Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 2:23

But Geshur and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, Kenath and its villages, sixty towns: Several versions place this sentence in parentheses since it interrupts the list of Machir’s descendants (so New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version).

But renders the common Hebrew conjunction, which is often translated “and.” Revised English Bible and New American Bible leave it untranslated here, but in many languages the context will require that some sort of contrast be indicated. The towns in Gilead had belonged to Jair, but they were taken over by Geshur and Aram. This information is introduced without any time reference in the Hebrew. Some translations relate this episode to the preceding verses by adding the words “Some time later” (Contemporary English Version) or simply “Later” (New Living Translation).

Geshur and Aram were Syrian kingdoms on the north and east borders of Israel. One of King David’s wives was a daughter of King Talmai of Geshur (2 Sam 3.3). A literal translation of the Hebrew here may incorrectly suggest that Geshur and Aram were individuals. Good News Translation avoids this by saying “the kingdoms of Geshur and Aram,” and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “the Geshurites and the Arameans.” Parole de Vie has “the kings of Geshur and Aram” as representatives of their respective kingdoms, while Contemporary English Version speaks of “the nations of Geshur and Aram.” Aram may be translated by the better-known name “the Syrians” (La Bible du Semeur, La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous, Menge).

In certain languages the verb took in this context may be better rendered “took control of,” “conquered” (Good News Translation), or “captured” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New Century Version). The pronoun them refers to Machir and his descendants mentioned in the previous verses.

Havvoth-jair, Kenath and its villages is literally “Havvoth-jair, Kenath, and its daughters.” Since there is no conjunction “and” between the names of the two towns here, some interpreters consider Kenath and its villages to be in apposition to Havvoth-jair. Most interpreters take the Hebrew sign of the direct object (the word ʾeth) before Kenath as indicating that Kenath was conquered, as was Havvoth-jair. However, it is possible to understand the Hebrew word ʾeth as meaning “with” here. Braun, for example, says that they took from them “Havvoth-jair with Kenath and its villages” (similarly Reina-Valera revisada).

Havvoth-jair may be understood in two different ways. It may be a place name, as in Revised Standard Version. Or Havvoth may mean here “the villages of” (Good News Translation, Reina-Valera revisada, La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous; similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), in which case Havvoth-jair refers to the towns owned (or, ruled) by Jair (see verse 22). Other renderings that reflect this understanding are “the Towns of Jair” (New Living Translation) and “the Encampments of Jair” (New Jerusalem Bible, Parole de Vie, Osty-Trinquet). Contemporary English Version is more explicit with “the villages that belonged to Jair.” Either interpretation is possible.

As noted above its villages is literally “its daughters.” The Hebrew word for “daughters” is used figuratively to refer to the smaller towns in the neighborhood of the larger town of Kenath, which provided protection for the smaller towns.

All these were the descendants of Machir, the father of Gilead refers to the people who lived in these towns in Gilead. The Hebrew word for descendants is literally “sons,” but Revised Standard Version gives it the correct sense here.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 3:5

These were born to him in Jerusalem: While most English versions connect this clause to the remainder of the verse, Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version take it as completing the sentence begun in the previous verse. Translators should feel free to restructure this material in whichever way seems most natural in their own language, as long as it is clear that the sons listed in verses 5-8 were born in Jerusalem. The demonstrative pronoun These looks forward to the names that are about to be mentioned rather than backwards to those already listed. It may be translated more specifically as “The following sons.” If it is necessary to avoid the passive construction were born, translators may render this clause as “David’s wives gave birth to the following children in Jerusalem.”

Shime-a, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammi-el: Instead of Shime-a, this son’s name is “Shammua” in 1 Chr 14.4 and 2 Sam 5.14. Some versions harmonize here by using that form of the name (so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Luther), because the Hebrew consonants are the same in these two forms of the name.

Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through David’s son Nathan (see Luke 3.31), but Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon (see Matt 1.6).

Since Solomon was apparently the second son born to David and Bathsheba according to 2 Sam 12.24, it is surprising that he is listed here as the fourth son. Nine sons are listed before Solomon (verses 1-5) and nine after Solomon (verses 6-8). Perhaps the importance of Solomon is emphasized by being placed in the center of the pattern 9 + 1 + 9. But the only way for translators to point out this fact would be through a footnote.

Since Solomon is the only son of Bathsheba mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, some scholars have suggested that and Solomon, four by Bath-shua be corrected to read “and Solomon, the fourth, by Bathsheba”; that is, Bathsheba would be named as the mother of the fourth son listed but not of the first three. But there is no textual evidence for such a suggestion.

Instead of Bath-shua, one Hebrew manuscript and the Vulgate read “Bathsheba” here, but other Hebrew manuscripts have Bath-shua. She first appears in 2 Sam 11.3, where she is called “Bathsheba.” Many versions harmonize the spelling here with the better known form of the name in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). Menge gives both names as follows: “Bath-shua (= Bathsheba).” Good News Translation restructures this verse by placing Bathsheba’s name before the names of her four sons in order to make it clear at the outset that she was their mother (so also Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

According to 2 Sam 11.3, Bathsheba was “the daughter of Eliam,” not the daughter of Ammiel. Apparently the name Ammiel arose by scribal error when the two parts of the name “Eliam” were reversed. Following the ancient Greek and Latin texts, Luther here corrects the text to read “the daughter of Eliam.” However, few other modern versions do so, and it may be better to deal with this problem in a footnote rather than following the other ancient texts instead of the Hebrew.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 4:17 - 4:18

Verses 17-18 and perhaps verse 19 seem to go together, but the interpretation is very difficult and there are numerous textual problems. Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation has followed the order of the Masoretic Text here. The Masoretic Text of verses 17 and 18 reads as follows:

17 And the son of Ezrah: Jether and Mered and Epher and Jalon. And she bore Miriam and Shammai and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. 18 And his wife Hajehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor and Heber the father of Soco and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took.

In the phrase “she bore Miriam” in verse 17, the subject of the verb is not stated. Who is the subject of this verb? Some interpreters take the subject to be “Bithiah” from verse 18. This is the solution followed by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible follows the form of the Hebrew by reading “She bore Miriam” in the text, but a footnote in this translation states that the pronoun refers to Bithiah.

In the Masoretic Text it is not clear who is the father of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah. Various interpretations and translations have been proposed as follows: (1) According to Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, their father was Mered. (2) As will be noted in the discussion on verse 19, some translations make Jether their father (so New American Bible, Knoppers, Peregrino. (3) Reina-Valera revisada makes Ezrah their father by rendering verse 17 as follows: “The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher and Jalon; he also begat Miriam, Shammai and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa.”

At the beginning of verse 18 in the Masoretic Text the antecedent of the pronoun “his” in the phrase “his wife” is ambiguous, but most take it to refer to Mered. It may be that “Hajehudijah” was the name of Mered’s wife, although no known translation renders it as a proper name. More likely, the Hebrew phrase for “his wife Hajehudijah” should be taken to mean “his Jewish wife” (so Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible) or “his Judean wife” (so New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond). That is, in addition to an Egyptian wife named Bithiah, Mered also had a Jewish wife, whose name is not given here.

To whom do the following words refer at the end of verse 18 in the Masoretic Text: “And these are the sons of Bithiah”? They cannot refer to Jered, Heber and Jekuthiel, since their mother was not Bithiah but rather Mered’s Jewish wife. Therefore “the sons of Bithiah” must refer to the persons named near the end of verse 17: Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation restructure by placing the last part of verse 18 in verse 17 in order to make it clear that Bithiah was the mother of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah. Many other modern versions adopt this solution of combining verses 17 and 18 (so Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, Revised English Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). La Bible PlĂ©iade keeps the verse numbering separate, but transposes the words from the end of verse 18 to a point just before the second half of verse 17, placing them in square brackets. Osty-Trinquet makes the same kind of change but numbers the verses 17a, 18b, 17b and 18a. Moffatt is similar. It is clear that a wide variety of translations find it necessary to do this kind of restructuring regardless of the way in which the verse numbering is handled.

Pharaoh: This term occurs very frequently in Genesis and Exodus but only here and 2 Chr 8.11 in the two books of Chronicles. Readers should understand that this is not a proper name but a title for the ruler of Egypt. For this reason it may be rendered “the king of Egypt” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, Bible en français courant). In languages where there are definite articles, some translators prefer to speak of “the Pharaoh” (Moffatt and most French versions). This has the advantage of at least making it clear that this term is not a proper name. But in some languages it will be clearer to say “the king of Egypt.”

Whom Mered married: The Hebrew verb rendered married is literally “took,” but this was a common way of referring to taking a wife in marriage and is more naturally rendered “married” in English. For this whole clause Nouvelle Bible Segond says “whom Mered took for [his] wife.” The target language may have still other ways of expressing this idea.

Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah: Gedor, Soco, and Zanoah are place names, so father is better rendered “founder” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant). Verse 4 names Penuel as the founder of Gedor, but verse 18 names Jered as the founder. Either 1 Chronicles preserves two different traditions about who founded Gedor, or the Gedor named in verse 4 is different from the Gedor mentioned here in verse 18. There are two towns with the name Zanoah in the Old Testament. One was located in the northern lowlands of Judah (Josh 15.34), and one was in the southern hill country of Judah. The location of the Zanoah here is often thought to be about 10 kilometers (6 miles) southwest of Hebron, but since this places the town far to the west of the other towns in the same district, the location is 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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 5:12

Joel the chief, Shapham the second, Janai, and Shaphat in Bashan: The chief is literally “the head,” as in verse 7. In literal translations such as Revised Standard Version, it is not clear what roles these four individuals had and what their relationship was to one another. Were they members of the same clan or of different clans? If they are from the same clan, was Shapham subordinate (second) to Joel And what relationship do Janai and Shaphat have to the first two men named in this verse?

Good News Translation renders Joel the chief, Shapham the second as “Joel was the founder of the leading clan, and Shapham of the second most important clan.” New Jerusalem Bible says simply “Joel was the first, Shapham the second,” which fits well with the rest of the verse. But since verse 13 refers to various clans, the interpretation expressed in Good News Translation is most likely the intended meaning, that is, that Joel and Shapham were heads of different clans and not the two most important leaders in the same clan. It is also possible to understand this verse to mean that Joel was the leader of the tribe of Gad, Shapham was second in command, followed by Janai and Shaphat. Einheitsübersetzung expresses this sense by saying “Their leader was Joel; Shapham was the second, in addition came Janai and Shaphat. They lived in Bashan.”

The vowels of the Hebrew name Shaphat may be changed to read shophet, which means “judge” in Hebrew. This is the reading of the Targum, an ancient Aramaic translation, and is followed by New American Bible, which renders the last half of this verse as “and Janai was judge in Bashan.” The Septuagint likewise translated the Hebrew not as a name but as “scribe.” Following the Septuagint, Knoppers has “And Janai was the officer in Bashan.” Even though these ancient versions may reflect an original Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text clearly has a person’s name. Translators should follow the Masoretic Text here.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 6:27

Eliab is called “Eliel” in verse 34 and “Elihu” in 1 Sam 1.1, but these names are rarely harmonized in modern versions. A footnote may be necessary to explain that these three names refer to the same person.

In some languages translators may prefer to render Elkanah as “another Elkanah” to avoid confusion based on the previous two verses. This Elkanah and his wife Hannah were the parents of Samuel (1 Sam 1). The Chronicler seems to assume that his readers will know that Samuel was a son of Elkanah (verse 28). Some interpreters follow one part of the Septuagint texts by adding the words “Samuel his son” at the end of this verse (so New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Bible, Braun, Osty-Trinquet). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text here. Menge adds “his son Samuel” within parentheses and explains in a footnote that this is the reading of some Septuagint manuscripts. For purposes of translation it is acceptable to add “Samuel his son” at the end of this verse, since this only makes explicit what the writer left implied.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 6:70

The half-tribe of Manasseh here refers to West Manasseh (see verse 61).

Instead of Aner, the parallel text in Josh 21.25 has “Taanach.” Some scholars think that the name “Taanach” was miscopied in 1 Chronicles. First, the initial Hebrew consonant taw (“t”) was accidentally omitted since the preceding Hebrew word ends in taw. Then the final Hebrew consonant of “Taanach” was misread as resh (“r”). Several translations correct the Masoretic Text here to read “Taanach” (New American Bible, Einheitsübersetzung, Knoppers). Menge reads “Aner (or: Taanach? cf. Josh 21.25).” But all other translations consulted follow the Masoretic Text here, which has Aner.

Instead of Bileam, a number of translations follow two Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions in reading “Ibleam.” The Masoretic Text may have lost the Hebrew letter yod (“i”) at the beginning of the name. But virtually all modern versions retain the form Bileam.

For the rest of the families of the Kohathites: This phrase repeats the information already given in verse 66, so Good News Translation omits it.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 7:25

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 EinheitsĂĽbersetzung).

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 PlĂ©iade 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, EinheitsĂĽbersetzung).

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Chronicles 8:26 - 8:27

Good News Translation, New Century Version, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje bring forward from verse 27 the information that the persons named in verses 26-27 were sons/descendants of Jeroham. Jeroham is called “Jeremoth” in verse 14. Moffatt reads “Jeremoth” in both verses, while Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “Jeroham” in both verses. It is obvious that the two names refer to the same person, but the spelling of one of the two names is a mistake, and there is no way to know which spelling is correct. Unless some kind of adjustment is made in the spelling of the two names in the text, an explanatory footnote will be required to inform the reader that the different forms refer to the same person.

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 .