a Christian argument. That later use should not erase the Hebrew promise's own wording.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the promised outcome through settled rest rather than life, perhaps drawing on the land-inheritance context. A different source word is another possibility. Hebrews' later rest theology provides reception context, not evidence that Christian interpretation caused the Greek wording.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew names frontlets and locates them between the eyes; Greek describes something immovable before the eyes. This changes the explicit formulation of the sign while retaining the hand-sign command. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… let them be frontlets between your eyes.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… let it be immovable before your eyes.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 6:8:2 explains: לטטפות בין עיניך AND THEY SHALL BE FOR FRONTLETS BETWEEN THINE EYES — these are the Tephillin that are placed upon the head. It is in reference to the number of the Scriptural sections contained in them that they are termed טטפת, for טט denotes "two" in Katpi and פת in Afriki denotes "two" (Sanhedrin 4b; cf. Rashi on Exodus 13:16).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic reception identifies a concrete practice of binding the words, while Christian applications often stress sustained remembrance. Those approaches should not be projected back as the cause of the textual distinction. The hand-sign remains shared, and the forehead description differs in its explicit physical vocabulary.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render an unfamiliar technical term for the forehead sign through its understood fixed or enduring character. This is a plausible lexical explanation rather than proof of opposition to physical practice. Later interpretations must distinguish what is translated from how the instruction is embodied.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew promises righteousness; Greek eleēmosynē here presents mercy or merciful favor for the obedient. Its use elsewhere for almsgiving does not make this verse a command about monetary charity. Greek also adds the final Lord. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… care to practice this whole commandment before YHWH our …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… care to practice all these commandments before the Lord …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 6:18:1 explains: הישר והטוב [AND THOU SHALT DO] THAT WHICH IS RIGHT AND GOOD [IN THE EYES OF THE LORD] — This refers to a compromise, acting beyond the strict demands of the law (cf. Rashi on Bava Metzia 108a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Romans 10:5–10 places righteousness, law, faith, and a citation from Deuteronomy 30 within Paul’s argument. It does not directly interpret the mercy noun in Deuteronomy 6:25. The comparison opens a Christian theological question while preserving the local Greek sense rather than automatically reading the word as monetary almsgiving.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The passage connects observance with a favorable relation before God. Rabbinic explanation and Christian discussion of righteousness and mercy address that relationship differently. The Greek term should retain its contextual sense rather than be made to settle a complete doctrine of works, grace, or charity.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the benefit of obedience through merciful favor rather than reproduce the Hebrew righteousness noun. The word's semantic range must be read in this context. Its later or other uses for almsgiving do not turn this verse into an instruction to donate money.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew makes the peoples the object of consume; Greek makes their spoils the object. This materially changes the action commanded in the first clause. Greek also uses a stumbling image for Hebrew snare. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… consume all the peoples YHWH your God gives …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… consume all the spoils of the nations the Lord your God gives …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 7:5:4 explains: ופסליהם — These are images. This supplies a related rabbinic explanation of the passage or its subject; it is not a direct discussion of this particular Hebrew–Greek difference.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The object of consumption changes from peoples to spoils. Rabbinic interpretation follows the Hebrew warning, while Christian ethical reflection must acknowledge the ancient violence rather than smooth it away. This local difference should be assessed alongside, not used to cancel, other Greek destruction language.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret consuming peoples through consuming their goods, or reflect a distinct object in its source. The difference has substantial practical force. The surrounding severe commands should remain in view, so this one reading must not be generalized into a claim that the Greek conquest account is uniformly nonviolent.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has singular nation and replaces dispossession with destruction. Heart becomes mind; the destruction verb changes the stated goal. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… say in your heart: These nations are more numerous than …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… say in your mind: This nation is more numerous than …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 7:17:1 explains: כי תאמר בלבבך — You must admit that the word כי here denotes “perhaps": perhaps thou wilt say in thy heart, “Because they are many, I shall be unable to dispossess them". Do not speak thus, לא תירא מהם THOU SHALT NOT BE AFRAID OF THEM. — For it is not possible to explain it in one of the three other meanings of כי so that the words לא תירא מהם will then appropriately fit in with it.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew assigns Israel the destruction of the kings' name under heaven; Greek says their name will perish from that place. Both the agent's expression and the scope change. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… their name from under heaven. No one will …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… will perish from that place. No one will …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 7:22:1 explains: פן תרבה עליך חית השדה LEST THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD INCREASE UPON THEE — But is it not a fact that if people perform the will of the Omnipresent they will not have to fear the beasts, as it is said, (Job 5:23) “And the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee”?! But it states this because it was manifest before Him that they would in future sin.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The defeat of rulers includes their remembered name, with different agency and scope. Rabbinic exposition examines the promise, while Christian reflection on worldly power offers a thematic comparison. The grammatical omission of an agent is not proof that the outcome occurs without human action.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may turn an explicit command or promise of Israel's action into the predicted disappearance of a name. It also narrows the geographical expression. Such rhetorical reformulation is plausible, but does not establish a distinct historical event or remove Israel's agency from the surrounding conquest narrative.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits these forty years here and changes to know into a passive disclosure, might become known. Hebrew's humbling is represented by affliction; the account of the test's purpose differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and test you, to know what was in …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and test you, so that what was in …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 8:2:1 explains: התשמר מצותו [THAT HE MIGHT KNOW WHAT WAS IN THY HEART] WHETHER THOU WOULDST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS — viz., the commandment that ye should not put Him to the test, and that you should not doubt Him (i.e. His ways).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of wilderness instruction. Matthew 4:1–4 presents Jesus answering temptation with Deuteronomy’s lesson about life sustained by God’s utterance. This reuses Israel’s wilderness instruction in a new narrative setting. It does not settle every omission or added witness formula in the chapter, which should be compared independently.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The wilderness exposes the people's response to hardship and command. Rabbinic interpretation and Jesus' temptation narrative illuminate learning and trust. The omitted forty years and changed knowledge construction remain textual differences even when the broader spiritual lesson is shared.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may abbreviate the remembered time span and express the purpose of testing impersonally, as disclosure. This avoids naming the knower at that point without eliminating divine testing. A shorter source remains possible; the passive alone does not establish a philosophical doctrine about God's knowledge.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits your own prior ignorance of manna and explicitly specifies every word of God, where Hebrew has everything proceeding from YHWH's mouth. The manner of instruction and divine designation also differ. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… fed you manna that neither you nor your fathers had …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… fed you manna your fathers had not …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 8:2:1 explains: התשמר מצותו [THAT HE MIGHT KNOW WHAT WAS IN THY HEART] WHETHER THOU WOULDST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS — viz., the commandment that ye should not put Him to the test, and that you should not doubt Him (i.e. His ways).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of wilderness instruction. Matthew 4:1–4 presents Jesus answering temptation with Deuteronomy’s lesson about life sustained by God’s utterance. This reuses Israel’s wilderness instruction in a new narrative setting. It does not settle every omission or added witness formula in the chapter, which should be compared independently.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Matthew 4:4 directly applies the lesson to Jesus' refusal to turn stones into bread. Rabbinic exposition attends to dependence on God's provision within Israel's wilderness story. The Christian application should be presented as a new narrative setting, while the two Deuteronomy columns retain their own fuller formulations.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the Hebrew proceeding-from-the-mouth expression explicit as divine utterance and streamline the description of unfamiliar food. That is a plausible interpretive clarification. Jesus' citation witnesses the wording's later Christian use, without establishing every detail of the earlier translation's source.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek explicitly adds heaven and earth as witnesses, giving the warning a cosmic testimony formula absent from this Hebrew verse. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… to them, I testify against you today …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… to them, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 30:19:1 explains: העדתי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ I CALL AS WITNESSES AGAINST YOU THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH, which exist for ever, and when evil will befall you they will be witnesses that I have warned you regarding all this (cf. Targum Jonathan on). Another explanation of העדתי בכם את השמים וגו׳ I CALL THE HEAVEN [AND THE EARTH] AS WITNESSES AGAINST YOU: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the heavens which I have created to be at your service; have they perhaps ever changed their character? Has the orb of the sun perhaps ever failed to rise in the East and to give light to the whole world, just as is stated, (Ecclesiastes 1:4—5) “And the sun riseth, and the sun goeth down [and hasteth to its place where it arises]”?! Look at the […]

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of wilderness instruction. Matthew 4:1–4 presents Jesus answering temptation with Deuteronomy’s lesson about life sustained by God’s utterance. This reuses Israel’s wilderness instruction in a new narrative setting. It does not settle every omission or added witness formula in the chapter, which should be compared independently.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning concerns forgetting God and following other deities. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting, while Christian warnings against idolatry supply a thematic comparison. The cosmic witnesses are explicit in Greek here and should not be supplied silently to the Hebrew reading.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may bring the heaven-and-earth witness formula from related covenant warnings into this verse. Such internal alignment is plausible, as is a fuller Hebrew source. The addition strengthens the stated solemnity without proving that the shorter Hebrew warning lacks covenantal authority.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits quickly and Israel's separate act of dispossession, and describes God's action as turning the nations back rather than subduing them. Israel, not God, is the subject of the final destruction clause in both. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… will dispossess them and make them perish quickly, as YHWH told …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… will destroy them, as the Lord told …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:4:1 explains: אל תאמר בלבבך SAY NOT IN THY HEART, “My righteousness and the wickedness of these nations brought it about that I possess the land; This supplies a related rabbinic explanation of the passage or its subject; it is not a direct discussion of this particular Hebrew–Greek difference.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek repeatedly depicts destruction where Hebrew describes expulsion, adds good to the land, and uses plural righteous acts. Both reject Israelite merit as the reason for conquest. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… nations' wickedness that YHWH is dispossessing them before you.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… nations' impiety that the Lord will destroy them before you.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:4:1 explains: אל תאמר בלבבך SAY NOT IN THY HEART, “My righteousness and the wickedness of these nations brought it about that I possess the land; This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek explicitly names His covenant where Hebrew has the word, and holiness where Hebrew has uprightness. Destruction again replaces dispossession; the Greek also has the shorter divine designation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… heart's uprightness. Rather, YHWH your God is dispossessing these nations before …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… heart's holiness. Rather, the Lord will destroy these nations before …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:5:1 explains: לא בצדקתך אתה בא לרשת … כי ברשעת הגוים NOT FOR THY RIGHTEOUSNESS … DOST THOU GO TO POSSESS [THEIR LAND], but (כי) for the wickedness of these nations. — Here you have the word כי used in the sense of "but".

