Yeah, nothing earth shattering in the changes. Some of the misplaced quotation marks are a bit funny, but those are just error corrections. But for those things that aren’t errors, you kinda wonder what made them commit to the change. Why is the phrase “pine trees” better than “oil trees”?Other translations say myrtle trees. Is the phrase a “myrtle trees” better than “pine”? Does it matter?
As for the Unicode change, that is the only thing I can think of. What I see when I do a compare isn’t the font, I see the Unicode value change. But I am wondering if they found a better font and that is what pushed them into a new Unicode character - based on how that new font rendered. Perhaps they thought: “Hey, this font is a bit better. Let’s use that.” And then the accent marks looked a little too spaced (or something) and so they went ahead and did a 8290 character find and replace??? Possible. A bit picky of them.