In Gilyon HaShas on bShabbat 55b, R. Akiva Eiger includes bBerachot 7b's statement רַב הוּנָא רָמֵי כְּתִיב ״לְעַנּוֹתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְכַלּוֹתוֹ״ as an example in which hazal's quotation of a pasuk is at odds with "all the [biblical] books" of his time since the verse Rav Hunah is quoting (1 Chronicles 17:9) is usually written:
וְשַׂמְתִּ֣י מָ֠קוֹם לְעַמִּ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֚ל וּנְטַעְתִּ֙יהוּ֙ וְשָׁכַ֣ן תַּחְתָּ֔יו וְלֹ֥א יִרְגַּ֖ז ע֑וֹד וְלֹֽא־יוֹסִ֚יפוּ בְנֵֽי־עַוְלָה֙ לְבַלֹּת֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר בָּרִֽאשׁוֹנָֽה
And yet neither Rashi much earlier nor Rav Steinsaltz much later mentions this discrepancy, except maybe inasmuch as Rav Steinsaltz amends "ketiv" to "ne'emar" in his Hebrew paraphrase.
What I don't understand is: if this is just one of those places where hazal is actually just exegeting a long-standing kri-ketiv tradition that may not be universal, why is the "discrepancy" included in R. Akiva Eiger's famous list apparent deviations? But if this isn't a long established alternate reading, why isn't anyone else bothered by the slip, when the whole gemara here is based on the fact that 1 Chronicles 17:9 and II Samuel 7:10 are supposed to have contrasting meanings when actually in the Tanakh text as we know it those two pasukim just use two synonyms (לבלות and לענות)?