The sons of Ulam: Bedan: The Masoretic Text says sons of Ulam even though only one son is listed. Perhaps a scribe mistakenly changed the singular “son” to the plural sons or possibly a scribe accidentally omitted other names. The Vulgate reads the singular “son” here.

These were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, son of Manasseh: The demonstrative pronoun These may refer only to Asriel and Zelophehad in verses 14 and 15 (but see the comments on those two verses). According to Good News Translation, the pronoun apparently refers to all the people named in the preceding verses.

Gilead was “the son of Machir and grandson of Manasseh” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Another way of saying the same thing in some languages is “Gilead, the son of Machir, who was the son of Manasseh.” Compare New Century Version, which has two separate sentences at the end of this verse: “These were the sons of Gilead, who was the son of Makir. Makir was Manasseh’s son.”

The major difficulty in understanding this verse is the following: Ulam was the son of Peresh or Sheresh, and Peresh and Sheresh were both sons of Machir and Maacah, according to verse 16. But if Ulam and Bedan were descendants of Machir through his son Peresh or his son Sheresh, how can these people be said to be sons of Gilead, Machir’s other son? Perhaps sons of Gilead should be understood to mean “members of the family of Gilead” (Parole de Vie) or “Gileadites” (Braun). That is, they are not biological descendants of Gilead but rather belong to the same clan as Gilead. More likely, though, the Masoretic Text contains an error here in the text, so the translations in Parole de Vie and Braun should not be followed.

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 .