Then …: Revised Standard Version has one long sentence in verses 5-8, but Good News Translation and most other modern versions begin a new one here. Verses 6-8 list nine sons of David, and verse 8 states the number as “nine.” Some versions bring this information forward to the beginning of the list here in this verse (so Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

Instead of Elishama, two Hebrew manuscripts have “Elishua,” which is the form of the name found in 2 Sam 5.15 and 1 Chr 14.5. Instead of Eliphelet, 1 Chr 14.5 has “Elpelet.” 2 Sam 5.15 does not have this name. Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh maintain the difference in the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text for these names, but many common language translations harmonize the spellings here with the spellings in chapter 14 by saying “Elishua, Elpelet” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). La Bible Pléiade does this also. Contemporary English Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch replace the name Elishama with “Elishua,” but keep the name Eliphelet. The names Elishama and Eliphelet appear again in verse 8 as the seventh and ninth sons.

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 .

Verse 19 in Hebrew is unclear, as the footnotes in Good News Translation and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente indicate. Existing translations show a bewildering variety of renderings, and some correct the Hebrew text in different ways with the use of the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text reads “And the sons of the wife of Hodiah the sister of Naham the father of Keilah the Garmite and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.” The various ways of handling this verse include the following:

• (1) The Hebrew seems to say that Hodiah was a man and that his unnamed wife had a sister named Naham. This understanding is found in both Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version, which says “The sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, were the fathers of Keilah the Garmite and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.” Contemporary English Version is similar, although the verse has been restructured for the sake of clarity as follows: “A man named Hodiah was married to the sister of Naham. Hodiah’s descendants included Keilah of the Garmite clan and Eshtemoa of the Maacathite clan” (similarly New International Version, New Living Translation).

• (2) Some interpreters correct the Masoretic Text and also make additions on the basis of the Septuagint. Revised English Bible, for example, adds the pronoun “his” before wife of Hodiah and understands Hodiah to be the wife’s name rather than the husband’s. Revised English Bible also adds the name “Daliah” from the Septuagint. Its rendering for this verse is “The sons of his wife Hodiah sister of Naham were Daliah father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.”

• (3) New American Bible takes the name Hodiah as the Hebrew word meaning “Jewish” (so Biblia Hebraica edited by Kittel) and corrects the Hebrew text of verses 17-19 to a considerable extent. According to New American Bible, verse 19 refers to the Jewish wife of Mered, just as verse 18 referred to his Egyptian wife. Naham becomes the father of Keilah in New American Bible. And in verse 17 Jether is inserted as the father of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah. Verses 17-19 read as follows in New American Bible:

17 The sons of Ezrah were Jether, Mered, Epher, and Jalon. Jether became the father of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa. 18 [… …] His (Mered’s) Egyptian wife bore Jared, the father of Gedor, Heber, the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel, the father of Zanoah. These were the sons of Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married. 19 The sons of his Jewish wife, the sister of Naham, the father of Keilah, were Shimon the Garmite and Ishi the Maacathite.

• (4) New Jerusalem Bible places an ellipsis at the end of the verse, indicating that the end of the verse is lost as follows: “The sons of Hodiah’s wife, sister of Naham father of Keilah the Garmite and of Eshtemoa the Maacathite…” (similarly American Bible).

• (5) Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente considers the name Hodiah to be a man’s name (unlike Revised English Bible above) but adds the name Daliah (like Revised English Bible) and reads “Hodiah married the sister of Naham and had with her Daliah, father of Keilah, the Garmite, and Eshtemoa, the Maacathite.”

• (6) Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch omits the words the Maacathite and translates “Hodiah married a sister of Naham. Their descendants were Hagarmi, the ancestor of Keilah, and Eshtemoa.”

• (7) Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests that some words were accidentally omitted in the Masoretic Text and therefore gives a {D} rating to the Septuagint. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests the following text: “and the sons of the wife of Hodiah the sister of Naham were Daliah the father of Keilah and Shimon the father of Joman and the sons of Naham the father of Keilah the Garmite and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.” This suggested text makes both Daliah and Naham the father of Keilah. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, notes that Keilah is a city, and elsewhere the author mentions two or more founders (fathers) of a single city.

As the above discussion of verses 17-19 clearly shows, the Masoretic Text most likely contains one or more errors. But interpreters do not agree on what the original text most likely said, and the writers of this Handbook can only guess at how the text should be corrected and translated. For this reason we recommend that translators follow the interpretation found in Good News Translation (also Bible en français courant, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje) and indicate in a footnote that the meaning and translation of verses 17-19 are uncertain.

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 .

And their kinsmen according to their fathers’ houses: The Hebrew word for kinsmen is the same one that occurs in verse 7. It may be rendered “relatives” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation) or “fellow-tribesmen” (Revised English Bible). New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible say “brothers,” but this word is too narrow in meaning if it is taken in its strict sense. Fathers’ houses may be translated “family groups” (La Bible du Semeur) or “clans” (Contemporary English Version). In many languages it is not advisable to translate the word houses literally in a context such as this. New Century Version begins this verse with “The seven relatives in their families.” It treats the names that follow as those of individuals rather than as heads of clans. This, however, is unlikely. New Living Translation is better with “Their relatives, the leaders of seven other clans.”

