And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was the ruler over them in time past: Phinehas served as priest when the people of Israel crossed the Jordan River into the land of Canaan (Num 25.6-13). The use of the definite article in the phrase the son of Eleazar may imply that Eleazar had only one son. Since this was probably not the case, it may be better to say “one of the sons of Eleazar.” The Hebrew may be understood as meaning “a son of Eleazar” or “the son of Eleazar.” Many English versions simply omit the definite article (so Good News Translation). In time past refers, of course, to the incident recorded in the book of Numbers. In some languages the verb form alone will be sufficient to convey this meaning. Contemporary English Version does this by rendering the whole clause as “Phinehas son of Eleazar had supervised their work.”

The LORD was with him: Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible take this clause as a prayer that Yahweh might be with Phinehas. However, most other versions understand it to be a statement of fact or an affirmation of faith about the past, as in Revised Standard Version. Since the Hebrew lacks a verb here, either interpretation is possible. If there is any danger that the pronoun him might be misunderstood, translators may wish to follow the model of New Century Version, which translates this clause as “and the LORD was with Phinehas.”

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 .