Rephah was his son …: The antecedent of the pronoun his is not clear. One interpretation of this clause is that Rephah was another son of Ephraim (so Good News Translation, New Century Version). Beginning with Rephah, a son of Ephraim, nine generations of descendants are listed, through verse 27, according to Good News Translation and New Century Version (also New Living Translation). Another way of expressing this clause is “Another son (of Ephraim) was…” (similarly Einheitsübersetzung).

But it is also possible that Rephah was the son of Beriah, mentioned in verse 23. This second interpretation is followed in Bible en français courant, which reads “The descendants of Beriah, in direct line, were Rephah….” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente also begins this verse by identifying Rephah as the son of Beriah. Another approach is that of Menge, which reads “His (i.e., Beriah’s) son was Rephah….” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has a footnote stating that in the present form of the text, the pronoun his refers to Beriah, but that verses 21-24 seems to interrupt the list of Ephraim’s sons.

Whether interpreters understand the pronoun his to refer to Ephraim or to Beriah, there are various ways in which this may be translated: (1) The pronoun his may be used, which will leave the ambiguity of the Hebrew in many languages. (2) The name may be stated in the text, as in Good News Translation and Bible en français courant. (3) The name may be placed within parentheses, as in Einheitsübersetzung and Menge.

Resheph his son is literally “and Resheph.” A literal translation of this verse in the Masoretic Text is given by Braun: “his son Rephah, Resheph, his son Telah, his son Tahan.” But such a translation makes no sense since the relationship of Resheph to the other names is not made clear. The ancient versions in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic all reflect different ways of interpreting the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is certainly the more difficult reading, and for that reason Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament prefers it, considering the ancient versions as attempts to make sense of the Hebrew. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text. Revised Standard Version adds the words his son as the context seems to require. La Bible Pléiade similarly translates this verse as “Rephah his son, Resheph [his son], Telah his son, Tahan his son,” placing the words “his son” in square brackets. However, Moffatt takes Rephah and Resheph as brothers, saying “Rephah and Resheph were his sons, Resheph the father of Telah, the father of Tahan” (similarly American Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Einheitsübersetzung).

However, some interpreters think that the name Resheph was accidentally created by a scribe who repeated letters from the preceding name Rephah. So these interpreters correct the Hebrew text. New Jerusalem Bible, for example, corrects the verse to read “Rephah was his son, Shuthelah his son, Tahan his son” (similarly Klein). New Jerusalem Bible adds the name Shuthelah from verse 20, assuming that a scribe incorrectly wrote Telah for Shuthelah.

It is not possible to know for sure if the Masoretic Text contains the original form of this verse. Nor is it possible to be certain what the intended meaning is. Was Resheph the son or brother of Rephah? Or was the name Resheph created by a scribe’s mistake in copying? Translators must simply choose among the various possible ways of understanding and translating this verse. If they do not follow the Masoretic Text, they should indicate that in a footnote.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .