Exodus — Disparate Study

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew attributes making households for the midwives to a singular agent, contextually God; Greek says they made households for themselves. The agency of the narrative’s outcome differs, without asserting that the accounts cannot coexist. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… midwives feared God, He established households for …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… midwives feared God, they established households for …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 1:21:1 explains: ויעש להם בתים HE MADE THEM HOUSES — houses (dynasties) of the priesthood and the Levites and of royalty which are all termed בתים, “houses”, as it is said, (1 Kings 9:1) “and Solomon built the house of the Lord and the house of the king”: “the house of the Lord” i. e. a dynasty of priests and Levites — from Jochebed (Shifrah); and “the house of the king”, i. e. a royal dynasty — from Miriam (Puah), just as it is stated in Treatise Sotah 11b.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical ethical comparison. Acts 5:29 states the Apostles’ priority of obedience to God under human pressure. It does not quote the midwives’ story, but supplies a Christian parallel to their refusal to cooperate with killing. The connection concerns faithful resistance, while the household outcome and its grammatical agent must still be read from Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi's dynastic reading extends the Hebrew houses into priestly and royal lines. Christian comparison with obedience to God highlights the midwives' courage. Both can illuminate the episode while the grammatical agency remains different: God's establishing and the women's establishing are not identical statements.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may understand the household outcome as the midwives' action rather than God's grant. Resolving an unexpressed subject and interpreting household language can produce this difference. A distinct source reading remains possible; the change does not establish an opposition between divine blessing and human agency.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew gives Moses an as-God role in relation to Aaron; Greek assigns Moses the things concerning God. The portrayal of the mediating role differs materially, without making Moses a rival deity or inferring a translator’s motive. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… and you shall be as God to him.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… and you shall represent him in matters concerning God.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 4:16:3 explains: לאלהים means a superior and chief (cf. Onkelos). His gloss makes the relationship one of authority and representation: Moses directs, and Aaron speaks. It does not identify Moses with the divine nature.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of Moses’ mediation. Hebrews 3:1–6 honors Moses as faithful within God’s house while distinguishing Christ’s role. This provides a Christian framework for delegated speech and responsibility. It is not a direct explanation of the night encounter’s unnamed pronouns, nor does it make Moses a deity alongside God.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi understands Moses as Aaron's superior, showing that the Hebrew need not make Moses a rival deity. Christian discussion of mediation supplies another framework. Both explanations should preserve the actual contrast between an as-God role and responsibility for divine matters.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may explain Moses' representative role through its function, handling matters concerning God, instead of reproducing a potentially startling divine designation. This is a plausible contextual clarification. The same translation's divine title for Moses elsewhere cautions against assuming a uniform policy of removing such language.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew names YHWH as the threatening agent; Greek names an angel of the Lord. This changes the direct agency of the lethal encounter. The threatened person remains unnamed and the pronouns remain open to interpretation. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… the lodging place, YHWH met him and …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… the lodging place, an angel of the Lord met him and …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 4:24:2 explains: ויבקש המיתו AND HE SOUGHT TO PUT HIM TO DEATH — the angel sought etc., because he had not circumcised his son Eliezer; and because he had showed himself remiss in this, he brought upon himself the punishment of death. It has been taught in a Boraitha (Nedarim 31b): Rabbi José said: God forbid that this was so; Moses had not been remiss in this duty; but he thought, “If I circumcise him and immediately proceed on the journey, the child’s life will be in danger for three days. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of Moses’ mediation. Hebrews 3:1–6 honors Moses as faithful within God’s house while distinguishing Christ’s role. This provides a Christian framework for delegated speech and responsibility. It is not a direct explanation of the night encounter’s unnamed pronouns, nor does it make Moses a deity alongside God.