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English God says I commanded in Hebrew, but you commanded in Greek, assigning the immediate command to Moses. Neither selected text calls the object a calf in this verse. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “YHWH said to me: …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “The Lord said to me: …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:1:8 explains: ודי זהב AND DI ZAHAB (the name is taken in the sense of “sufficiency of gold”) — He reproved them on account of the golden calf which they had made in consequence of the abundance of gold which they had, as it is said, (Hosea 2:10) “And silver did I give them in abundance and gold: they, however, made it into a Baal” (cf. Berakhot 32a; Sifrei Devarim 1:18).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The people depart from a commanded way, with different attribution of the immediate command. Rabbinic exposition and Christian reception of Moses' mediation clarify the relation. The object should not be called a calf in this verse's translation when neither selected wording names it here.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may retain Moses as the immediate speaker or mediator of the command, while Hebrew represents God as its source. This is a plausible shift in narrated agency. A different source pronoun remains possible, and theological agreement about mediation does not make the grammatical persons identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds a statement that God has already addressed Moses repeatedly, changing the narrated history of the warning. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… said to me: I have seen this …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… said to me: I have spoken to you once and twice, saying: I have seen …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:1:8 explains: ודי זהב AND DI ZAHAB (the name is taken in the sense of “sufficiency of gold”) — He reproved them on account of the golden calf which they had made in consequence of the abundance of gold which they had, as it is said, (Hosea 2:10) “And silver did I give them in abundance and gold: they, however, made it into a Baal” (cf. Berakhot 32a; Sifrei Devarim 1:18).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The accusation of stubbornness belongs to a sustained crisis, not an isolated adjective. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian wilderness warnings supply related reflections. The added history of repeated address remains explicit Greek narration and should not be treated as already stated in Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may explicate the warning as a repeated divine communication, connecting it to the broader rebellion narrative. A fuller source is also possible. The expansion changes the narrated history of the dialogue, even if repetition is consistent with other parts of Moses' retrospect.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew measures the rebellion from Moses' knowledge of Israel; Greek measures it from the Lord's becoming known to Israel. The Greek is not from the day you became known to Him. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “You have been rebellious against YHWH from the day …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “You have kept disobeying the Lord from the day …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:25:1 explains: ואתנפל וגו׳ AND I FELL DOWN [BEFORE THE LORD … THE FORTY DAYS … WHICH I HAD FALLEN DOWN] — These are the very same forty days mentioned above (v. 18), and it mentions them a second time here, because there is written here (in the next verse) the wording of his prayer, as it is said, “O Lord God, destroy not thy people, etc.”.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The rebellion is measured against a long relationship, but that relationship is described differently. Rabbinic exposition follows Moses' retrospect, while Christian teaching about response to revelation offers a broader comparison. Knowing Israel and God becoming known to Israel are not the same starting point.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the relation of knowing in terms of God's revelation to Israel rather than Moses' experience of the people. Pronoun and verbal interpretation provide a plausible explanation, alongside source variation. The distinct direction of knowing must be retained rather than reversed for smoother English.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds King of the gods, a repeated great-strength formula, and the uplifted arm; it uses God as the prayer's addressee and portion for inheritance. These explicit theological and narrative expansions are retained. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… out of Egypt with a mighty hand.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… out of Egypt by Your great strength, Your mighty hand, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:25:1 explains: ואתנפל וגו׳ AND I FELL DOWN [BEFORE THE LORD … THE FORTY DAYS … WHICH I HAD FALLEN DOWN] — These are the very same forty days mentioned above (v. 18), and it mentions them a second time here, because there is written here (in the next verse) the wording of his prayer, as it is said, “O Lord God, destroy not thy people, etc.”.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Moses appeals to God's relationship with the people and the patriarchal promise. Rabbinic interpretation examines the grounds of intercession; Christian reflection on mediation supplies another framework. The expanded Greek prayer should remain visible, without treating its titles as a complete statement about the existence of other gods.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may expand the prayer with familiar titles, deliverance formulas, and the oath supporting the covenant. Such liturgical or contextual amplification is plausible, as is a fuller source. The coherent theological additions do not identify their date or prove dependence on any later prayer tradition.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds God's oath by Himself, strengthening the stated basis of Moses' appeal. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… Isaac, and Jacob. Do not look at …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Isaac, and Jacob, Your servants, to whom You swore by Yourself. Do not look …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:25:1 explains: ואתנפל וגו׳ AND I FELL DOWN [BEFORE THE LORD … THE FORTY DAYS … WHICH I HAD FALLEN DOWN] — These are the very same forty days mentioned above (v. 18), and it mentions them a second time here, because there is written here (in the next verse) the wording of his prayer, as it is said, “O Lord God, destroy not thy people, etc.”.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. Ephesians 2:8–10 denies boasting in salvation and connects grace with a life of good works. This provides a Christian parallel to Deuteronomy’s rejection of Israel’s merit as the reason for receiving the land. It is not a direct gloss on the conquest verbs or permission to repeat the ancient campaigns.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Moses appeals to God's relationship with the people and the patriarchal promise. Rabbinic interpretation examines the grounds of intercession; Christian reflection on mediation supplies another framework. The expanded Greek prayer should remain visible, without treating its titles as a complete statement about the existence of other gods.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may expand the prayer with familiar titles, deliverance formulas, and the oath supporting the covenant. Such liturgical or contextual amplification is plausible, as is a fuller source. The coherent theological additions do not identify their date or prove dependence on any later prayer tradition.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the newcomer to those explicitly receiving justice. Prosēlytos here denotes the resident newcomer corresponding to Hebrew ger; translating it exclusively as religious convert would narrow the social command without sufficient contextual basis. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and loves the resident alien, giving him bread …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and loves the newcomer, giving him bread …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 10:18:1 explains: עשה משפט יתום ואלמנה HE EXECUTETH JUDGMENT OF THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOW — You have mention of His power (in the preceding verse) and together with His power you find mention of His humility here (“He executeth judgment of the fatherless and the widow”) (Megillah 31a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. James 1:27 connects faithful religion with care for orphans and widows, and Hebrews 13:2 urges hospitality to strangers. These provide Christian parallels to divine care for vulnerable people. They do not erase the Greek’s added newcomer in the justice clause or imply that the Hebrew lacks concern for that group.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi sets God's care for vulnerable people beside divine greatness, joining power with humility. Christian teaching about care for strangers provides a strong thematic connection. The Greek addition matters without supporting a claim that the Hebrew neglects the newcomer altogether.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the newcomer explicit among those receiving justice, in alignment with the love and provision named in the same sentence. This is plausible clarification of social scope. A fuller source is possible, while the Hebrew already protects the newcomer elsewhere in the verse and following command.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek replaces being strong with living and multiplying, names the Jordan, and explicitly calls the commandments His. The stated benefit of obedience differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Keep the whole commandment I command you …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Keep all His commandments that I command you …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:7:1 explains: כי עיניכם הראת BUT YOUR EYES HAVE SEEN — This is to be connected with the verse mentioned above (v. 2), thus: (2) For not with your children am I speaking who do not know, but with you whose eyes have seen, etc.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Obedience prepares the people for entry, but its immediate benefit differs. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian pilgrimage teaching provide related reflections on endurance. Living and multiplying are concrete promises, not merely decorative equivalents of becoming strong.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express strength through the life and increase expected in the land and specify the river crossing. This is plausible interpretation of the command's practical outcome. A different source remains possible, and the resulting benefit should not be translated back into Hebrew strength simply for symmetry.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew has My commandments; Greek has all His commandments. The Greek maintains Moses speaking about God, where the Hebrew shifts toward direct divine speech. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… you diligently obey My commandments that I …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you diligently obey all His commandments that I …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:13:3 explains: מצוה אתכם היום [MY COMMANDMENTS WHICH I] COMMAND YOU THIS DAY — This suggests that they should ever be to you as new commandments, as though you had heard them for the first time on that day (Sifrei Devarim 58).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rain, pasture, and provision remain gifts of God, but the voice through which they are promised differs. Rabbinic exposition and Christian teaching on dependence upon divine care illuminate the shared theme. The Hebrew's direct divine speech and Greek's mediated report should remain distinct.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may maintain Moses' third-person discourse about God where Hebrew shifts into first-person divine speech. The repeated pattern suggests discourse-level consistency rather than isolated pronoun mistakes. A differently formulated source remains possible, and theological continuity does not erase the change in speaking voice.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The giver speaks as I in Hebrew but is described as He in Greek, continuing the difference in speaking voice from verse 13. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and you will gather your grain, new …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and you will bring in your grain, wine, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:14:1 explains: ונתתי מטר ארצכם I WILL GIVE THE RAIN OF YOUR LAND [IN ITS SEASON] — You will then have done what devolved upon you, I, too, shall do what devolves upon Me (Sifrei Devarim 41:29; cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:15).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rain, pasture, and provision remain gifts of God, but the voice through which they are promised differs. Rabbinic exposition and Christian teaching on dependence upon divine care illuminate the shared theme. The Hebrew's direct divine speech and Greek's mediated report should remain distinct.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may maintain Moses' third-person discourse about God where Hebrew shifts into first-person divine speech. The repeated pattern suggests discourse-level consistency rather than isolated pronoun mistakes. A differently formulated source remains possible, and theological continuity does not erase the change in speaking voice.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew continues I will give; Greek has He will give and links eating and satisfaction grammatically to the warning in verse 16. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… your livestock, and you will eat and be satisfied.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… have eaten and been satisfied,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:15:1 explains: ונתתי עשב בשדך AND I WILL GIVE GRASS IN THY FIELD [FOR THY CATTLE] in thy field: so that you will not need to lead them to distant pasture grounds. Another explanation: it means that you will be able to cut your grain all the rainy season and cast it before thy cattle as fodder, and if you withdraw your hand from it (stop doing this) only thirty days before the harvest, it will not give you less of its corn than if you had not fed your cattle with it (as is implied by ואכלת ושבעת, you will eat to the full) (Sifrei Devarim 43:2).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rain, pasture, and provision remain gifts of God, but the voice through which they are promised differs. Rabbinic exposition and Christian teaching on dependence upon divine care illuminate the shared theme. The Hebrew's direct divine speech and Greek's mediated report should remain distinct.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may maintain Moses' third-person discourse about God where Hebrew shifts into first-person divine speech. The repeated pattern suggests discourse-level consistency rather than isolated pronoun mistakes. A differently formulated source remains possible, and theological continuity does not erase the change in speaking voice.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew warns of an enticed or deceived heart; Greek describes the heart becoming enlarged or expansive, here a dangerous response to satisfaction. Deceived has not been silently substituted into Greek. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Guard yourselves, lest your heart …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “take care, lest your heart …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:16:1 explains: TAKE HEED [THAT YOUR HEART MISLEAD YOU NOT] — when you have eaten and are full, take heed to yourselves that you kick not against God; for usually no man rebels against the Holy One, blessed be He, except out of satiety, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 8:12—14) “Lest thou eat and art full … and thy herds and flocks increase”. What is stated after this? “And thy heart be lifted up and thou forget [the Lord thy God]” (Sifrei Devarim 43:7).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning follows abundance and concerns turning toward other gods. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian warnings about wealth and forgetfulness can be compared. An enlarged heart may be dangerous in this context, but that contextual judgment should be distinguished from the Hebrew deception image.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the vulnerable heart after satisfaction through expansion or swelling rather than deception. Contextual association with prosperity offers a plausible explanation. It does not establish that the Greek verb has the same lexical meaning as deceived or authorize substituting that familiar word in translation.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits of mine and renders frontlets between your eyes as something immovable before your eyes. The distinct physical wording remains visible; this alone does not settle later practice. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “Put these words of mine upon your heart and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “Put these words into your heart and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:18:1 explains: ושמתם את דברי AND YE SHALL PLACE MY WORDS [UPON YOUR HEART] — Even after you have been banished make yourselves distinctive by means of My commands: lay Tephillin, attach Mezuzoth to your doorposts, so that these shall not be novelties to you when you return. Similarly does it state, (Jeremiah 31:21) “Set thee up distinguishing marks” (Sifrei Devarim 43:34).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic reception identifies a concrete practice of binding the words, while Christian applications often stress sustained remembrance. Those approaches should not be projected back as the cause of the textual distinction. The hand-sign remains shared, and the forehead description differs in its explicit physical vocabulary.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render an unfamiliar technical term for the forehead sign through its understood fixed or enduring character. This is a plausible lexical explanation rather than proof of opposition to physical practice. Later interpretations must distinguish what is translated from how the instruction is embodied.