Instead of Eber, some Hebrew manuscripts and one manuscript of the Septuagint have “Obed.” But no major version adopts this reading. Revised English Bible has “Heber” rather than Eber, but the reason for this spelling is not clear.

The number seven, which comes at the end of this verse in Hebrew (so Revised Standard Version), may be shifted before the list of names if it is considered more natural in this position in the receptor language (so Good News Translation).

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 .

The sons of Samuel: Joel his first-born, the second Abijah: Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation follows the Masoretic Text for this verse, which reads “And the sons of Samuel the first-born Vashni and Abijah.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows the Masoretic Text by saying “The sons of Samuel: his first-born Vashni, and Abijah” (similarly King James Version). However, some interpreters understand the Hebrew word for “Vashni” as two Hebrew words meaning “and” and “the second.” This interpretation of the Hebrew permits the following translation: “And the sons of Samuel: the firstborn and the second, Abijah.” In this interpretation Joel is not named but is only referred to as “the firstborn.”

The difficulty with the Masoretic Text here is that 1 Sam 8.2 names Samuel’s two sons as Joel and Abijah. The Masoretic Text does not have the name Joel here in verse 28. Verse 33, however, speaks of Joel being the “son of Samuel.” Because of verse 33, as well as the evidence from 1 Sam 8.2 and the limited textual evidence (some Greek manuscripts and the Syriac version) including the name of Joel, virtually all modern versions include Joel here even though his name is not in the Hebrew text. In Hebrew the last three letters in the name Samuel are the same as the last three letters in the name Joel. Most likely a scribe accidentally skipped over the name Joel because of the similar endings of the two names.

Another way of correcting the Masoretic Text is that found in New Jerusalem Bible and Bible de Jérusalem, which add the phrase “Sons of Elkanah” at the beginning of the verse and take the word first-born as referring to Samuel himself rather than to Samuel’s first-born son Joel, who is not mentioned in the Masoretic Text here. For this verse New Jerusalem Bible says “Sons of Elkanah: Samuel his first-born, the second Abijah.” This way of correcting the Masoretic Text makes good sense, but the translations found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are most likely closer to the original text.

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text and suggests that an error occurred very early in the history of the text. The ancient Greek and Syriac translations do not really show a knowledge of an earlier form of the Masoretic Text; they are simply attempts to make sense of the Masoretic Text by correcting it. Even so, since the text as we have it today obviously contains an error here, it is better to correct it as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done.

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 .

Verses 71-76 expand on verse 62.

To the Gershomites were given out of the half-tribe of Manasseh …: The Gershomites were the descendants of Levi’s son Gershom (verse 1). For the spelling of Gershom, see the comments on 1 Chr 6.1. Instead of the passive verb were allotted (which is not actually in the Hebrew text), it may be more natural in many languages to use the active verb “received” (New American Bible). The half-tribe of Manasseh here refers to East Manasseh.

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 .

Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son: The three names in this verse continue the list of descendants begun in the previous verse. While Revised Standard Version reflects the Hebrew in repeating his son after each name, this phrase may be left implicit as in Good News Translation if verse 25 makes clear that these are descendants in linear order and not brothers.

Elishama the son of Ammihud is mentioned in Num 1.10 and 2.18 as a leader of the tribe of Ephraim during the wilderness wanderings at the time of Moses.

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 .

These were …: This verse is a kind of summary of what has been said in detail in the previous verses. The idea is “the above mentioned persons were the leaders….” New Century Version begins this verse with “The family histories show that all these men were leaders….”

For heads of fathers’ houses, see the comments on 1 Chr 5.24.

According to their generations: Peregrino says “In their genealogical tree,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “according to their relationship.” Revised English Bible provides another helpful model: “enrolled in the tribal lists.” Compare also “listed in their genealogy” (New International Version).

These dwelt in Jerusalem: It is not clear to whom this sentence refers. Only to the Benjaminite descendants listed in verses 15-27? The descendants listed in verses 13-27? Or to all of the people named in verses 6-27? If the reference is to all of the preceding verses, then this seems to contradict the statements in verses 6, 8, 12, and 13 that some of these descendants of Benjamin lived in other locations such as Geba, Aijalon, Ono, and Lud. But if the reference is to all of verses 6-27, then the section heading “Descendants of Benjamin living in Jerusalem” is appropriate for these verses.

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 .

Others, of the sons of the priests, prepared the mixing of the spices is literally “And from the sons of the priests were the preparers of the mixing of the spices.” It is probably wise to introduce this verse with a contrasting conjunction as in Good News Translation since there is an implied contrast between the responsibilities of the Levites in the previous verses and those of the priests in this case. La Bible du Semeur also begins with the connector “But.” Contemporary English Version is even stronger with “But only.”

If the sons of the priests is translated literally (so also Crampon, Chouraqui), it may incorrectly suggest that the priests’ sons and not the priests themselves were responsible for mixing the spices. Since this expression as well as “the sons of Aaron” are frequently used to speak of the priests themselves, it will be better to translate simply “the priests.”

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 .