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi's angel interpretation overlaps with the Greek's explicit agent while adding a circumcision-centered explanation. Christian readers can compare the covenant context without assigning every pronoun confidently. The threatened individual's identity and the relation between divine and angelic agency remain distinct interpretive questions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The Greek may identify a divine emissary as the actor in an encounter attributed to God in Hebrew. Such agency clarification is possible within biblical narrative. Rashi also invokes an angel, showing that this interpretation is not uniquely Christian, though his later commentary cannot establish the translator's source.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The stated lifespan differs: Hebrew one hundred thirty-three, RH one hundred thirty. RH Issaar is rendered Izhar, as at 6:21; the provisional Issachar is superseded. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… one hundred and thirty-three years.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… one hundred and thirty years.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 6:18:1 explains: ושני חיי קהת … ושני חיי עמרם וגו׳ AND THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF KOHATH WERE etc. … AND THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF AMRAM WERE etc. — From these numbers we may gather regarding the period of residence of the children of Israel, — viz., four hundred years, of which Scripture speaks, that these four hundred years were not passed in Egypt alone, but that they date from the day of Isaac’s birth. You know that Kohath was one of those who went down to Egypt; […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the exodus family history. Acts 7:17–22 remembers Israel’s increase, Moses’ birth, and his preservation; Hebrews 11:23 commends his parents’ faith. These passages receive the family story without supplying the disputed lifespan or kinship wording. The genealogical differences therefore remain visible alongside the theological remembrance.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi uses the patriarchal lifespans to examine the duration of Israel's sojourn. Acts 7 offers a Christian retelling of that history. Those reception contexts make the numbers worth preserving, while neither supplies authority to harmonize the selected Hebrew and Greek lifespan in this verse.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different inherited lifespan figures or coordination within a genealogy are possibilities. The small numerical difference has no demonstrated theological motive. Its effect on chronology must be assessed with the surrounding generations; the present evidence does not justify selecting a particular transmission mechanism as certain.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The lifespans conflict. Kinship also differs: aunt/uncle’s daughter; Greek includes Miriam. The Greek cousin relation is not harmonized with Hebrew. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived one …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam. Amram lived one …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 6:20:1 explains: יוכבד דדתו JOCHEBED HIS AUNT — The Targum has: his father’s sister; she was daughter of Levi (cf. Exodus 2:1) and sister of Kohath. 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 the exodus family history. Acts 7:17–22 remembers Israel’s increase, Moses’ birth, and his preservation; Hebrews 11:23 commends his parents’ faith. These passages receive the family story without supplying the disputed lifespan or kinship wording. The genealogical differences therefore remain visible alongside the theological remembrance.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi explicitly identifies Jochebed as the father's sister, whereas the Greek gives another kinship relation. Christian accounts of Moses' family and faith do not resolve that discrepancy. The age, relationship, and additional child should each remain visible rather than be absorbed into one generalized genealogy.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The cousin relationship may reflect genealogical clarification or a distinct inherited family tradition; alignment with later kinship law is another hypothesis to test. The lifespan and Miriam addition require separate explanation. No single motive can be demonstrated from this combination of differences alone.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English In context Hebrew describes an unrealized destructive possibility; RH retains a future threat applying to Pharaoh and his people. This changes the temporal force of the divine declaration. The Greek future is not rewritten as the Hebrew counterfactual. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is ““‘By now I could have stretched out My hand …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “9:15 “‘Now I will stretch out My hand …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 9:15:1 explains: כי עתה שלחתי את ידי וגו׳ FOR NOW I MIGHT HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HAND etc. — For had I so desired it, when My hand was upon thy cattle which I smote with pestilence I could have stretched it forth and smitten thee and thy people together with the cattle, ותכחד מן הארץ AND THOU WOULDST HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED FROM THE EARTH, BUT (this word אבל corresponds to ואולם in the Hebrew text) בעבור זאת העמדתיך FOR THIS REASON I MADE THEE REMAIN [IN LIFE IN ORDER TO SHOW THEE MY POWER], etc.

