2 Chronicles 4:5

2Ch 4:5 And the thickness of it [was] an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; [and] it received and held three thousand baths.

Ver. 5. Three thousand baths.] See on 1Ki 7:26. There it is said "two thousand baths": Dicendum hic addi, &c., salth Vatablus. This prophet addeth what is wanting in the other; ea enim est mens autheris huius libri, for that is the design of this our author.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Or, flower delices.

In 1 Kings 7:26, mention is only made of two thousand, but the less number was taken there, and here according as the measures proved afterward, is declared.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 5. It - held three thousand baths.] In 1Kg 7:26, it is said to hold only two thousand baths. As this book was written after the Babylonish captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonish bath which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonish by one palm; see on 2Ch 3:3. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot by saying, "It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(5) And the thickness . . . a cup.—Identical with 1Ki_7:26.

With flowers of lilies.—See margin. “Lily” here is shôshannâh; in Kings, shôshân. LXX., “graven with lily buds.” Syriac and Arabic, “and it was very beautiful.” Vulg., “like the lip of a cup, or of an open lily.”

And it received and held three thousand baths.—Literally, holding (whole) baths: three thousand would it contain. The bath was the largest of Hebrew liquid measures. Perhaps the true reading is, “holding three thousand baths,” the last verb being a gloss borrowed from Kings. So Vulg. Syriac and Arabic omit the clause. The LXX. had the present reading. 1Ki_7:26 reads, two thousand baths would it contain. Most critics assume this to be correct. Some scribe may have read ’alâphîm, “thousands,” instead of ‘alpayim, “two thousand,” and then have added “three” (shĕlôsheth) under the influence of the last verse. But it is more likely that the numeral “three” having been inadvertently omitted from the text of Kings, the indefinite word “thousands” was made definite by turning it into the dual “two thousand” Either mistake would be possible, because in the unpointed text ‘alâphîm and ’alpayim are written alike. The Syriac has the curious addition, “And he made ten poles, and put five on the right and five on the left, and bare with them the altar of burnt offerings.” Similarly the Arabic version.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies] R.V. the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily.

three thousand baths] In 1Ki_7:26, two thousand baths. Whether the textual corruption is to be attributed to 1 Kin. or to Chron. cannot be determined. The bath was a measure for liquids equal to about 8¼ gallons.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Three thousand baths - See 1Ki 7:23 note. It is quite possible that either here or in Kings the text may have been accidentally corrupted.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Three. 3 Kings two, may specify the usual quantity that was contained, though the vessel would absolutely hold a thousand measures, or baths, more. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

A handbreadth. Not tr,z, "a span" (nevertheless tabled by Conder, "Handbook to the Bible," 2nd edit., p. 79, as a handbreadth, and put at eight digits, two palms, or 5.33 inches), but jpf, "the palm of the open hand," the breadth of the four fingers, which Thenius puts at 3.1752 inches, but Conder"s table at 2.66 inches. It received and held should be translated, it was able to hold. Three thousand baths. The parallel has two thousand baths, and this latter is the likelier reading. It is, however, conceivable that the statement of Kings may purport to give the quantity of water used, and that of Chronicles the quantity which the vessel at its fullest could accommodate. As to the real capacity of the bath, we are hopelessly at sea. Josephus"s estimate of it is about eight gallons and a half, that of the rabbinists about four gallons and a half (see Smith"s "Dictionary of the Bible," 3:1742), and Conder, in the "Handbook to the Bible," p. 80, a fractional quantity above six gallons. The largest bowls on the Assyrian bas-reliefs, the silver bowl of Croesus, and the bronze bowl in Scythia (Herodotus, 1:51; 4:81), did not, under the lowest estimate of the bath, hold as much as one-half of the contents of this vast sea of brass of Solomon. The use of this vessel was, as we read in the next verse, for the priests to wash in, or, as some would read, to wash at. (Exo_30:18-20)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And its thickness was a handbreadth [i.e.] its bottom and its walls, but at its mouth it was thin, spread out and flattened.

like the work of the brim of a cup used for drinking, upon which is depicted a lily flower.

it contained three thousand It contained this amount, but in I Kings (7:26) it is written: “It contained two thousand baths.” The heaped measure was a third, for a bath is three seah, as is said: (Ezek. 45:11): “The ephah and the bath shall have one volume.” Thus you have six thousand seah. This equals a hundred and fifty purifying pools for four thousand seah equal a hundred mikvaoth. And we find also for the remaining two thousand seah fifty mikvaoth, and even if you divide the vessel according to the measure that the Rabbis computed, namely a cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits for a mikvah, you will find the same: for the height of three cubits, which was square, and which was ten by ten from its brim to its brim, are a hundred mikvaoth, and for the height of two cubits, where it was round, ten by ten from its brim to its brim around equal fifty mikvaoth, because a square is a fourth more than a circle.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.