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek names Anti-Lebanon rather than Lebanon, affecting the geographical description, and adds great to the river. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… be yours. Your boundary will extend from …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… be yours. Your boundaries will extend from …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:7:8 explains: עד הנהר הגדל TO THE GREAT RIVER [THE RIVER EUPHRATES] — Because it is mentioned in connection with the Land of Israel, it terms it "great". A popular proverb says: A king’s servant is a king, attach yourself to a captain and people will bow down to you; go near to an anointed (a distinguished) person and you become anointed (distinguished) yourself (cf. Rashi on Shevuot 47b and Genesis 15:18).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The promise and instructions are grounded in named land and visible locations. Rabbinic geographical interpretation preserves one reading; Christian inheritance language supplies a different level of reception. The differing landmarks remain concrete textual questions that theology alone cannot resolve.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify landmarks through a different geographic tradition or translate a name by its perceived meaning. The resulting mountain, orientation, and tree expressions require individual examination. No single modern map or familiar place-name should be used to normalize all the differences silently.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek gives west instead of Arabah, adjacency instead of opposite, and a lofty oak instead of the oaks of Moreh. Both say sunset. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Gilgal, near the lofty oak?”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:30:3 explains: דרך מבוא השמש [AT THE PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN, FAR DISTANT FROM IT] ON THE WAY OF THE SETTING OF THE SUN — i.e. beyond the Jordan towards the West. The accents in the verse prove that they (the word אחרי and the phrase דרך מבוא השמש) are two unconnected phrases since they bear two separate accents of a different character, viz., the word אחרי is marked by a Pashta (a disjunctive accent), and the word דרך is marked by a משפל (our Yetib), and also has a Dagesh. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The promise and instructions are grounded in named land and visible locations. Rabbinic geographical interpretation preserves one reading; Christian inheritance language supplies a different level of reception. The differing landmarks remain concrete textual questions that theology alone cannot resolve.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify landmarks through a different geographic tradition or translate a name by its perceived meaning. The resulting mountain, orientation, and tree expressions require individual examination. No single modern map or familiar place-name should be used to normalize all the differences silently.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the explicit allotment and enduring-duration formula for all time, literally all the days. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… is giving you. You will possess it …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… God gives you as an allotment for all time. You will inherit …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:31:1 explains: כי אתם עברים את הירדן וגו׳ FOR YE SHALL PASS OVER THE JORDAN etc., — The miracles that will be wrought for you during your crossing of the Jordan shall be an omen for you that you will indeed come into and inherit the land (cf. Sifrei Devarim 57).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Christian reception of Torah’s central command. Mark 12:28–34 places the command to love God from Deuteronomy alongside love of neighbor. It gives a Christian context for remembrance, obedience, and the heart’s allegiance. It does not define the forehead-sign term or decide the speaking voice of the rain promises.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The people are addressed as future possessors of the land, with stronger explicit duration language in Greek. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian reflection on inheritance develop that promise differently. The expansion should be stated clearly before later debates about the land are brought into the discussion.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the intended permanence and allotment of possession explicit within the entry promise. This resembles explanatory expansion of covenant language. A fuller source is also possible, and the added duration formula should not be treated as proof that the shorter Hebrew promise is temporary.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek exchanges the methods applied to the wooden cult objects and images: cutting the groves and burning the images. It also makes the final disappearance of the name an outcome rather than a direct command to Israel. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… shatter their pillars, burn their Asherah poles with fire, cut down their …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… shatter their pillars, cut down their sacred …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:3:4 explains: ואבדתם את שמם AND DESTROY THEIR NAMES by giving them contemptuous nicknames. What they call בית גליא, “a sublime house”, you should call בית כריא, “a base house”, what they call עין כל, “the universal eye”, you call, עין קוץ “the thorn eye” (Avodah Zarah 46a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception concerning worship and participation. John 4:19–24 discusses worship in relation to place, while 1 Corinthians 10:16–22 considers participation in sacred meals. These are distinct Christian treatments of worship, not interchangeable with Deuteronomy’s chosen-place law. The offerings, recipients, divine-name verbs, and blood location remain specific textual questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The command targets objects and names associated with prohibited worship. Rabbinic exposition identifies the material categories, while Christian warnings against idolatry offer a broader comparison. Shared religious opposition does not make the prescribed methods or grammatical agency identical.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may assign destruction methods differently to familiar cultic categories and express the disappearance of the name as a result. Coordination within a conventional destruction list is plausible. A source variation remains possible, and the actual cutting and burning instructions should not be swapped back to Hebrew unnoticed.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds today and a separate gifts category, renders contributions as firstfruits, and speaks of invoking the name rather than its dwelling. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… all your choice vowed offerings that you vow to …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and every choice offering among the gifts you vow to …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:11:1 explains: והיה המקום וגו׳ IT SHALL BE [THAT YE SHALL BRING TO] THE PLACE [WHICH THE LORD YOUR GOD SHALL CHOOSE … EVEN THITHER YE SHALL BRING ALL THAT I COMMAND YOU] — then build the “Chosen House” for yourselves in Jerusalem. And so indeed it states of David, (II Samuel 7:1, 2): “And it came to pass when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies, that the king said unto Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in the house of cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains …'” (Sifrei Devarim 67:3; cf. Rashi on that verse).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception concerning worship and participation. John 4:19–24 discusses worship in relation to place, while 1 Corinthians 10:16–22 considers participation in sacred meals. These are distinct Christian treatments of worship, not interchangeable with Deuteronomy’s chosen-place law. The offerings, recipients, divine-name verbs, and blood location remain specific textual questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Centralized worship gathers offerings and people around the divine name, but the relation is described differently. Rabbinic interpretation explains the chosen-place law; Christian discussion of worship supplies a later perspective. Dwelling and invocation are related theological ideas, not interchangeable verbs.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may expand the offering list and interpret the placement of God's name through invocation at the chosen place. These can be functional clarifications of worship. A fuller source is another possibility, while each added category must be distinguished from a simple alternative label for an existing item.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek names the newcomer where Hebrew names the Levite, changing the expressly included recipient of the sacred meal. Verse 19 still protects the Levite in both traditions. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… slaves, and the Levite within your gates. Rejoice …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… slaves, and the newcomer in your cities. Rejoice …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:18:2 explains: והלוי אשר בשעריך [BUT THOU MUST EAT THEM BEFORE THE LORD, THOU …] AND THE LEVITE THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES — If you have nought to give him that is due to him as his portion, as, for instance, the first tithe, give him the “tithe of the poor” (the tithe that replaces the “second tithe” in the 3rd and 6th year of the Sabbatical period); and if you have no “tithe of the poor”, invite him to your feast-offering meal (Sifrei Devarim 74:5).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception concerning worship and participation. John 4:19–24 discusses worship in relation to place, while 1 Corinthians 10:16–22 considers participation in sacred meals. These are distinct Christian treatments of worship, not interchangeable with Deuteronomy’s chosen-place law. The offerings, recipients, divine-name verbs, and blood location remain specific textual questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The meal expresses inclusion within a defined community, with different named participants. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian hospitality teaching can illuminate its social significance. The actual newcomer/Levite distinction remains visible and should not be replaced by a generalized phrase such as all the needy.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may align the meal's recipients with other lists that include resident newcomers, or preserve a different social list. The continued protection of the Levite in verse 19 is important. The substitution here does not demonstrate that either tradition excludes the other group from all sacred meals.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits blood from the first burnt-offering clause and specifically locates the subsequent blood application at the altar's base. Hebrew has on the altar. The ritual locations must not be harmonized. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of your sacrifices shall be poured on the altar of …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of your sacrifices against the base of the altar of …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:27:1 explains: ועשית עלתיך AND THOU SHALT OFFER THY BURNT OFFERINGS — i.e. if they (thy sacrifices) be burnt offerings, put the flesh as well as the blood on the altar, but if they are peace offerings, then “the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured” first on the altar and afterwards you may eat the flesh. Furthermore did our Rabbis deduce that [the words] “thy sacrifices, however, [thou shalt bear, etc.]” are intended to teach with regard to consecrated animals that are outside the Land (abroad) as well as regards such animals that have been exchanged for other consecrated animals, and finally regarding the young of consecrated animals that [all] such must [also] be offered [in […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception concerning worship and participation. John 4:19–24 discusses worship in relation to place, while 1 Corinthians 10:16–22 considers participation in sacred meals. These are distinct Christian treatments of worship, not interchangeable with Deuteronomy’s chosen-place law. The offerings, recipients, divine-name verbs, and blood location remain specific textual questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Blood and flesh are handled differently within the offerings, and the explicit location changes. Rabbinic exposition clarifies the ritual distribution; Christian reception in Hebrews supplies a broader theological comparison. That comparison cannot determine the precise point of blood application named in this verse.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may specify the altar's base in keeping with familiar blood rites and abbreviate an earlier blood mention. Such procedural interpretation is plausible, alongside source variation. The two blood clauses should be read separately before a single harmonized sacrificial procedure is proposed.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly includes a brother through either parent; Hebrew expressly names the mother's son. This expands the stated kinship scope without deciding how later law interprets the Hebrew. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… your brother, your mother's son, or your son …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… brother from your father or your mother, or your son …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 13:7:3 explains: בן אמך THE SON OF THY MOTHER — i.e., thy brother on the mother’s side. (The meaning of the Hebrew words is: thy brother or the son of thy mother) (Sifrei Devarim 87:5).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning addresses intimate relationships that might pressure a person toward prohibited worship. Rabbinic interpretation defines the legal reach, while Christian teaching on loyalty to God provides a thematic comparison. The expanded kinship clause is explicit Greek wording, not a conclusion to be silently inserted into Hebrew.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may unpack the kinship category to include brothers through either parent rather than repeat the Hebrew's explicit maternal relation. This is plausible legal clarification. A fuller source remains possible, and later Jewish interpretation must be distinguished from a claim that the Hebrew's bare wording exhausts the law's scope.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek begins with an emphatic duty to report, where Hebrew begins with an emphatic command to kill. Both still require the addressee's first participation in the execution; the Greek is not a noncapital alternative. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “You must kill him. Your hand …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “You must report him. Your hands …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 13:10:2 explains: ידך תהיה בו בראשונה THINE HAND SHALL BE FIRST UPON HIM [TO PUT HIM TO DEATH] — He who was to be seduced to idolatry has the duty to put him to death; if he did not die by his hand he must die by the hands of others, as it goes on to state “and afterwards the hands of all the people” (cf. Sifrei Devarim 89:8).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic law examines testimony and communal responsibility; Christian reflection on religious loyalty operates in a different legal setting. The contrast concerns the first stated duty, not the disappearance of punishment. Neither ancient formulation should be read as permission for private violence against religious dissenters today.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may foreground reporting the offense as the procedural step before the execution that remains in the passage. This could be legal clarification or a distinct source formulation. Because the capital consequence persists, the opening should not be treated as a wholly noncapital alternative.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly says all the inhabitants, materially sharpening the scope of the city's defection. Hebrew sons of worthlessness is an idiom, not a reference here to literal offspring of a named demon. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… their city's inhabitants astray, saying: Let us …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… their city's inhabitants to turn away, saying: Let us …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 13:14:3 explains: ישבי עירם THE INHABITANTS OF THEIR CITY — but not the inhabitants of another city (Sifrei Devarim 93:4). From here they (our Rabbis) derived what they said, “A town is not treated as an עיר הנדחת (i.e. does not come under the category of a “condemned city” which according to vv. 16—17 must be utterly destroyed) unless it be men who lead them (the inhabitants) astray, and unless its seducers be of its midst (inhabitants of that city) (Sanhedrin 111b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The ancient case concerns a community led into prohibited worship. Rabbinic interpretation supplies limiting legal conditions, while Christian warnings about false teaching offer a different application. The Hebrew worthlessness idiom is not literal descent from a demon, and the Greek all materially sharpens the stated scope.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the city's collective defection explicit by adding all. This is plausible intensification or legal specification, alongside a fuller source. The addition should be distinguished from later rules about how many inhabitants must participate before the law applies.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The animal identifications differ substantially, especially Hebrew zemer versus Greek giraffe. Several Hebrew species identifications are tentative. Greek bubalos and goat-stag are retained as ancient names of uncertain modern identification, rather than forced into matching Hebrew species. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “deer, gazelle, fallow deer, ibex, antelope, wild ox, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “deer, gazelle, bubalos, goat-stag, white-rumped antelope, oryx, and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:5:1 explains: ואקו AND THE אקו — This is rendered in the Targum by יעלא, the same term as the Hebrew יעל in the expression יעלי סלע (Job 39:1). This is what is called in German 'Steinbock'.