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of the Pharaoh narrative. Romans 9:17 cites the declaration about displaying divine power and proclaiming God’s name, using the adjacent Exodus 9:16. It does not quote the wind direction or decide this counterfactual/future distinction. The reception concerns the narrative’s theological purpose rather than every detail of a plague’s description.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi reads the Hebrew as explaining the destruction God could already have inflicted. Paul's use of Pharaoh in Romans 9 focuses on the manifestation of divine power. That reception does not make a counterfactual statement and a future threat grammatically interchangeable.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. A tense and modal construction can be construed as an unrealized possibility or a continuing future threat. The surrounding plague narrative makes both intelligible. This is plausibly a translation of verbal force rather than a different theology of divine power, but the precise source construction remains a textual question.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew names an east wind; RH names a south wind. The direction in which Moses stretches his staff also differs. RH explicitly names the Lord as the wind’s agent. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… staff over the land of Egypt, and YHWH drove an east wind over the …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… heaven, and the Lord brought a south wind upon the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 10:13:1 explains: ורוח הקדים THE EAST WIND — It was an east wind that brought the locusts because that came (blew) from the direction opposite to it (to Egypt), since Egypt was in the south-west, relative to Palestine, as it is explained in another place (Numbers 34:3).

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic reception of the Pharaoh narrative. Romans 9:17 cites the declaration about displaying divine power and proclaiming God’s name, using the adjacent Exodus 9:16. It does not quote the wind direction or decide this counterfactual/future distinction. The reception concerns the narrative’s theological purpose rather than every detail of a plague’s description.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi interprets the east wind within biblical judgment imagery, while Christian reception connects the sea crossing with deliverance and baptism. Those readings address meaning rather than compass direction. East and south remain different specifications in the displayed source columns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The repeated wind-direction difference may reflect an inherited directional interpretation or a distinct geographical tradition. Greek adaptation of regional wind language is worth examining, but is not established here. The two occurrences should be studied together before positing isolated error or a modern meteorological reconstruction.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English For the donkey not exchanged, Hebrew commands breaking its neck, while Greek commands redeeming it. Greek does not specify a monetary price here. The human redemption requirement agrees. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… donkey you shall redeem with an animal from the flock. If you do …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… womb you shall exchange for a sheep. If you do …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 13:13:3 explains: וערפתו THEN THOU SHALT BREAK ITS NECK — one breaks its neck with a hatchet from behind and so slays it (Bekhorot 13a). The reason is: he (the owner of the ass) has caused a loss to the possessions of the priest (by not giving him the lamb), therefore must he suffer loss in his own possessions (Mekhilta d['Rabbi Yishmael 13:13:2).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of firstborn consecration. Luke 2:22–24 places Jesus’ presentation within the law concerning the firstborn and the purification offering. This directly receives the wider legal setting, not the donkey’s alternative redemption instruction. Christian use of redemption language should therefore remain distinguished from the practical animal procedure under comparison.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi explains neck-breaking as loss corresponding to the withheld priestly due. Christian redemption language provides a theological comparison, not a replacement legal instruction. The practical alternatives in the two columns remain consequential: the animal's destruction and its redemption or payment are different outcomes.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the consequence of non-exchange as another form of redemption or payment, producing a different legal resolution. A distinct legal wording in its source is also possible. Because the pattern recurs, it deserves comparison as a translation or legal tradition rather than dismissal as an isolated slip.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The specified wind is east in Hebrew and south in Greek, as at 10:13. The translated account does not select a modern physical reconstruction. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… back with a strong east wind all night …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… back with a violent south wind all night …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 14:21:1 explains: ברוח קדים עזה BY A POWERFUL EAST WIND — i. e. by the east wind which is the most powerful of the winds. This is the wind by which the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts punishment from the wicked, as it is said, (Jeremiah 18:17) “I will scatter them as with an east wind”; (Hosea 13:15) “An east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord”; (Ezekiel 27:26) “The east wind hath broken thee in the heart of the sea”; (Isaiah 27:8) “He hath removed her with His rough blast in the day of the east wind” (cf. Mekhilta).

Christian teaching and understanding Direct apostolic typology. 1 Corinthians 10:1–2 relates the sea crossing and cloud to baptism into Moses. Paul receives the deliverance as instruction for a Christian congregation while also warning against presumption. The typology does not select a compass direction for the wind or authorize a modern physical reconstruction of the crossing.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi interprets the east wind within biblical judgment imagery, while Christian reception connects the sea crossing with deliverance and baptism. Those readings address meaning rather than compass direction. East and south remain different specifications in the displayed source columns.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The repeated wind-direction difference may reflect an inherited directional interpretation or a distinct geographical tradition. Greek adaptation of regional wind language is worth examining, but is not established here. The two occurrences should be studied together before positing isolated error or a modern meteorological reconstruction.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew describes the LORD as אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה (ish milḥamah, “a man of war or warrior”); Greek describes him as συντρίβων πολέμους (syntribōn polemous, “shattering wars”). The Hebrew personal image becomes a Greek statement of action. Both belong to the victory song following the sea crossing, but the wording alone cannot establish whether avoidance of a human image motivated the Greek expression. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 15:3 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 15:3.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 15:3:1 explains: ה' איש מלחמה means The Lord is a Master of war; just as, (Ruth 1:3) “the איש (i. e. the master) of Naomi”. (Cf. Rashi on that verse). Wherever the words איש and אישך occur they must be translated by בעל; so, too, (1 Kings 2:2) “Be thou strong and show thyself an איש” — a mighty person.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the song of Moses. Revelation 15:3–4 joins the song of Moses with the song of the Lamb in praise of God’s works and righteous ways. It does not quote this martial line word for word. The connection concerns divine victory and worship, while warrior and shatterer-of-wars remain distinct images.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi treats the Hebrew warrior expression as mastery of warfare rather than bodily humanity. Revelation's song of Moses offers a Christian connection to divine victory. These receptions can share a confession of deliverance while retaining the contrast between a warrior and the one who shatters wars.

