The sons of Gomer: Here the word sons is used in the broader sense of “descendants” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New American Bible). In the previous verses sons was intended literally, but here it will be better to say “descendants.” Another possibility is to change the focus slightly by beginning this verse with “Gomer was the ancestor of” (Contemporary English Version). The descendants of Gomer consist of three branches.

Ashkenaz is also listed as the first son/descendant of Gomer in Gen 10.3. His descendants lived in the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and later became known as the Scythians.

The Masoretic Text reads Diphath, but many Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Septuagint and the Vulgate read “Riphath,” which seems to be a correction to make the name agree with the one in Gen 10.3. The Hebrew letters for “d” and “r” are similar in shape, so copyists frequently confused them. Since neither name is known apart from their mention in these two verses, there is no way to know whether the correct name is “Diphath” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or “Riphath” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, Bible de Jérusalem, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, El libro del Pueblo de Dios, Nueva Versión Internacional, Reina-Valera revisada, Osty-Trinquet, Peregrino. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the reading in the Masoretic Text: “Diphath.”

The book of Ezekiel twice refers to the descendants of Togarmah, and the context suggests that they lived north of Israel.

Several times in the remainder of this chapter there are differences in the spelling of some names that have parallels in Genesis. Often the difference is between the Hebrew letters for “d” and “r,” as in the case of Diphath and Riphath in this verse. There was also confusion between the Hebrew letter waw , which could function as a “w,” “o,” or “u,” and the Hebrew letter yod, which could function as a “y,” “i,” or “e.” For example, the first consonant in the Hebrew name for “Ebal” in verse 22 is written with a yod, but the same person’s name begins with a waw in Gen 10.28, so it is spelled “Obal.” Translators will need to decide whether to use the same spelling in the receptor language in both Genesis and 1 Chronicles, or whether to maintain the differences and explain them in a footnote. The decision will be determined by the type of translation being done and the intended audience. Functional equivalent translations are more likely to use the same spelling for Genesis and 1 Chronicles in the receptor language.

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 .