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of food and purity distinctions. Acts 10:9–16,28 uses a vision of creatures within Peter’s movement toward receiving Gentiles, while Romans 14:1–6 addresses differences of food practice among believers. Neither identifies every animal in Deuteronomy. Ancient species names, list order, and the resident-alien terminology remain separate textual matters.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation preserves traditional identifications and categories; Acts 10 supplies a Christian reception context for clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every species. The reader should distinguish ancient flying-creature categories, uncertain English labels, and shifts in list order.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Unfamiliar animal terms, regional identifications, and list arrangement can produce substantially different Greek inventories. Some entries move between adjacent verses, so a verse-level mismatch is not always omission from the entire list. Modern zoological precision would exceed the certainty of several Hebrew and Greek names.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The selected Greek names are materially different from the conventional Hebrew owl identifications. Hebrew kos, yanshuph, and tinshemeth are uncertain species terms; that uncertainty is not erased by matching them to Greek. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “the little owl, great owl, and white owl,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “the heron, swan, and ibis,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:16:1 explains: התנשמת — This is the chauve-souris in old French; (English = bat). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of food and purity distinctions. Acts 10:9–16,28 uses a vision of creatures within Peter’s movement toward receiving Gentiles, while Romans 14:1–6 addresses differences of food practice among believers. Neither identifies every animal in Deuteronomy. Ancient species names, list order, and the resident-alien terminology remain separate textual matters.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation preserves traditional identifications and categories; Acts 10 supplies a Christian reception context for clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every species. The reader should distinguish ancient flying-creature categories, uncertain English labels, and shifts in list order.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Unfamiliar animal terms, regional identifications, and list arrangement can produce substantially different Greek inventories. Some entries move between adjacent verses, so a verse-level mismatch is not always omission from the entire list. Modern zoological precision would exceed the certainty of several Hebrew and Greek names.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has a different sequence and more listed terms here, including the hawk moved from Hebrew verse 15. Diving bird preserves the uncertain identification of kataraktēs. Do not equate verse-level order with a one-to-one species alignment. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… carrion vulture, and cormorant,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… bird, hawk and those like it, hoopoe, and night-raven,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:17:1 explains: שלך is a bird that draws out (שלה = שלך) fish from out the sea (see Rashi on Leviticus 11:17). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of food and purity distinctions. Acts 10:9–16,28 uses a vision of creatures within Peter’s movement toward receiving Gentiles, while Romans 14:1–6 addresses differences of food practice among believers. Neither identifies every animal in Deuteronomy. Ancient species names, list order, and the resident-alien terminology remain separate textual matters.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation preserves traditional identifications and categories; Acts 10 supplies a Christian reception context for clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every species. The reader should distinguish ancient flying-creature categories, uncertain English labels, and shifts in list order.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Unfamiliar animal terms, regional identifications, and list arrangement can produce substantially different Greek inventories. Some entries move between adjacent verses, so a verse-level mismatch is not always omission from the entire list. Modern zoological precision would exceed the certainty of several Hebrew and Greek names.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek's final sequence differs from Hebrew's; its pelican corresponds to a bird named earlier in Hebrew, and its hoopoe stands in Greek verse 17. Both end with the bat within the broader ancient flying-creature classification. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “the stork, heron by its kind, hoopoe, and bat.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “the pelican, plover and those like it, purple swamphen, and bat.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:18:1 explains: דוכיפת is the wild cock, which is called in old French herupe, and which has a double comb (Chullin 63a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:19). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of food and purity distinctions. Acts 10:9–16,28 uses a vision of creatures within Peter’s movement toward receiving Gentiles, while Romans 14:1–6 addresses differences of food practice among believers. Neither identifies every animal in Deuteronomy. Ancient species names, list order, and the resident-alien terminology remain separate textual matters.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation preserves traditional identifications and categories; Acts 10 supplies a Christian reception context for clean and unclean creatures. That vision does not identify every species. The reader should distinguish ancient flying-creature categories, uncertain English labels, and shifts in list order.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Unfamiliar animal terms, regional identifications, and list arrangement can produce substantially different Greek inventories. Some entries move between adjacent verses, so a verse-level mismatch is not always omission from the entire list. Modern zoological precision would exceed the certainty of several Hebrew and Greek names.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew גְּדִי (gedi, “young goat”) stands beside Greek ἄρνα (arna, “lamb”). The animal in the milk prohibition differs. The preceding rules about a carcass and its possible recipients should also be read in full; the animal term does not explain every contrast in this verse. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 14:21 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 14:21.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:21:1 explains: לגר אשר בשעריך [YE SHALL NOT EAT ANY CARRION: THOU SHALT GIVE IT] UNTO THE STRANGER THAT IS IN THY GATES — i.e. unto a stranger that is a sojourner (גר תושב) — one who has undertaken not to worship idols (i.e. one who has been converted to the fundamental tenet of Judaism) but who eats carrion (does not obey the other teachings of the Torah) (Sifrei Devarim 104:2; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 25:35).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of food and purity distinctions. Acts 10:9–16,28 uses a vision of creatures within Peter’s movement toward receiving Gentiles, while Romans 14:1–6 addresses differences of food practice among believers. Neither identifies every animal in Deuteronomy. Ancient species names, list order, and the resident-alien terminology remain separate textual matters.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic reception reads the milk prohibition with its parallel Torah occurrences, while Christian food discussions address another setting. The Greek lamb and the Hebrew young goat should remain explicit. The resident-alien term likewise should not be narrowed automatically to a religious convert.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. Greek may use a broader or differently identified young-animal term and retain a distinct designation for the resident alien. The lexical choices require context rather than automatic equivalence. The prohibition and carcass permission should be compared separately; neither difference explains the whole verse.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has an annual wage where Hebrew has twice a hired worker's wages, changing the economic rationale. Greek also begins with plural persons being released. The difficult annual-wage statement is retained without inventing a wage calculation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… his six years of service to you have been worth twice a hired worker's …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you six years for a hired worker's …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 15:18:1 explains: כי משנה שכר שכיר [IT SHALL NOT SEEM HARD UNTO THEE WHEN THOU LETTEST HIM GO FREE …] FOR [HE HATH BEEN WORTH] A DOUBLE HIRED SERVANT [UNTO THEE] — From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law that a Hebrew servant has to do service both by day and by night, and that is double as much as the labor of a man hired for day work only. And what is his service during the night? That his master gives him a Canaanite maid-servant with the object of raising children, and the children belong to the master (Sifrei Devarim 123:1; Kiddushin 15a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison concerning release and generosity. Philemon 15–17 asks that an enslaved person be received as a beloved brother, and 2 Corinthians 9:6–8 discusses willing generosity. These offer Christian contexts for examining treatment of dependents. They do not explain the annual or doubled wage formula or turn ancient servitude into voluntary employment.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Release is framed as reasonable in light of the service already received. Rabbinic interpretation analyzes that valuation; Christian teaching on generosity and the treatment of servants provides a broader comparison. The different wage formulas remain important to the law's expressed economic argument.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret a difficult comparison of service value through an annual wage rather than the Hebrew doubled wage. A distinct source is possible. The economic rationale remains uncertain, and no modern salary calculation should be invented to turn the two expressions into an exact equivalence.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ (uvishalta, “you shall cook”) stands beside Greek ἑψήσεις καὶ ὀπτήσεις (hepsēseis kai optēseis, “you shall boil and roast”). The Hebrew verb can cover cooking and often denotes boiling; the Greek names two processes. Compare Exodus 12:8–9 and 2 Chronicles 35:13 before treating the wording as an uncomplicated contradiction in Passover practice. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 16:7 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 16:7.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:7:1 explains: ובשלת is identical with צלי אש “roast with fire” mentioned in Exodus 12:9, for it (roasting) also comes under the term בשול “cooking” (Mekhilta). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of festival and giving themes. 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 uses Passover in relation to Christ and communal integrity, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and mutual provision. These connections illuminate worship and generosity. They do not decide the cooking verbs, work exception, or direction of giving in each local clause.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation reads the festival laws together, while Christian Passover reception connects the meal with Christ. Those connections do not remove the cooking verbs' actual range. The instruction should be understood within the festival context before a precise harmonized kitchen procedure is asserted.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. The Hebrew cooking verb can cover more than one method, while Greek explicitly combines boiling and roasting. Coordination with Passover instructions elsewhere is a plausible explanation. A fuller source remains possible; neither version should be silently conformed to Exodus 12 to eliminate the apparent tension.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expressly permits work for a person’s needs, whereas this Hebrew verse contains no exception. Food preparation is relevant in the festival-meal context, but eating is not an explicit word in the Greek exception. The permission is not restricted to emergency lifesaving. Greek also identifies the seventh day as a concluding feast.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:8:1 explains: ששת ימים תאכל מצות SIX DAYS THOU SHALT EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD — But in another passage it states, (Exodus 12:15): “seven days [ye shall eat unleavened bread]’’! But the explanation is: seven days ye may eat Mazzoth prepared from the old produce and six days (out of the seven. i.e. the last six days, after the Omer has been offered and the new crop has become permitted as food) ye may eat Mazzoth prepared from the new crop (Sifrei Devarim 134:5). Another explanation is: It teaches regarding the eating of unleavened bread on the seventh day of Passover that it is not obligatory; […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of festival and giving themes. 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 uses Passover in relation to Christ and communal integrity, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and mutual provision. These connections illuminate worship and generosity. They do not decide the cooking verbs, work exception, or direction of giving in each local clause.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rest and festival observance remain central, but the Greek permits an express category of work. Rabbinic interpretation defines festival labor, while Christian discussions of Sabbath and mercy offer a different reception context. The limits of this particular exception require its own wording and setting.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make explicit a practical exception understood from other festival laws, such as preparation for human needs. This is plausible legal coordination or a fuller source. The exception should not be narrowed to emergency rescue or to a word for eating that is not actually present.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew expressly names the voluntary offering that you give; Greek describes your capacity and what He gives you. The direction of giving and the offering terminology differ. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… YHWH your God with a voluntary contribution from your hand, which you give according to the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Lord your God according to your hand's …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:10:1 explains: מסת נדבת ידך means sufficient (די) free-will offerings of thy hand (i.e. of thy possession) (cf. Targum on Deuteronomy 15:8, which renders די מחסרו by כמסת חסרונה); everything must be in accordance with the blessing which God has bestowed upon you (אשר יברכך): offer peace-offerings of rejoicing and invite guests for the meal.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of festival and giving themes. 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 uses Passover in relation to Christ and communal integrity, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and mutual provision. These connections illuminate worship and generosity. They do not decide the cooking verbs, work exception, or direction of giving in each local clause.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The festival gift is connected to blessing and ability. Rabbinic exposition clarifies the voluntary contribution, while Christian teaching on proportionate generosity offers a close thematic parallel. The source of the gift and the human act of giving should remain distinguishable in the comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the contribution through the giver's capacity and God's provision rather than through the explicitly offered gift. This changes the direction of giving within a tightly related formula. A different source remains possible, and the theological coherence of both does not make them grammatically identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek makes the blessing conditional with if and the rejoicing its consequence; Hebrew gives the blessing as the reason and emphasizes complete joy. Greek also expands the place-selection title. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… your God will bless you in all …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… your God will choose for Himself. If the Lord your God blesses you in all …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:15:1 explains: והיית אך שמח ONLY BE REJOICED — According to its plain sense this is not the expression of a command but expresses an assurance: “thou will be rejoicing”. But according to the Halachic interpretation they (the Rabbis) derived from here that the night before the last day of the festival (that preceding the eighth day) is to be included in the obligation of rejoicing (Sukkah 48a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 142:4).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of festival and giving themes. 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 uses Passover in relation to Christ and communal integrity, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and mutual provision. These connections illuminate worship and generosity. They do not decide the cooking verbs, work exception, or direction of giving in each local clause.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The festival unites work, blessing, and rejoicing, with a different logical structure. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian teaching on thanksgiving illuminate that relationship. A promised reason for joy and an if-then formulation are related but not identical expressions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the causal relation between blessing and rejoicing as a condition and consequence. Clause connection provides a plausible explanation, alongside source variation. The difference should not be used to infer that either tradition rejects gratitude or makes joy unrelated to divine provision.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The selected Greek has He has not commanded; Hebrew has I have not commanded. Greek also describes the heavenly host as an ordered array. Rahlfs–Hanhart prints the third-person command in this column; Hebrew has first person. That report remains a research lead, not a fresh apparatus verification. Source: NETS Deuteronomy 17:3