Likely Cause for Difference Translation-based hypothesis. The martial noun phrase may have been translated through its perceived effect, the overthrow of wars, rather than through the human warrior image. Such rhetorical interpretation is plausible. The Greek's surrounding battle language prevents assuming that it systematically excludes divine combat imagery.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew conditions the proposed arrangement on God’s command; Greek presents God’s strengthening as a consequence. The role of divine authorization in Jethro’s advice materially differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… you do this and God commands you …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… you do this, God will strengthen you, and you will …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 18:23:1 explains: וצוך אלהים ויכלת עמד This implies: Consult the Almighty; if He commands thee to do this, thou wilt be able to stand, and if He prevents thee thou wilt be unable to stand (Mekhilta).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical thematic comparison. Acts 6:1–6 describes a community resolving a service problem through the appointment of others while preserving the Apostles’ responsibilities. It does not cite Jethro’s advice. The parallel concerns discernment and delegated care, leaving the Hebrew requirement of divine command and the Greek consequence of divine strengthening distinct.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi explicitly requires consultation with God before adopting the arrangement. Acts 6 provides a Christian comparison concerning delegated service, although it does not quote this verse. The parallel illuminates leadership while leaving the Hebrew condition and Greek consequence distinct.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may resolve the relation between God's action and Moses' success as consequence rather than prior authorization. The ambiguity concerns clause connection within advice. That explanation is plausible without asserting that either tradition rejects consultation with God or the practical value of shared responsibility.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew contrasts the daughter’s release with that of male slaves; Greek contrasts it with female slaves. The comparison class governing her legal release differs. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “21:7 If a man sells his daughter …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “21:7 If anyone sells his daughter …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 21:7:2 explains: לא תצא כצאת העבדים SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO — i. e. not under the circumstances that the Canaanitish menservants’ departure takes place, for these go free in consequence of the loss of their tooth or eye inflicted by their master; this woman, however, shall not go free because of such loss of her tooth or eye, but shall serve either six years or until the Jubilee, or until she shows signs of incipient puberty. Whichsoever of these periods comes first brings her freedom first. — He (the master), however, has to pay her the value of her eye or the value of her tooth. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Philemon 15–17 asks that Onesimus be received as a beloved brother, offering a Christian text for reflection on the treatment of an enslaved person. It is not a commentary on the daughter’s release law. The comparison must retain the ancient provision’s coercive character and its actual categories of servitude.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi distinguishes this daughter's release from that of other categories of slaves and reads the Torah's laws together. Christian teaching about treating an enslaved person as a brother offers a later ethical comparison. Neither should obscure the ancient provision's coercive setting or its differing comparison class.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The slave comparison may have been resolved by matching the woman's sex in Greek or by drawing on a different legal formulation. Rabbinic interpretation shows that the Hebrew category itself needs contextual specification. The grammatical difference does not by itself establish the complete release rules of either tradition.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew excludes lying in wait; Greek explicitly excludes willing action. These express different tests for the homicide case allowed a place of refuge, without imposing a complete modern theory of intent. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… he did not lie in wait and God allowed it …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… he did not act willingly, but God delivered the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 21:13:1 explains: ואשר לא צדה AND IF A MAN LIE NOT IN WAIT — i. e. if he did not lie in ambush for him (the person whom he killed), nor did he premeditate the blow (Makkot 7b).

