The sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six: As in the previous verse, this verse also is difficult in the Masoretic Text, which reads as follows: “And the sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush and Igal and Bariah and Neariah and Shaphat, six.” The Masoretic Text is followed by Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Segond and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, but the difficulty is that the Masoretic Text says “six” but lists only five sons of Shemaiah. So many interpreters have proposed various solutions, including the following:

• (1) The words And the sons of Shemaiah are a later insertion and should be omitted in translation. The result of this omission is that the number six now refers to the six sons of Shecaniah instead of Shemaiah. New American Bible, for example, reads “The sons of Shecaniah were Shemiah, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, Shaphat–six” (similarly Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Einheitsübersetzung, Luther, Osty-Trinquet, and La Bible Pléiade, which has empty square brackets after the first mention of the name Shemaiah). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text, but states that the words And the sons of Shemaiah are probably a scribe’s addition. But if the Masoretic Text contains a very early addition, it will be better to omit this addition in translation. A good model is “Shecaniah had six sons, Shemaiah, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat” (Bible en français courant; similarly Moffatt, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

• (2) Various solutions to this difficulty are found in the ancient versions. One part of the ancient Greek manuscript tradition reads “Shaphat and Shophat” at the end of the verse in order to have six names. Some modern scholars suggest that a sixth name was accidentally omitted by a scribe, and this suggestion is, of course, possible.

• (3) Some manuscripts of the Vulgate transliterate the Hebrew word for “six” as a man’s name, “Sessa,” and then translate the word again as “six” in order to have six names.

• (4) It is, of course, possible that the writer intended the number six to refer to both Shemaiah and the five sons of Shemaiah. This seems to be the basis for the translations found in Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, which take the last five names as the “grandsons” of Shecaniah and omit the word six. This also seems to be the interpretation behind the translation “Son of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. Sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat; six in all” (Peregrino; similarly Reina-Valera revisada). Compare also “Shecaniah’s descendants were Shemaiah and his sons, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat–six in all” (New Living Translation).

• (5) Berkeley takes a different approach by suggesting that the list here includes only some of the six sons as follows: “Shecaniah’s son being Shemaiah. Shemaiah had six sons, including Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat.” By adding the word “including,” this translation indicates that the author did not intend to list six persons. But this translation is not recommended since the Masoretic Text does not indicate that the author intended to list only some of the six sons.

The most likely solutions here are numbers 1 and 4.

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 .