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:3:1 explains: אשר לא צויתי [AND HATH GONE AND SERVED OTHER GODS … EITHER THE SUN, OR MOON, OR ANY OF THE HOST OF HEAVEN] WHICH I HAVE NOT COMMANDED to worship them (Megillah 9b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The prohibition concerns worship of other gods and heavenly bodies. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian warnings against idolatry share a concern for fidelity. The local change from I to He affects speaking voice, and should be separated from the broader agreement about the prohibited practice.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may maintain third-person reference to God within Moses' speech, as elsewhere in Deuteronomy. A distinct pronoun reading in its source or edition is also possible. The selected Rahlfs–Hanhart form should remain identified without extending it to all Greek witnesses or editions.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek omits the explicit gate location, the repeated identification, and the relative clause describing the offense. The execution remains, but its stated location is no longer specified. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “bring that man or woman who committed this evil to your gates, that man or …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “bring out that man or …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:5:1 explains: והוצאת את האיש ההוא אל שעריך וגו׳ THEN THOU SHALT BRING FORTH THAT MAN [OR THAT WOMAN WHO HAVE DONE THAT EVIL THING] UNTO THY GATES — He who renders אל שעריך in the Targum by לתרע בית דינך, unto the gate of thy court, is in error, for thus we have learned (Sifrei Devarim 148:2; Ketubot 45b): אל שעריך — this means the gate (the city) in which he has worshipped the idol. Or, perhaps this is not so, but it means the gate where he is being judged (the judges sat “at the gate of the city”; cf., e.g., Ruth 4:1 ff.)?! The term שעריך, however, is used below (i.e. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The ancient law connects investigation with a severe penalty. Rabbinic legal interpretation supplies conditions and safeguards; Christian moral comparison occurs in another setting. The shorter Greek must be described accurately without supplying its missing gate clause or treating the omission as removal of judicial responsibility.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may abbreviate repeated details of the identified offender and location, or preserve a shorter legal formulation. The execution remains explicit. Omission of the gate here does not prove that the Greek tradition lacked a public judicial setting elsewhere or endorsed an unrestricted private procedure.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds blessing as an explicit priestly function and replaces the enduring-time ending with service among the Israelites. The commissioning’s stated duties and final scope differ. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… tribes to stand and minister in YHWH’s …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… tribes to stand before the Lord your God, to minister and bless in …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 18:5:1 explains: לעמד לשרת TO STAND TO MINISTER — From here we may derive the law that the sacrificial service must be performed standing (Sifrei Devarim 167:1; Sota 38a). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of priestly vocation. Hebrews 5:1–4 describes priestly service as a calling rather than a self-assumed honor. This offers a close thematic connection to the selection of Levi. It does not determine the Greek’s additional blessing function or make the final among-the-Israelites expression equivalent to the Hebrew enduring-time clause.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Priestly vocation involves service before God and benefit to the people. Rabbinic interpretation specifies the office, while Hebrews examines priestly calling within Christian theology. The added blessing function is meaningful without proving that the Hebrew tradition excludes it from priestly work altogether.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may include blessing because it is an established priestly function elsewhere in the Torah and specify the people among whom service occurs. This is plausible functional expansion. A fuller source remains possible, and the new ending should not be confused with the Hebrew duration formula.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes passing a child through fire; Greek explicitly describes purification by fire. Both forbid it, but the stated ritual action differs. The divination terms also have differing, partly overlapping ranges. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… son or daughter pass through fire, practices divination, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… son or daughter by fire, practices divination, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 18:10:1 explains: מעביר בנו ובתו באש [THERE SHALL NOT BE FOUND AMONG YOU ANYONE] THAT MAKETH HIS SON OR HIS DAUGHTER TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE — This was the way of worshipping Molech. They made two pyres, one on this side and one on the other (one opposite the other) and passed it (the child) between them (cf. Sanhedrin 64b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Both columns prohibit the act, while describing its ritual character differently. Rabbinic interpretation examines the offense, and Christian warnings against illicit spiritual practices provide a broader comparison. The translation must retain the explicit child and fire setting before discussing later symbolism.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may explain passing a child through fire as a purported purification rite. This is a plausible contextual interpretation of the prohibited action, not an endorsement of it. The wording does not establish every detail of the historical ceremony or justify equating all fire symbolism with this practice.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew states dispossession; Greek states destruction. Your God also occurs in different clauses. The destructive action must remain visible without being substituted into Hebrew. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of these abominations YHWH your God is dispossessing them before you.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of these abominations the Lord will destroy them from before …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 18:12:1 explains: כל אלה עשה [FOR] ALL THAT DO THESE THINGS [ARE AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD] — it does not say, “he who does all these things”, but “all who do these things” — who do even only one of them (Sifrei Devarim 173:1; cf. Makkot 24a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The conquest is framed by divine promise and judgment, with different verbs describing its effect. Rabbinic interpretation gives the covenant setting; Christian reception must remain distinct from present authorization for violence. Shared theological context does not make expulsion and destruction identical actions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek repeatedly interprets removal or dispossession through destruction, sometimes shortening the sequence of agents and actions. A consistent lexical or contextual construal is plausible, alongside source variation. The pattern does not prove a deliberate ideological program, but its stronger language must remain fully visible.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ (lo tagur mimmennu, “do not fear him”) stands beside Greek οὐκ ἀφέξεσθε αὐτοῦ (ouk aphexesthe autou, “you shall not hold back from him or spare him”). The Greek expresses a response to the false prophet differently from Hebrew fear language. This describes the ancient legal passage; it is not a present-day instruction to punish someone. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 18:22 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 18:22.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 18:22:2 explains: לא תגור ממנו THOU SHALT NOT BE AFRAID OF HIM — i.e. do not refrain from advocating his guilt (Sifrei Devarim 178:3) and do not fear that you may incur punishment on his account (because you have contributed to his death).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of fidelity and discernment. Matthew 7:15–20 warns against false prophets and tests them by their fruits; 1 John 4:1 calls for testing the spirits. These are later Christian teachings in different legal settings. They do not translate the Torah’s penalties or authorize private violence against people with different beliefs.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The failed prediction tests the claimant's authority, but the instructed response differs. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian warnings about false prophets supply relevant reception. Not fearing a speaker and not sparing or holding back from him are not interchangeable commands.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. Greek may interpret the required response to a false prophet as refusing to spare or hold back, where Hebrew concerns fear. This could reflect different lexical or source understanding. The stronger practical force must remain visible without inventing a precise enforcement procedure from the closing phrase alone.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew warns of bloodguilt falling upon the addressee; Greek explicitly promises the absence of a bloodguilty person within the community. The legal accountability is expressed differently, without reversing the shared protection of innocent life. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… you as an inheritance, bringing bloodguilt upon you.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you as an allotment, and there shall be no one guilty of blood among you.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:9:1 explains: ויספת לך עוד שלש THEN THOU SHALT ADD THREE [CITIES] MORE FOR THEE — Thus you have nine altogether: the three on the east side of the Jordan, the three in the land of Canaan and three more in the future to come when God will enlarge thy territory (Sifrei Devarim 185:1).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological analogy. Hebrews 6:18–20 uses refuge and hope within its account of Christ’s priestly work. This gives a Christian comparison to protection from bloodshed. It is not a direct interpretation of the bloodguilt clause or a replacement for the Torah’s actual procedures concerning innocent life.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Refuge arrangements concern both individual safety and the community's responsibility for bloodshed. Rabbinic law clarifies the cases; Hebrews' refuge language offers a theological analogy. The changed formulation of accountability should remain distinct from that later metaphorical use.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the desired absence of a bloodguilty person instead of the bloodguilt incurred by the addressee. This shifts a negative consequence into a positive communal result. A different source formulation is possible, while both remain within the protection of innocent life.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew mas and serve describe compulsory labor and service; Greek explicitly describes tribute-paying and subjection. Both impose domination, but the stated form of obligation differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “If it answers you peacefully and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “If they answer you peacefully and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 20:11:2 explains: למס ועבדוך [ALL THE PEOPLE … SHALL BE] TRIBUTARIES [UNTO THEE], AND THEY SHALL SERVE THEE — You must not accept their surrender until they take upon themselves both the payment of tribute and servitude (one alone is not sufficient) (Sifrei Devarim 200:3).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison with an ancient war law. Matthew 5:43–48 teaches love of enemies, and Romans 12:17–21 forbids private vengeance. These should be placed honestly alongside the ancient text rather than used to soften its wording. They do not convert tribute into freedom or authorize a present campaign against the named peoples’ supposed descendants.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The ancient peace arrangement still entails domination in both columns. Rabbinic interpretation defines its terms, while Christian peacemaking teaching provides a separate ethical comparison. Tribute should not be called simple freedom, nor should compulsory labor be softened into voluntary service.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render compulsory service through tribute and political subjection, reflecting a different understanding of the social obligation. These categories can overlap historically but are not identical. The wording alone cannot establish the complete administrative system imposed upon a particular surrendered town.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the Girgashites, expanding the peoples expressly placed under the destruction command. The ban is not translated as benign dedication in either column. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and Jebusites, as YHWH your God commanded …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and Girgashites, as the Lord your God commanded …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 20:17:1 explains: כאשר צוך [BUT THOU SHALT DOOM THEM TO DESTRUCTION: THE HITTITES, … AND THE JEBUSITES,] AS [THE LORD THY GOD] HATH COMMANDED THEE — The words: “as God hath commanded thee” are intended to include the Girgashites (the seventh nation that is not mentioned here) (Sifrei Devarim 201:4).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison with an ancient war law. Matthew 5:43–48 teaches love of enemies, and Romans 12:17–21 forbids private vengeance. These should be placed honestly alongside the ancient text rather than used to soften its wording. They do not convert tribute into freedom or authorize a present campaign against the named peoples’ supposed descendants.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The added people expands the stated scope of an already destructive command. Rabbinic exposition and Christian reception must address that ancient violence honestly. Neither provides a present mandate against any ethnic or religious community, and the ban should not be translated as harmless dedication.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may complete the traditional list of peoples by including the Girgashites, aligning it with related lists elsewhere in the Torah. A fuller source is also possible. The expansion's familiarity makes the hypothesis plausible but does not establish the direction or date of textual coordination.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew prescribes breaking the neck; Greek neurokopeō describes cutting sinews, commonly hamstringing. Hebrew naḥal etan is disputed: perennial streambed is adopted here; a rugged valley is another construal. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… there in the streambed they shall break the heifer’s neck.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… sinews in the ravine.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:4:2 explains: וערפו AND THEY SHALL STRIKE OFF [THE HEIFER’S] NECK — i.e. one breaks its neck with a hatchet. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, Let a heifer which is only one year old and which therefore has brought forth no fruits (no offspring) have its neck broken at a spot (the untilled valley) which has not brought forth fruits, to expiate for the murder of him whom they did not permit further to beget children (Sotah 46a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical contextual comparison. Numbers 35:33–34 connects bloodshed with the land’s condition, while Matthew 23:35 invokes responsibility for innocent blood in Jesus’ warning. These illuminate the gravity of unresolved killing. They do not determine whether the animal action is neck-breaking or sinew-cutting, or supply the Greek’s added washing location to Hebrew.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The rite addresses unresolved bloodshed and communal responsibility. Rabbinic interpretation explains the Hebrew neck-breaking procedure; Christian reflection on innocent blood offers a thematic comparison. Hamstringing and neck-breaking remain distinct actions, and the added head location is explicit only in Greek here.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the required animal action through sinew-cutting and clarify the handwashing location by naming the head. A distinct ritual wording in its source is also possible. The two procedures should remain separate rather than be combined into an imagined sequence involving both acts.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the head as the location over which the hands are washed and repeats the distinct sinew-cutting action. Hebrew has neck-breaking and no explicit head in the washing instruction. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the heifer whose neck was broken in the streambed,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the heifer whose sinews were cut in the ravine,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:7:1 explains: ידינו לא שפכה [AND THEY SHALL ANSWER AND SAY,] OUR HANDS HAVE NOT SHED [THIS BLOOD] — But would it enter anyone’s mind that the elders of the court are suspect of blood-shedding?! But the meaning of the declaration is: We never saw him and knowingly let him depart without food or escort (if we had seen him we would not have let him depart without these) (Sifrei Devarim 210:2; Sotah 45b). The priests thereupon say (next verse): כפר לעמך ישראל FORGIVE UNTO THY PEOPLE ISRAEL.