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological analogy. Hebrews 6:18–20 uses refuge language for those holding to the offered hope and connects that hope with Christ’s priestly entry. This can be compared with the protection afforded in the Torah’s refuge laws. Hebrews is not defining homicide intent or interpreting the different legal tests in this verse.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi connects the Hebrew with ambush and premeditation, then explains the availability of refuge. Hebrews' refuge language offers a theological analogy rather than a homicide ruling. The synthesis should preserve the law's protection while making its two formulations of responsibility clear.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may express the implication of not lying in wait as absence of willing action. This is a plausible interpretive translation of an intent criterion. The categories are related but not coextensive, and neither wording supplies the whole later legal distinction between accident, negligence, and deliberate killing.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Greek specifies an Israelite victim and joins kidnapping, oppression and being found with the victim. Hebrew has a different offense formulation. The victim scope and stated conditions of the capital law differ; the Greek conjunction is retained. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “21:16 Whoever kidnaps a person and sells him, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “21:17 Whoever kidnaps one of the sons of Israel, subjects him to oppression and sells him, …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 21:16:1 explains: וגנב איש ומכרו AND HE THAT STEALETH A MAN, AND SELLETH HIM, [AND HE BE PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Why is this statement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in another text bearing upon the same subject)? Since it is said, (Deuteronomy 24:7) “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren … [then that thief shall die]”, I might say that I have here only the law that a man who stole a person is punishable with death. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Apostolic ethical comparison. 1 Timothy 1:9–10 includes slave traders or kidnappers among conduct contrary to sound teaching. The passage provides a clear Christian condemnation relevant to this ancient offense. It does not establish that the victim scope, evidentiary conditions, or conjunctions of the Hebrew and Greek laws are identical.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi reads the two Torah kidnapping laws together to clarify who can offend and be victimized. First Timothy 1:10 condemns slave traders or kidnappers in a Christian moral setting. The shared opposition to trafficking does not remove the precise victim scope and conjunctions of the two ancient laws.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may align the offense with the Israelite kidnapping law of Deuteronomy 24:7. Such cross-law clarification could explain the named victim and added conditions. A fuller source remains possible; the resemblance is evidence for a hypothesis, not proof of the direction or date of adaptation.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The central condition is Hebrew אָסוֹן (ason, “harm or disaster”) compared with Greek μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον (mē exeikonismenon, “not formed”). Hebrew does not expressly identify the recipient of the harm in this condition; Rashi interprets it as the woman. Greek expressly distinguishes the child’s formation. The monetary assessment in verse 22 and the life-for-life consequence in verse 23 must be read with these different conditions, rather than treated as an identical legal formulation. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 21:22 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 21:22.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 21:22:3 explains: ולא יהיה אסון AND YET THERE BE NO MISCHIEF — no further mischief with the woman (Sanhedrin 79b). On this reading, the condition concerns injury to the woman. The Greek formed/unformed distinction therefore should not be inserted into Rashi’s explanation.

Christian teaching and understanding Attributed patristic legal reception. St Basil, Letter 188, canon 2 rejects a formed/unformed distinction in his disciplinary treatment of deliberately destroying an unborn child. His case differs from the accidental injury narrated by this law. It should therefore be compared carefully, not presented as a direct translation or an identical ancient ruling.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi applies the further-harm condition to the woman, while the Greek expressly refers to formation of the child. Basil's later rule concerning deliberate destruction rejects that distinction for a different act. These are distinct legal and reception contexts, and should not be combined into a single ancient ruling.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek appears to resolve an unspecified harm condition through a formed/unformed distinction concerning the child. Legal interpretation informed by concepts of fetal formation is a plausible explanation, alongside a different source formulation. The available evidence does not securely identify a particular philosophical school or a translator's intent.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The central condition is Hebrew אָסוֹן (ason, “harm or disaster”) compared with Greek ἐξεικονισμένον (exeikonismenon, “formed”). Hebrew does not expressly identify the recipient of the harm in this condition; Rashi interprets it as the woman. Greek expressly distinguishes the child’s formation. The monetary assessment in verse 22 and the life-for-life consequence in verse 23 must be read with these different conditions, rather than treated as an identical legal formulation. Original-language check: Hebrew BHS 21:23 · Greek Rahlfs–Hanhart 21:23.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 21:23:2 explains: ונתת נפש תחת נפש THEN THOU SHALT GIVE SOUL FOR SOUL. Our Rabbis differ as to the explanation of the word נפש the first time it occurs here. There are some who say that it actually signifies “life” (i. e. life for life), others say that it means monetary compensation but not literally life, and they say that this must be so because he who intends to kill a certain person and inadvertently kills another instead, (as is the case here), is exempt from the death penalty, and has only to pay to his heirs his value estimating this as though he were sold as a slave in the market (Sanhedrin 79a).

Christian teaching and understanding Attributed patristic legal reception. St Basil, Letter 188, canon 2 rejects a formed/unformed distinction in his disciplinary treatment of deliberately destroying an unborn child. His case differs from the accidental injury narrated by this law. It should therefore be compared carefully, not presented as a direct translation or an identical ancient ruling.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi applies the further-harm condition to the woman, while the Greek expressly refers to formation of the child. Basil's later rule concerning deliberate destruction rejects that distinction for a different act. These are distinct legal and reception contexts, and should not be combined into a single ancient ruling.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek appears to resolve an unspecified harm condition through a formed/unformed distinction concerning the child. Legal interpretation informed by concepts of fetal formation is a plausible explanation, alongside a different source formulation. The available evidence does not securely identify a particular philosophical school or a translator's intent.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English RH 22:2 has death in return where the corresponding Hebrew proceeds to restitution. The stated legal outcome materially differs, although the Greek pronoun’s referent and the transition remain difficult; no definitive reconstruction is imposed. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… him, there is bloodguilt for him. The thief must make restitution; if he has …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… him, he is guilty and shall die in return. If he has …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 22:2:3 explains: שלם ישלם means the thief shall only restore the money he has stolen but is not subject to the death penalty. Onkelos who renders אם זרחה השמש עליו by, “If the eye of witnesses fall upon him” chose a different way of explaining the verse, namely, that if witnesses surprise him before the householder appears, and when the householder is going towards him they warn him not to kill him (the thief), then דמים לו, he is punishable if he kills him; for since there are people watching him the thief surely has no thought of taking human life and will not kill the owner of the property.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. Matthew 5:38–48 teaches a response to injury that refuses retaliatory escalation, and Romans 12:17–21 places vengeance with God. These are later teachings in different settings from the ancient case laws. They illuminate Christian reception without functioning as translations of the specific offense or penalty clauses.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi distinguishes the thief's repayment from the householder's liability for unjustified killing. Christian teaching against retaliation is a broader ethical comparison. The Greek death-in-return clause requires its own grammatical examination; it cannot be harmonized simply by importing the Hebrew restitution clause.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. The compressed legal sequence permits difficult pronoun and clause attachments. Greek may reflect a different formulation of liability or a different interpretation of the transition into restitution. The present comparison cannot establish which explanation is preferable, and should not manufacture a smooth reconstructed original.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew ends with God’s refusal to justify the wicked; Greek prohibits acquitting the impious for gifts. The legal declaration changes its agent and expressly introduces the bribery condition. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… not acquit the wicked.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… not acquit the ungodly for the sake of bribes.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 23:7:2 explains: כי לא אצדיק רשע FOR “I” WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE WICKED — It is not your duty, in the latter case, to bring the man back to the court, for if he is really guilty, “I” will not acquit him in My court. Altough he has left your hands as innocent “I” have many agents (many means) to inflict upon him the death to which he has made himself liable (Mekhilta).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian ethical comparison. James 2:1–9 condemns partiality and connects treatment of neighbors with obedience to the law. It supplies a relevant Christian setting for the integrity of judgment. It does not decide the agent shift between God’s refusal to justify wickedness and the Greek prohibition on human acquittal for gifts.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi distinguishes the limits of human courts from God's own judgment. Christian warnings against partiality provide a related ethical concern. The two columns protect justice through different formulations: divine refusal to justify wrongdoing and a human prohibition on acquittal for gifts.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret God's refusal to acquit wickedness as an instruction governing human judges and align it with the adjacent bribery prohibition. This is plausible contextual legal clarification. A different source is possible, but the agent change and gifts condition should be evaluated together.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew narrates seeing the God of Israel; Greek narrates seeing the place where God stood. The represented object of the theophanic vision materially differs. No motive of theological censorship is inferred. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… clear as the very heavens.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… appearance of the firmament of heaven in its clarity.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 24:10:1 explains: ויראו את אלהי ישראל NOW THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL — They gazed intently and failing in this they peeped in their attempt to catch a glimpse of the Supreme Being, and thereby made themselves liable to death. But it was only because God did not wish to disturb the joy caused by the Giving of the Torah, that He did not punish them instantly, but waited (postponed the punishment) for Nadab and Abihu until the day when the Tabernacle was dedicated, when they were stricken with death, and for the elders until the event of which the text relates, (Numbers 11:16) “And when the people complained …. […]

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. John 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 relate divine revelation, Moses, glory, and the knowledge of God within Christian theology. They are not lexical commentaries on this individual variant. The comparison should preserve the distinction between seeing God, seeing His place, knowing His ways, and receiving His manifestation.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi interprets the vision within the elders' dangerous approach, while Christian texts distinguish divine manifestation from ordinary sight of God. Those receptions clarify the theological difficulty without erasing it. Seeing God and seeing the place where God stood remain different descriptions.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may explicate the visible scene as God's place rather than make God the direct object of sight. Interpretive handling of theophanic language is a plausible explanation. It does not prove a universal anti-anthropomorphic policy or deliberate censorship, and other passages must inform any broader claim.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The same second long side is north in Hebrew and east in the consulted Greek. Greek also describes bases as bronze and silver-plated; plating can explain that combination. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… bronze bases, and silver hooks and bands for the pillars.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… posts’ braces, and their bases shall be silver-plated.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Exodus 27:10:4 explains: וחשקיהם AND THEIR FILLETS — The columns were encircled with silver threads. I do not know, however, whether this was done over their whole surface or at the top only or round the middle only, but I do know that חשוק denotes “tied on”, for we find in the account of the concubine of Gibeah (Judges 19:10): “there were with him a couple of asses saddled (חבושים lit., bound)” which latter word the Targum renders by חשוקים‎.