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical contextual comparison. Numbers 35:33–34 connects bloodshed with the land’s condition, while Matthew 23:35 invokes responsibility for innocent blood in Jesus’ warning. These illuminate the gravity of unresolved killing. They do not determine whether the animal action is neck-breaking or sinew-cutting, or supply the Greek’s added washing location to Hebrew.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The rite addresses unresolved bloodshed and communal responsibility. Rabbinic interpretation explains the Hebrew neck-breaking procedure; Christian reflection on innocent blood offers a thematic comparison. Hamstringing and neck-breaking remain distinct actions, and the added head location is explicit only in Greek here.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the required animal action through sinew-cutting and clarify the handwashing location by naming the head. A distinct ritual wording in its source is also possible. The two procedures should remain separate rather than be combined into an imagined sequence involving both acts.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew makes the woman the subject of the grooming actions; Greek makes the captor the subject. Hebrew literally do her nails permits competing interpretations; Greek explicitly specifies trimming. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… her head and attend to her nails.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… her head and trim her nails.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:12:1 explains: ועשת את צפרניה means, AND SHE SHALL LET GROW HER NAILS — She must let them grow, so that she should becomes repulsive to her captor (cf. Sifrei Devarim 212:4; Yevamot 48a; see also Rashi on Genesis 1:7 and our Note thereon).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Matthew 7:12 directs treatment of others by the good one would seek for oneself, while 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8 addresses sexual holiness and wronging another person. These are later moral teachings, not direct commentaries on each ancient case. Coercion, captivity, and the grammatical agency of the acts must remain explicit.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The passage concerns a captive woman in a coercive ancient setting. Rabbinic interpretation develops restrictions and procedures; Christian ethical reflection should not turn the account into a voluntary romance. The different subjects of grooming and clothing removal deserve explicit attention.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may retain the captor as grammatical subject through the preparatory actions, whereas Hebrew gives the woman those verbs. This is a plausible syntactic interpretation or source difference. The change in agency matters, and neither wording explicitly supplies the woman's consent to the arrangement.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The clothing’s removal is performed by the woman in Hebrew and by the captor in Greek. Greek then uses marital cohabitation language. Neither column adds the woman’s consent, which the ancient provision does not state. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… to her and become her husband, and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… to her and live with her as husband, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:13:2 explains: וישבה בביתך AND SHE SHALL DWELL IN “THY” HOUSE — [not in the women’s apartments, but] in the house which he constantly uses: when he goes in he stumbles upon her, when he leaves he stumbles upon her (i.e. he cannot avoid meeting her constantly and the novelty of her beauty wears off); he sees her endless crying, sees her neglected appearance — and all this in order that she should become repulsive to him (Sifrei Devarim 213:2).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Matthew 7:12 directs treatment of others by the good one would seek for oneself, while 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8 addresses sexual holiness and wronging another person. These are later moral teachings, not direct commentaries on each ancient case. Coercion, captivity, and the grammatical agency of the acts must remain explicit.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The passage concerns a captive woman in a coercive ancient setting. Rabbinic interpretation develops restrictions and procedures; Christian ethical reflection should not turn the account into a voluntary romance. The different subjects of grooming and clothing removal deserve explicit attention.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may retain the captor as grammatical subject through the preparatory actions, whereas Hebrew gives the woman those verbs. This is a plausible syntactic interpretation or source difference. The change in agency matters, and neither wording explicitly supplies the woman's consent to the arrangement.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew prohibits enslaving or exploiting her; Greek prohibits disregarding or repudiating her contemptuously. Both expressly prohibit sale and require release. Humiliated retains the force of the coercive sexual setting. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… go where she wishes. You must not …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… away free. She must not be sold for silver, and you must not …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 21:14:1 explains: והיה אם לא חפצת בה AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU ART NOT PLEASED WITH HER — Scripture tell you that you will in the end hate her (Sifrei Devarim 214:1).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Matthew 7:12 directs treatment of others by the good one would seek for oneself, while 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8 addresses sexual holiness and wronging another person. These are later moral teachings, not direct commentaries on each ancient case. Coercion, captivity, and the grammatical agency of the acts must remain explicit.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law places limits on the captor's power after the relationship. Rabbinic interpretation and Christian teaching on human dignity can illuminate that limitation. The different prohibitions remain substantive, and release should not be confused with an explicit statement of prior consent.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret a difficult exploitation verb through contemptuous treatment or repudiation. The shared prohibition on sale and command of release remain important controls on interpretation. The lexical difference should not be used to erase the coercive background or claim that every aspect of the woman's treatment is identical.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek explicitly says forces and uses a singular discovery clause; Hebrew says seizes and they are discovered. Hebrew’s verb does not by itself establish consent. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… with her, and they are discovered,”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… with her, and he is discovered,”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 22:26:1 explains: כי כאשר יקום וגו׳ FOR AS WHEN A MAN RISETH [AGAINST HIS FELLOW MAN, AND SLAYETH HIM, EVEN SO IS THIS THING] — According to its plain sense the following is what it implies: there is in the damsel no sin deserving death, because she was coerced and he, (the man) attacked her with violence, just as when a man attacks his fellowman to kill him. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Matthew 7:12 directs treatment of others by the good one would seek for oneself, while 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8 addresses sexual holiness and wronging another person. These are later moral teachings, not direct commentaries on each ancient case. Coercion, captivity, and the grammatical agency of the acts must remain explicit.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The ancient case must be read with attention to force and the woman's situation. Rabbinic legal analysis and Christian sexual ethics offer distinct reception frameworks. Neither should use the grammatical difference to minimize coercion or translate the passage as though mutual consent were expressly stated.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may make the coercive force of the taking explicit and resolve the discovery clause toward a singular subject. Those are plausible interpretive choices, alongside source variation. The Hebrew seizure verb should not be treated as proof of consent merely because the Greek uses stronger wording.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek identifies birth from a prostitute and entirely lacks the tenth-generation clause here. Hebrew mamzer is a disputed technical status, not a synonym for every child born outside marriage. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… enter YHWH’s assembly; even his tenth generation shall not enter YHWH’s assembly.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the Lord’s assembly.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 23:3:1 explains: לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה׳ ONE BORN IN INCEST OR ADULTERY SHALL NOT COME INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD — i.e. he shall not marry an Israelite woman (Yevamot 78b).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical and community comparison. Galatians 3:26–29 speaks of shared belonging in Christ, and Matthew 5:43–48 addresses conduct toward enemies. These provide later Christian perspectives on inclusion and relations with others. They do not redefine every ancient technical status, remove the coercive setting of slavery, or settle a specific Hebrew–Greek omission.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic interpretation defines the technical status narrowly through legal discussion, while Christian inclusion themes address a different question of belonging. The comparison should avoid stigmatizing modern children through a careless English label. The explicit parentage and duration differences remain matters of ancient wording.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret a disputed technical birth status through a particular parentage category and preserve a shorter exclusion formula. A different source is also possible. The Hebrew term cannot simply be equated with every child born outside marriage, and the missing generation clause must not be restored unnoticed.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s hiring verb is singular, with its referent inferred from context; Greek makes the hirers plural. Greek omits Pethor and has Mesopotamia. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of Beor from Pethor in Aram-naharaim to curse you.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of Beor from Mesopotamia to curse you.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 23:5:1 explains: על דבר may be translated BECAUSE OF THE WORD — i.e. because of the advice which they gave you in order to entice you into sin (Sifrei Devarim 250:1). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical and community comparison. Galatians 3:26–29 speaks of shared belonging in Christ, and Matthew 5:43–48 addresses conduct toward enemies. These provide later Christian perspectives on inclusion and relations with others. They do not redefine every ancient technical status, remove the coercive setting of slavery, or settle a specific Hebrew–Greek omission.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law remembers conduct toward Israel, with different agency and geographical detail. Rabbinic interpretation explains the historical grievance, while Christian reception of Balaam examines false counsel. Those connections should not erase the singular/plural hiring distinction or merge separate place-names.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may treat the hostile peoples collectively as the hirers and abbreviate the geographical identification of Balaam. This is plausible narrative clarification and economy. A shorter source remains possible, and the omitted place should not be supplied from a familiar parallel as though it were printed here.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew prohibits seeking their welfare; Greek prohibits addressing them in peaceful or beneficial terms. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… 23:7] Do not seek their peace or prosperity …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… 23:7] Do not address them with words of peace or advantage …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 23:7:1 explains: לא תדרש שלמם THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE [NOR THEIR GOOD] — Since it states, (v. 17) “He (the runaway slave) shall abide with you, even among you, … [where it shall be good for him]” one might think that this (a Moabite or Ammonite runaway slave) should also be treated likewise, therefore Scripture states לא תדרש שלמם THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE [NOR THEIR GOOD] (Sifrei Devarim 251:2).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical and community comparison. Galatians 3:26–29 speaks of shared belonging in Christ, and Matthew 5:43–48 addresses conduct toward enemies. These provide later Christian perspectives on inclusion and relations with others. They do not redefine every ancient technical status, remove the coercive setting of slavery, or settle a specific Hebrew–Greek omission.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The ancient restriction concerns relations shaped by remembered hostility. Rabbinic interpretation defines its scope, while Christian teaching on love of enemies provides a different ethical horizon. The traditions should be compared honestly without pretending that seeking welfare and addressing peacefully are the same command.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret seeking welfare through speech of peace and benefit, moving from a broad relational policy to an explicit verbal act. A source difference is also possible. The narrower speech formulation should not be generalized into an identical range of conduct without further contextual argument.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek repeats live and lacks Hebrew’s restriction to one of your towns. Both protect the person’s residence and prohibit mistreatment. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… in whichever place he chooses within one of your towns, wherever he finds it good. Do not oppress …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… in any place that pleases him. Do not afflict …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 23:16:1 explains: לא תסגיר עבד THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER [UNTO HIS LORD] THE SERVANT [WHO IS ESCAPED FROM HIS LORD UNTO THEE] — Understand this as the Targum has it: עבד עממין the servant of the heathens. Another explanation is: that it implies even a Canaanite servant belonging to an Israelite who fled from outside the Land (from a foreign country) into the Land of Israel (Gittin 45a).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. Philemon 15–17 asks for reception of Onesimus as a brother, providing a Christian text to read beside protection of the fugitive. The circumstances and legal provisions differ. The comparison should preserve the Torah’s expressed freedom of residence and prohibition on mistreatment without pretending the letter directly interprets this verse.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The protected fugitive chooses a place to live and is not to be oppressed. Rabbinic explanation specifies the case; Christian teaching about receiving the vulnerable offers a related connection. The town clause changes explicit geographical scope without removing the shared protection.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may generalize the permitted residence by omitting the explicit town restriction while retaining freedom of location and protection from mistreatment. A shorter source is possible. The omission should be noted without claiming that the Hebrew otherwise permits abuse or that every legal implication is settled.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek has four prohibitions, distinguishing prostitution and initiation; Hebrew has two cult-status terms, qedeshah and qadesh. Their precise functions are debated; cult prostitute is a traditional contextual rendering, not an uncontested lexical definition. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of Israel shall practice prostitution.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 23:18:1 explains: לא תהיה קדשה THERE SHALL BE NO קדשה [OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL] — i.e. a prostitute, — one who is devoted to and ever ready for illicit intercourse (cf. Rashi on Genesis 38:21 s. v. הקדשה; Rashi on Exodus 19:22 s. v. יתקדשו).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical and community comparison. Galatians 3:26–29 speaks of shared belonging in Christ, and Matthew 5:43–48 addresses conduct toward enemies. These provide later Christian perspectives on inclusion and relations with others. They do not redefine every ancient technical status, remove the coercive setting of slavery, or settle a specific Hebrew–Greek omission.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The two columns regulate religious and sexual boundaries through differently defined categories. Rabbinic legal exposition and Christian warnings concerning idolatry provide separate contexts. The Greek's four prohibitions should remain distinct, while the exact functions of the Hebrew statuses remain open to careful study.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may unpack the Hebrew cult-status terms into both sexual and initiation prohibitions, reflecting an interpretive understanding of their functions. A fuller source is also possible. Because the Hebrew categories are disputed, their traditional translation as cult prostitution should not be treated as a complete historical description.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says I commanded them, the priests; Greek says I commanded you. Greek also explicitly adds all the law. Leprosy retains the project’s ancient skin-condition term, not a uniform modern diagnosis. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… careful to follow everything the Levitical priests …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… careful to follow all the law the Levitical priests …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 24:8:1 explains: השמר בנגע צרעת TAKE HEED IN THE AFFLICTION OF LEPROSY — take heed that you pluck not out the symptoms of uncleanness (cf. Leviticus ch. XIII.), nor cut out the leprous spot (Makkot 22a).

Christian teaching and understanding Gospel reception of priestly inspection. Luke 17:11–19 portrays people with a skin condition being sent to the priests as they receive cleansing. This directly receives the wider practice of priestly recognition. It does not decide to whom Moses says the command was given, or identify the ancient condition uniformly with a modern disease.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The command concerns obedience to priestly instruction about an ancient skin condition. Rabbinic interpretation defines the procedure; Gospel cleansing narratives supply a Christian connection. The addressee change should be preserved without assigning a uniform modern diagnosis to every condition covered by the term.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may address the audience directly as recipients of the instruction and generalize it as the whole law. This is plausible discourse clarification within Moses' speech. The change of pronoun does not by itself establish that the priestly authority mentioned in the passage has been removed.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the widow to the first clause’s protected claimants. Hebrew mentions her explicitly only in the pledge clause. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… or an orphan, and do not take …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… foreigner, an orphan, or a widow, and do not …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 24:17:2 explains: ולא תחבל NOR TAKE [A WIDOW’S GARMENT] TO PLEDGE — The term חבל refers to taking a pledge not at the time when the loan is transacted (but when default is made in payment) (cf. Bava Metzia 115a; see also Rashi on Exodus 22:25).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of care and justice. James 1:27; 2:1–9 joins concern for orphans and widows with rejection of partiality. This is a close ethical comparison to Deuteronomy’s protections for vulnerable people. It does not make the Greek’s additional named recipients redundant or determine the pronouns in the separate priestly skin-condition instruction.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Justice and harvest provision protect people exposed to economic harm. Rabbinic interpretation explains their entitlements, while Christian teaching on care for the vulnerable gives a close thematic parallel. The additional Greek recipients should be named rather than absorbed into a vague statement that both versions protect everyone.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may complete the lists of vulnerable people by explicitly adding groups protected in related laws. Such legal coordination is plausible, alongside a fuller source. These additions matter locally without proving that the Hebrew Torah lacks concern for widows or the poor elsewhere.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds the poor as a distinct group entitled to the forgotten sheaf. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… widow, so that YHWH your God may …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… widow, so that the Lord your God may …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 24:19:1 explains: ושכחת עמר [WHEN THOU REAPEST THY HARVEST IN THY FIELD] AND HAST FORGOT A SHEAF … [THOU SHALT NOT RETURN TO TAKE IT] — a sheaf, but not a stack of corn (Sifrei Devarim 283:1). Hence they (the Rabbis) said, “A sheaf that contains two Seahs of grain which one has forgotten in the field, does not come under the term of שכחה (a forgotten sheaf)” (Mishnah Peah 6:6).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of care and justice. James 1:27; 2:1–9 joins concern for orphans and widows with rejection of partiality. This is a close ethical comparison to Deuteronomy’s protections for vulnerable people. It does not make the Greek’s additional named recipients redundant or determine the pronouns in the separate priestly skin-condition instruction.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Justice and harvest provision protect people exposed to economic harm. Rabbinic interpretation explains their entitlements, while Christian teaching on care for the vulnerable gives a close thematic parallel. The additional Greek recipients should be named rather than absorbed into a vague statement that both versions protect everyone.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may complete the lists of vulnerable people by explicitly adding groups protected in related laws. Such legal coordination is plausible, alongside a fuller source. These additions matter locally without proving that the Hebrew Torah lacks concern for widows or the poor elsewhere.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says son and names the technical brother-in-law duty; Greek says offspring and marital cohabitation. The broader Greek offspring term has potential legal consequences; later Jewish interpretation must be distinguished from a bare son-only reading. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… shall not marry an outsider. Her husband’s brother …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… shall not marry outside to a man who is not a close relative. Her husband’s brother …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:5:3 explains: ובן אין לו AND HE HAS NO SON — The last two words suggest עין עליו, investigate about him whether he has descendants of any kind — a son, or a daughter, or a son’s son or a son’s daughter, or a daughter’s son or daughter’s daughter (cf. Yevamot 22b).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of levirate marriage. Matthew 22:23–33 records a question about resurrection built around the duty of a surviving brother. Jesus answers about resurrection rather than offering a detailed textual comparison of Deuteronomy. The broader offspring term and omitted firstborn adjective therefore remain independent legal and linguistic questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law concerns continuity of a deceased brother's household and name. Rabbinic exposition defines eligible offspring; the Gospel discussion of levirate marriage uses the institution to ask about resurrection. That later debate does not settle the precise scope or omitted adjective in these clauses.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render the child requirement through broader offspring language and abbreviate the succession formula. Rabbinic interpretation also reads beyond a bare male-child restriction, so the English contrast needs legal qualification. A different source remains possible, and the missing firstborn adjective should not be restored for familiarity.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek lacks firstborn and the explicit brother relationship, saying the child and the deceased. The Hebrew relational phrasing refers to the surviving brother’s deceased brother. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… she bears shall succeed to the name of …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… she bears shall be established under the deceased man’s …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:6:1 explains: והיה הבכור AND IT SHALL BE THE FIRSTBORN … — It is the eldest brother who is to perform the duty of levirate marriage (Sifrei Devarim 289:1; Yevamot 24a). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct Gospel reception of levirate marriage. Matthew 22:23–33 records a question about resurrection built around the duty of a surviving brother. Jesus answers about resurrection rather than offering a detailed textual comparison of Deuteronomy. The broader offspring term and omitted firstborn adjective therefore remain independent legal and linguistic questions.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The law concerns continuity of a deceased brother's household and name. Rabbinic exposition defines eligible offspring; the Gospel discussion of levirate marriage uses the institution to ask about resurrection. That later debate does not settle the precise scope or omitted adjective in these clauses.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may render the child requirement through broader offspring language and abbreviate the succession formula. Rabbinic interpretation also reads beyond a bare male-child restriction, so the English contrast needs legal qualification. A different source remains possible, and the missing firstborn adjective should not be restored for familiarity.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי (arammi oved avi, “my father was a perishing or wandering Aramean, on one grammatical reading”) stands beside Greek Συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν ὁ πατήρ μου (Syrian apebalen ho patēr mou, “my father abandoned Syria”). The compact Hebrew syntax has a history of competing interpretations. Rashi’s reading concerning Laban must be distinguished from that grammatical rendering and from the Greek account of leaving Syria. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 26:5 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 26:5.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:5:2 explains: ארמי אבד אבי A SYRIAN DESTROYED MY FATHER — He mentions the loving kindness of the Omnipresent saying, ארמי אבד אבי, a Syrian destroyed my father, which means: “Laban wished to exterminate the whole nation” (cf. the Haggadah for Passover) when he pursued Jacob. Because he intended to do it the Omnipresent accounted it unto him as though he had actually done it (and therefore the expression אבד which refers to the past is used), for as far as the nations of the world are concerned the Holy One, blessed be He, accounts unto them intention as an actual deed (cf. Sifrei Devarim 301:3; Onkelos).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian narrative comparison. Acts 7:2–16 recounts the patriarchs’ migration, hardship, and preservation as part of Stephen’s testimony. It offers a Christian parallel to remembering origins in a confession of deliverance. It does not directly adjudicate between the perishing-Aramean, Laban, and departure-from-Syria readings of this compact formula.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi identifies Laban's threat to Jacob, while the Hebrew column retains a perishing-Aramean construction and Greek describes leaving Syria. The firstfruits confession therefore has several reception paths. Christian remembrance of salvation history can be compared without merging those distinct grammatical readings.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. The compact Hebrew phrase permits substantially different syntactic and lexical interpretation: a perishing Aramean, Laban's attempted destruction, or departure from Syria. Greek appears to choose a geographic action. These construals need not require deliberate alteration, and the later rabbinic reading is not identical to the printed Hebrew-English syntax.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds Himself and great strength, describes an uplifted rather than outstretched arm, and has great visions or manifestations where Hebrew has great terror. These are substantial changes in the depiction of deliverance. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “YHWH brought us out …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “The Lord Himself brought us out …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:5:3 explains: וירד מצרימה AND HE WENT DOWN INTO EGYPT — But there were others, too, “who came against us to destroy us” (cf. the Passover Haggadah), for afterwards Jacob went down into Egypt with his children and these were enslaved there).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. 1 Corinthians 4:7 asks what a person possesses that was not received, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and need. These provide Christian connections to thanksgiving and distribution. They do not settle the Aramean clause, the second-tithe label, or the precise prohibited use of produce.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The confession remembers liberation as God's act, with different imagery and explicit emphasis. Rabbinic Passover reception and Christian exodus typology develop that memory. Great terror and great manifestations are related aspects of the event, but remain distinct wording in the two columns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may amplify the deliverance formula with familiar declarations of God's personal strength and interpret the terror term through visible manifestations. Such liturgical or contextual expansion is plausible, as is a fuller source. It should not be assigned to a specific later ceremony without evidence.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew calls the third year the year of tithing; Greek explicitly designates the distributed portion the second tithe. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… third year, the year of tithing, give it to the Levite, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… year, give the second tithe to the Levite, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:12:2 explains: שנת המעשר [THE THIRD YEAR] WHICH IS THE YEAR OF TITHE — These apparently redundant words (for every year except the Sabbatical year it “a year of tithing”) suggest: that year in which only one of the two tithes that had to be separated in the previous two years is due (שנת המעשר, lit., the year of the tithe), viz., the “First Tithe”. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. 1 Corinthians 4:7 asks what a person possesses that was not received, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and need. These provide Christian connections to thanksgiving and distribution. They do not settle the Aramean clause, the second-tithe label, or the precise prohibited use of produce.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The provision directs produce toward groups who depend on communal generosity. Rabbinic law distinguishes the tithe cycles, while Christian teaching on giving offers a thematic connection. The second-tithe label requires interpretation rather than a claim that every later legal tradition classifies the third-year portion identically.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may identify the distributive tithe through a received legal classification rather than repeat the Hebrew year's designation. That is plausible interpretive clarification. The relation of different tithes remains a legal question; the Greek label should not be combined with Hebrew wording into a single artificial formula.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes removal in uncleanness, which may concern the person or portion; Greek describes offering or putting produce to an unclean use. Greek karpoō concerns offering or dedicating produce. Neither text identifies the precise mortuary practice. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… eaten any of it while mourning, removed any while unclean, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… eaten any of them in my grief, offered any for an …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:14:2 explains: ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא NEITHER HAVE I CONSUMED ANY THEREOF UNCLEAN — i.e. whether I was unclean and it (the sacred gift) was clean, or I was clean and it unclean (Sifrei Devarim 303:16). But where has one been prohibited about this (that he declares that he has not infringed the command)? In the following passage: (Deuteronomy 12:17) “Thou mayest not eat within thy gates [the tithe of thy corn]” — this (the expression “within thy gates”) refers to eating sacred things in a state of uncleanness, just as is stated with reference to פסולי המקדשין (animals intended as sacrifices, but which have become unfit for that purpose) (Deuteronomy 15:22) “Thou mayest eat it within […]

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. 1 Corinthians 4:7 asks what a person possesses that was not received, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and need. These provide Christian connections to thanksgiving and distribution. They do not settle the Aramean clause, the second-tithe label, or the precise prohibited use of produce.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The declaration protects the dedicated portion from prohibited uses. Rabbinic interpretation clarifies impurity and mourning restrictions; Christian reflection on integrity in offerings supplies a broader parallel. The analysis should distinguish what the person did with produce from the person's ritual condition.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret removal or use of sacred produce through an offering action, while the Hebrew impurity relation remains compressed. This is plausibly lexical and syntactic interpretation. Neither version identifies the exact mortuary practice, so a detailed reconstruction of an ancestral cult would be premature.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s made refers to the nations; Greek’s made you refers to Israel and its distinction. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… nations He made, in praise, name, and glory, so …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… as He made you renowned, a boast, and glorious, so …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:19:1 explains: ולהיתך עם קדש … כאשר דבר AND THAT THOU MAYEST BE AN HOLY PEOPLE … AS HE HATH SPOKEN — in the words, (Leviticus 20:26) “And ye shall be holy unto Me” (Mekhilta).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. 1 Corinthians 4:7 asks what a person possesses that was not received, while 2 Corinthians 8:12–15 relates giving to ability and need. These provide Christian connections to thanksgiving and distribution. They do not settle the Aramean clause, the second-tithe label, or the precise prohibited use of produce.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The passage links vocation, honor, and holiness, but assigns the creation-related clause differently. Rabbinic interpretation follows the covenant declaration; Christian election language provides another reception setting. The identity of the object should remain explicit before those larger theological connections are made.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may construe the making clause as God's formation of Israel rather than of the nations. Pronoun attachment and sentence structure offer a plausible explanation. This changes the immediate object while preserving the wider setting of Israel's distinction, without proving opposing accounts of God's relation to other peoples.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek adds a complete curse and response concerning the wife’s sister. Mother-in-law is penthera, not the former note’s nymphē. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… people shall say: Amen.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… people shall say: So be it. Cursed is the one who lies with his wife’s sister. All the people shall say: So be it.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Leviticus 18:18:1 explains: ‎ אל אחתה ‎[NEITHER SHALT THOU TAKE A WIFE] TO HER SISTER — both at the same time. This supplies a related rabbinic explanation of the passage or its subject; it is not a direct discussion of this particular Hebrew–Greek difference.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct apostolic use of the covenant-curse setting. Galatians 3:10–14 cites Deuteronomy’s curse concerning failure to uphold the law and develops a Christian argument about redemption and blessing. Paul is not commenting on this individual added incest prohibition. The Greek expansion must therefore remain a separate observation within the larger covenant ceremony.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The public covenant ceremony names prohibited unions and communal assent. Rabbinic legal interpretation and Christian discussion of sexual boundaries supply later contexts. The extra Greek case changes the list's stated scope, even where the corresponding prohibition is known elsewhere in the Torah.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may complete the curse list from another incest prohibition, particularly the wife's-sister rule in Leviticus 18:18. Cross-law coordination or a fuller source are plausible. The added curse and congregational response should be preserved as an expansion rather than silently merged with the mother-in-law clause.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew’s obscure watered/thirsty image is replaced by Greek sinner/guiltless and an explicit negative. Greek hosia can denote holy or divinely favorable things. The final purpose clause can connect forward to God’s refusal in verse twenty; it is not harmonized away.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 29:18:5 explains: הרוה DRUNKENNESS figuratively describes the condition of a שוגג, one who acts inadvertently. The expression is an apt one because he acts like a drunken man who does things unwittingly, This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. Hebrews 12:15 warns about a bitter root troubling the community, engaging imagery closely related to Deuteronomy’s warning. This gives a Christian setting for the danger of concealed unfaithfulness. It does not solve the watered/thirsty idiom or authorize replacing the difficult final clause with a smooth moral paraphrase.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The warning concerns false confidence while persisting in disobedience. Rabbinic interpretation explains the Hebrew image; Christian warnings against presuming on grace provide a thematic comparison. The sinner/guiltless contrast should remain Greek wording rather than be treated as the uncontested lexical meaning of the Hebrew metaphor.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the obscure watered/thirsty image through morally differentiated persons, while assigning the negative and purpose clause differently. This is plausibly an explanatory rendering of difficult idiom. The precise syntax remains uncertain, and the clause should be read with God's refusal in the next verse.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew restoration of fortunes or captivity becomes Greek healing of sins. Greek also lacks both occurrences of your God. Regathering and mercy remain shared. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “then YHWH your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… will heal your sins and have mercy …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 30:3:1 explains: ושב ה' אלהיך את שבותך THEN THE LORD THY GOD WILL TURN THY CAPTIVITY — To express this idea it ought to have written והשיב את שבותך, “then He will bring back thy captivity”. But our Rabbis learned from this that, if one can say so of God, His Divine presence dwells with Israel in all the misery of their exile, so that when they are redeemed (i.e. when He speaks of their being redeemed), He makes Scripture write “Redemption” of Himself (i.e. He makes it state that He will be redeemed) — that He will return with them (Megillah 29a). Furthermore the following may be said in explaining the strange form ושב … […]