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the sanctuary. Hebrews 8:5 cites the pattern shown to Moses, and Hebrews 9:1–10 interprets the sanctuary and its service within an argument about access to God. These are direct uses of the wider ritual setting. They do not correct architectural directions, offering verbs, or material accounting totals in Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic commentary explains the Hebrew enclosure and its east-facing entrance. Christian tabernacle typology concerns access and worship, not a correction of its compass points. The distinct directions, posts, and bases remain practical architectural evidence requiring their own comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different spatial orientation, an inherited layout tradition, or coordination with a parallel sanctuary account may explain the directional and inventory changes. None is demonstrated by these two verses alone. A plan should therefore follow each version consistently rather than silently rotate individual sides to produce agreement.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew says east; the consulted Greek says south and adds ten posts and bases. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… be fifty cubits.”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… hangings fifty cubits long, with ten posts and ten bases.”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 27:13:1 explains: לפאת קדמה מזרחה ON THE EAST SIDE EASTWARDS — The last two words are the same as פני המזרח. The word הדם is synonymous with פנים, the face (the front side of any thing), and אחור is the same term as אֲחוֹרַיִם, the buttocks, the back-side. The East is therefore called קדם because it is the front part of the world; correspondingly, the West is called אחור, the back part of the world just as you speak of (Deuteronomy 11:24) הים האחרון the Hinder Sea, which the Targum renders by “the Western Sea.”

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the sanctuary. Hebrews 8:5 cites the pattern shown to Moses, and Hebrews 9:1–10 interprets the sanctuary and its service within an argument about access to God. These are direct uses of the wider ritual setting. They do not correct architectural directions, offering verbs, or material accounting totals in Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rabbinic commentary explains the Hebrew enclosure and its east-facing entrance. Christian tabernacle typology concerns access and worship, not a correction of its compass points. The distinct directions, posts, and bases remain practical architectural evidence requiring their own comparison.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different spatial orientation, an inherited layout tradition, or coordination with a parallel sanctuary account may explain the directional and inventory changes. None is demonstrated by these two verses alone. A plan should therefore follow each version consistently rather than silently rotate individual sides to produce agreement.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew commands burning the specified fat on the altar; Greek commands placing it there. The express ritual action in this instruction differs, even though the surrounding rite also contains burning commands. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… all the fat covering the entrails, the appendage on the liver, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… all the fat on the belly, the …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 29:13:3 explains: על הכבד — Take with it (with the lobe) some of the liver also (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 8). 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 the sanctuary. Hebrews 8:5 cites the pattern shown to Moses, and Hebrews 9:1–10 interprets the sanctuary and its service within an argument about access to God. These are direct uses of the wider ritual setting. They do not correct architectural directions, offering verbs, or material accounting totals in Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi identifies the required anatomical portions, while Hebrews relates priestly offerings to consecration and mediation. Those discussions illuminate the rite's setting. The actual action in this instruction should still be stated precisely, without importing an unstated verb merely because the larger ceremony involves fire.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may name the placement that precedes burning instead of repeating the whole sacrificial action. That ritual shorthand is plausible, given burning elsewhere in the rite. It remains an interpretation: placing and burning are different explicit commands, and a source wording difference cannot be excluded.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English Hebrew asks to know God’s ways; Greek asks for God to manifest Himself. This changes the stated object of Moses’ request within the encounter. It does not resolve the ensuing distinction between seeing God’s glory and seeing His face. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… have found favor in Your sight, please show me Your ways, …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… have found favor before You, reveal Yourself to me, that I …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 33:13:1 explains: ועתה וגו׳ NOW THEREFORE etc. — If it is true that I have found favour in Thy eyes, הודיעני נא את דרכך LET ME KNOW THY WAY — let me know what is the reward which Thou givest to those who find favour in Thine eyes.