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of the return-and-word context. Romans 10:6–10 adapts Deuteronomy 30’s language of the near word to Paul’s proclamation of faith. That is direct reception of the chapter, not of every restoration phrase. The Greek healing-of-sins expression and Hebrew restoration of fortunes or captivity should remain distinct within the shared promise of mercy.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Return to God and restoration of the people belong together in the passage. Rabbinic exposition explores repentance and regathering; Christian reconciliation teaching offers a related application. The Greek sin-healing language is significant, but should not replace the Hebrew social and historical restoration expression.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express restoration through healing sins, making the moral dimension of return explicit. Hebrew's fortunes/captivity expression itself requires interpretation. A different source is possible, and the shared regathering and mercy should be retained without making healing and restored circumstances identical phrases.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (benei Yisrael, “sons of Israel”) stands beside Greek ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelōn theou, “angels of God”). This verifies the contrast in the selected printed editions. Other Hebrew witnesses and Greek editions require their own identification; this comparison alone neither establishes an earlier reading nor proves a theory of doctrinal alteration. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 32:8 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 32:8.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 32:8:2 explains: בהפרידו בני אדם WHEN HE SEPARATED THE SONS OF ADAM — i.e. when He scattered the generation which witnessed the separation of races, He also had the power to remove them from the world, yet He did not do so, but יצב גבלת עמים HE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NATIONS — He let them (the peoples) remain in existence and did not destroy them,

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of the song. Romans 15:10 cites the nations’ rejoicing with God’s people, and 1 Corinthians 10:20–22 invokes language of illicit sacrifice and divine jealousy associated with the song. These are specific Christian uses. They do not establish one identical reading across all Hebrew manuscripts, Greek editions, and New Testament citations.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The selected Hebrew and Greek editions give different reference points for the ordering of nations: Israel’s sons and God’s angels. Rashi interprets the Hebrew song; the apostolic passages cited above draw on other lines of that song. Those connections do not demonstrate how Paul read this particular phrase. The textual question and the history of reception therefore remain distinct.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The divine-being versus Israel reading concerns a genuine textual tradition, not merely English style. Earlier Hebrew evidence and differing Greek editions are relevant, but require precise witness identification. The Rahlfs–Hanhart angels reading should remain distinguished from divine-sons readings and from an unproved theory of later doctrinal suppression.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew grants the enemies a judging role in the comparison; Greek calls them uncomprehending. Hebrew singular rock becomes Greek plural gods. Hebrew’s terse judges clause also admits adversarial-judges construals. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… even our enemies are judges of that.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… God; our enemies lack understanding.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 32:31:1 explains: כי לא כצורנו צורם FOR THEIR ROCK IS NOT AS OUR ROCK — all this the enemies should have understood, — that it is the Lord who delivered them (the Israelites) into their hands, and the victory is neither theirs nor their god’s, for until now their gods could achieve nothing against our Rock, “for not as our Rock is their Rock”. — The word צור wherever it occurs in Scripture is the equivalent of סלע, rock.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of the song. Romans 15:10 cites the nations’ rejoicing with God’s people, and 1 Corinthians 10:20–22 invokes language of illicit sacrifice and divine jealousy associated with the song. These are specific Christian uses. They do not establish one identical reading across all Hebrew manuscripts, Greek editions, and New Testament citations.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The song compares Israel's God with the powers associated with its enemies. Rabbinic exposition explains the rock metaphor, while Christian teaching on the uniqueness of God offers a connection. Whether enemies judge or fail to understand is a distinct rhetorical question that should remain visible.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the terse enemy-judges clause as a negative evaluation of the enemies' understanding, while rendering rock through gods. Poetic syntax and theological identification provide plausible explanations. The uncertainty of the Hebrew judging relation prevents treating the contrast as a simple opposition under every construal.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek expands the heavenly summons, has sons’ blood against Hebrew servants’ blood, and ends with cleansing His people’s land. Hebrew’s compressed opening and land/people ending are disputed. Greek sons in the worship line and angels in the strengthening line are not interchanged to match Hebrews 1:6.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 32:43:2 explains: כי דם עבדיו יקם FOR HE WILL AVENGE THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS — i.e., the shedding of their blood, as the phrase usually implies. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Direct and related New Testament reception. Romans 15:10 quotes the nations’ summons to rejoice; Hebrews 1:6 commands God’s angels to worship the Son in a related scriptural worship tradition. Hebrews’ wording should not be imposed on Rahlfs–Hanhart’s sons/angels distribution here. The connections are significant precisely when the witnesses remain separately identified.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Romans 15:10 directly receives the nations' rejoicing, and Hebrews 1:6 belongs to a related heavenly-worship tradition. Rabbinic interpretation follows the Hebrew song. The Greek sons and angels clauses must remain correctly distinguished, while shared worship is explored without harmonizing the textual witnesses.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The longer Greek summons may reflect a fuller song tradition rather than a late explanatory addition; earlier Hebrew evidence is relevant to that possibility. Individual clauses still have differing witnesses. The present comparison cannot establish one universal original or substitute Hebrews' wording for the selected Greek edition.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H has “them,” holy myriads and the difficult expression traditionally read “fiery law.” G has “us,” Kadesh and angels. The Hebrew final expression is uncertain; “fiery law” is a traditional interpretation, not an uncontested lexical meaning. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… His right hand was a fiery law for them.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… His right hand, angels were with Him.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:2:6 explains: מרבבת קדש — i.e. and with Him were a part of the myriads of the holy angels, and not all of them and not even the majority of them: not as is the way of a human being who displays all the splendour of his riches and magnificence on his marriage day (Sifrei Devarim 343:11).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of mediated law and priestly service. Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19 speak of angelic mediation in relation to the law, while Hebrews 7:11–19 discusses Levitical priesthood. These supply Christian contexts for the blessing’s themes. They do not resolve its rare poetic expressions, tense changes, or unnamed king.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi's fire imagery develops the Torah's divine origin, while Greek explicitly names angels. Christian texts concerning angelic mediation of the law provide a relevant connection. The mystical reception should be attributed and kept distinct from the uncertain meaning of the compressed Hebrew expression.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Rare poetic language, place-names, and divine-council imagery may have been interpreted differently in Greek. The traditional fiery-law rendering is itself uncertain. These difficulties support a cautious lexical and source-history inquiry, not a confident claim that one tradition deliberately removed angels or invented Torah imagery.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H places the kingship in the past; G places a ruler in the future. G renders Jeshurun as “the Beloved” and has plural “peoples.” The identity of H’s king is not supplied in the translation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the heads of the people gathered, together with the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… when rulers of peoples gather together with the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:5:2 explains: בישרון מלך KING IN JESHURUN — constantly was the yoke of His sovereignty upon them at all times. This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of mediated law and priestly service. Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19 speak of angelic mediation in relation to the law, while Hebrews 7:11–19 discusses Levitical priesthood. These supply Christian contexts for the blessing’s themes. They do not resolve its rare poetic expressions, tense changes, or unnamed king.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi identifies the Hebrew king with God and relates kingship to Israel's unity. Christian messianic interpretation offers another possible reception horizon. The past/future distinction and the translation of the people's name remain prior textual questions rather than automatic proof of either identification.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret a remembered kingship as an anticipated ruler and translate Jeshurun by its perceived affectionate meaning. Poetic tense and naming conventions offer plausible explanations. Neither column explicitly settles every later identification of the king or ruler, so the subject should not be supplied without attribution.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H addresses God as the one who tested and contended. G has third-person plural “they tested” and “they reviled,” and an explicit command to give Levi his manifestations and truth. Urim/Thummim and the place names receive interpretive Greek equivalents. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… whom You tested at Massah, with whom You contended at the waters …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… whom they tested in a trial and reviled at the water …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:8:2 explains: תמיך ואוריך THY THUMMIM AND URIM — He is addressing God (not Levi). This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of mediated law and priestly service. Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19 speak of angelic mediation in relation to the law, while Hebrews 7:11–19 discusses Levitical priesthood. These supply Christian contexts for the blessing’s themes. They do not resolve its rare poetic expressions, tense changes, or unnamed king.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Levi's vocation is remembered through testing and sacred mediation. Rabbinic exposition identifies the priestly objects and episodes, while Hebrews provides a Christian comparison concerning priesthood. The changed agents must remain clear: being tested by God and being reviled by others are different relations.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the sacred objects through their revelatory function and resolve the testing agents as a human plural. A different source is also possible. The place-name renderings and command structure require separate attention; no single paraphrase should conceal all these changes.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Summoning peoples to a mountain in H becomes destroying nations in G. G then changes to second-person worship and replaces hidden sandy treasures with coastal commerce. G’s “invoke” has no expressed divine object here. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “They shall summon peoples to the mountain; there …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “They shall destroy nations, and you shall invoke there and sacrifice a sacrifice of righteousness; for the wealth of …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:19:4 explains: ושפני טמוני חול means, covered things that are hidden in the sand — the Tarith (a kind of fish; Rashi in his comment on the Talmudical passage afterwards quoted states that it is the tuna fish), the Chalazon (from which purple dye was obtained) and while glass (all valuable articles of commerce) which come out of the sea and the sand. This was in the territory of Issachar and Zebulun, as it is stated in Treatise Megillah 6a: The Scriptural text (Judges 5:18) is to be explained as follows: “Zebulun was a people that cursed his soul even unto death” because that “Naphtali was on the high places of the field“, i.e., Zebulun complained about […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of mediated law and priestly service. Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19 speak of angelic mediation in relation to the law, while Hebrews 7:11–19 discusses Levitical priesthood. These supply Christian contexts for the blessing’s themes. They do not resolve its rare poetic expressions, tense changes, or unnamed king.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The blessing concerns the tribes' relation to peoples, worship, and resources, but describes those relations very differently. Rabbinic interpretation follows its own reading of the poem; Christian canonical reflection supplies broader connections. Neither should turn the Greek destruction line into an invitation merely to make the versions agree.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The rare, compressed poetry may have been segmented and interpreted through military action and coastal trade rather than assembly at a mountain and hidden treasures. Source variation is also possible. The sharp difference should remain unresolved where no secure lexical explanation has been established.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H attributes carrying out YHWH’s righteousness to the preceding human subject, normally Gad. G explicitly makes the Lord the agent. The reserved ruler’s portion also becomes land apportioned to gathered rulers. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… ruler’s portion was reserved. He came with the heads …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… of rulers was apportioned, as they gathered with the leaders …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:21:6 explains: צדקת ה' עשה HE DID THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LORD — because they proved true to their word and kept their promise to cross the Jordan and to remain there until they (the Israelites) had conquered it and divided it amongst the tribes. — Another explanation: ויתא AND HE — the Lawgiver, Moses — CAME ראשי עם AT THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE, צדקת ה' עשה HE DID THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LORD — This, too, is spoken of Moses (cf. Sifrei Devarim 355:9).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of mediated law and priestly service. Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19 speak of angelic mediation in relation to the law, while Hebrews 7:11–19 discusses Levitical priesthood. These supply Christian contexts for the blessing’s themes. They do not resolve its rare poetic expressions, tense changes, or unnamed king.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The blessing associates allotted land with righteous action, but assigns that action differently. Rabbinic exposition links Gad with leadership in the conquest, while Christian reflection on faithful service offers a thematic comparison. The immediate agent and reserved portion should remain concrete textual distinctions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may shift the execution of righteousness from Gad to the Lord by making an implied theological agent explicit, while construing the land clause administratively. A different source remains possible. The coherence of divine agency does not remove the Hebrew's human subject or prove that either excludes the other conceptually.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H ends with a command to destroy; G addresses the enemy with a wish for his perishing. G also makes the protective force of the arms explicit and places the expulsion in the future. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… from before you and said, ‘Destroy!’”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… from before you, saying, ‘May you perish!’”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:27:3 explains: ויגרש מפניך אויב AND HE DROVE OUT THE ENEMY FROM BEFORE YOU, ויאמר AND HE SAID to you השמד DESTROY them! This is an attributed explanation of the Hebrew passage, not a claim that all rabbinic authorities agree or that this later commentary caused the earlier Greek wording.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. John 10:27–29 describes the security of those held by the Father and the Son, and Hebrews 6:18–20 speaks of refuge and hope. These are Christian parallels to protection and sustaining strength. They do not convert the concluding command into a wish or decide the ancient enemy clause’s addressee.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The closing blessing depicts refuge and the removal of opposition. Rabbinic interpretation explains the ancient imagery; Christian refuge language provides a broader connection. The distinction between an instruction and a wish matters even when both express deliverance from an enemy.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may recast the concluding destruction command as a wish addressed to the enemy, while clarifying the protective arms image. This is plausibly rhetorical interpretation of compressed poetry. A different source is possible, and the shifted addressee should not be hidden under a generic statement of victory.