Christian teaching and understanding Biblical theological comparison. John 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 relate divine revelation, Moses, glory, and the knowledge of God within Christian theology. They are not lexical commentaries on this individual variant. The comparison should preserve the distinction between seeing God, seeing His place, knowing His ways, and receiving His manifestation.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi relates the request to understanding divine favor and God's continuing commitment to Israel. Christian reflection on revelation supplies a related perspective. Knowledge of God's ways and God's self-manifestation can be connected theologically, while remaining distinct objects of Moses' request.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may understand knowing God's ways through the personal disclosure needed for such knowledge. This would make an implied relational request explicit. The surrounding dialogue supports that interpretation, but does not prove that the translator sought to resolve every tension concerning seeing God.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English For the same failure to redeem, Hebrew requires breaking the animal’s neck; Greek requires payment. This substantive difference is retained. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… Redeem a firstborn donkey with a sheep; …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… Redeem a firstborn beast of burden with a sheep; …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 34:20:3 explains: וערפתו THEN THOU SHALT BREAK ITS NECK — one breaks its neck with a hatchet and so slays it (Bekhorot 10b). The reason is: he (the owner of the ass) has caused loss to the possessions of the priest (by not giving him the lamb) therefore must he suffer loss in his possessions (Mekhilta).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of firstborn consecration. Luke 2:22–24 places Jesus’ presentation within the law concerning the firstborn and the purification offering. This directly receives the wider legal setting, not the donkey’s alternative redemption instruction. Christian use of redemption language should therefore remain distinguished from the practical animal procedure under comparison.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation Rashi explains neck-breaking as loss corresponding to the withheld priestly due. Christian redemption language provides a theological comparison, not a replacement legal instruction. The practical alternatives in the two columns remain consequential: the animal's destruction and its redemption or payment are different outcomes.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Greek may interpret the consequence of non-exchange as another form of redemption or payment, producing a different legal resolution. A distinct legal wording in its source is also possible. Because the pattern recurs, it deserves comparison as a translation or legal tradition rather than dismissal as an isolated slip.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English H gives seven hundred thirty shekels; the consulted G text gives seven hundred twenty. Keep the source totals distinct. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… All the gold used for the work, for …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… All the gold worked into the objects, for …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Comment on this verse. Rashi on Exodus 38:24:1 explains: ככר [TWENTY NINE] TALENTS — A common kikkar contains sixty common manehs, and the maneh of the Sanctuary (that used for purposes connected with the Temple) was double the common maneh. Consequently the kikkar here mentioned was 120 common manehs. Now a common maneh contained 25 Sela’im (or shekels), and the kikkar of the Sanctuary equals three thousand shekels. That is why Scripture counts (mentions the number of) all the shekels that are fewer than 3,000 as a separate item, because these do not together amount to a kikkar (cf. Bekhorot 5a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the sanctuary. Hebrews 8:5 cites the pattern shown to Moses, and Hebrews 9:1–10 interprets the sanctuary and its service within an argument about access to God. These are direct uses of the wider ritual setting. They do not correct architectural directions, offering verbs, or material accounting totals in Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The material account presents the sanctuary as the product of identifiable offerings and workmanship. Rabbinic discussion clarifies the units, while Christian reflection on accountable service offers a broader connection. Neither theological use reconciles the shekel totals; each column's inventory must remain intact.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different transmitted accounting totals or adjustments within the reordered Greek tabernacle account are possibilities. The figures need comparison with their own literary placement and all associated units. No negligence theory is warranted simply because two editions print different numbers, and the totals should not be recomputed to force agreement.

Direct word comparison: Masoretic Hebrew–English and Septuagint Greek–English The shekel totals differ: H two thousand four hundred; G one thousand five hundred. In the displayed English readings, the Hebrew-based phrase is “… bronze of the presentation offering was seventy talents …”; the corresponding Greek-based phrase is “… bronze of the contribution was seventy talents …”.

Rabbinic teaching and understanding Related rabbinic context. Rashi on Exodus 38:24:1 explains: ככר [TWENTY NINE] TALENTS — A common kikkar contains sixty common manehs, and the maneh of the Sanctuary (that used for purposes connected with the Temple) was double the common maneh. Consequently the kikkar here mentioned was 120 common manehs. Now a common maneh contained 25 Sela’im (or shekels), and the kikkar of the Sanctuary equals three thousand shekels. That is why Scripture counts (mentions the number of) all the shekels that are fewer than 3,000 as a separate item, because these do not together amount to a kikkar (cf. Bekhorot 5a).

Christian teaching and understanding Christian reception of the sanctuary. Hebrews 8:5 cites the pattern shown to Moses, and Hebrews 9:1–10 interprets the sanctuary and its service within an argument about access to God. These are direct uses of the wider ritual setting. They do not correct architectural directions, offering verbs, or material accounting totals in Exodus.

Text, Rabbis, and Christians brought into conversation The material account presents the sanctuary as the product of identifiable offerings and workmanship. Rabbinic discussion clarifies the units, while Christian reflection on accountable service offers a broader connection. Neither theological use reconciles the shekel totals; each column's inventory must remain intact.

Likely Cause for Difference Proposed explanation; origin unresolved. Different transmitted accounting totals or adjustments within the reordered Greek tabernacle account are possibilities. The figures need comparison with their own literary placement and all associated units. No negligence theory is warranted simply because two editions print different numbers, and the totals should not be recomputed to force agreement.