And to Aaron were born Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar: See the comments on 3.2.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi: Jochebed is mentioned only here and in Exo 6.20. Jochebed was the daughter of Levi, which means she was a sister of Kohath, Amram’s father. Exo 6.20 states this explicitly by saying “Amram took to wife Jochebed his father’s sister.” As A Handbook on Exodus points out there, such a marriage was later forbidden for Israelites (see Lev 18.12; 20.19), but it was evidently culturally accepted when Amram and Jochebed were married. The point here seems to be that this close familial relationship ensured the purity of the priestly line.

Who was born to Levi in Egypt: Like many other translations, Revised Standard Version follows the Vulgate and the Peshitta here. (Good News Bible also follows this reading, but omits to Levi.) The Hebrew text says literally “whom she [Jochebed’s mother] bore to Levi in Egypt”. Following this reading, NBV translates “whose wife had borne her in Egypt” (similarly NFB), and WV has “Her mother had borne her to Levi in Egypt.” New International Version and TNIV mention the reading followed by Revised Standard Version as an alternative in a footnote, but in the text itself they begin this verse with “the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, a descendant of Levi, who was born to the Levites in Egypt.” New Living Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch also follow this reading, presumably because these four translations want to allow for a number of generations between Levi on the one hand and Aaron and Moses on the other. However, the problem with this reading is that “to the Levites” seems artificial and does not follow the Hebrew.

And she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister: See 1 Chr 6.3. Aaron is listed before Moses and Miriam, because he was the oldest child, but also because the purpose of the list at this point is to show the primacy of the priestly line of descent through Aaron.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

These are the families of Levi …: This verse may seem confusing after the previous one. However, out of the clans of the Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites, this verse selects only a few specific “subclans” (Good News Bible). Libni was a son of Gershon (3.18), Hebron was a son of Kohath (3.19), Mahli and Mushi were Merari’s sons (3.20), and Korah was a son of Izhar, who was a son of Kohath (3.19; 16.1). Therefore the renderings of Contemporary English Version and New International Version are not helpful here. Contemporary English Version begins this verse with “as well as the clans of Libni, Hebron, Mahli, Mushi, and Korah,” and New International Version has “These also were Levite clans: the Libnite clan, the Hebronite clan, the Mahlite clan, the Mushite clan, the Korahite clan.” The expressions “as well as” and “also” give the wrong suggestion that these clans were outside of and in addition to the clans of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. We advise translators to follow Good News Bible and Bible en français courant here by using the word “subclans” instead of “clans.”

And Kohath was the father of Amram: For the Hebrew verb rendered was the father of (holid), see the comments on verse 29. Amram was mentioned already in 3.19. This clause starts a short paragraph referring to Amram’s children (Aaron, Moses, and Miriam) as well as Aaron’s sons (verses 59-61). The parentheses around this paragraph in New International Version may give the wrong suggestion to some readers that its information is unimportant. The point of this specially included paragraph is to remind readers of the preeminent place of Aaron, his sons, and Moses in the clan structure of the tribe of Levi. It is placed here at the conclusion of the second census to ensure the continued priority of the Aaronic priesthood for the new generation. So it seems much better to print verses 58b-61 as one paragraph, without parentheses (so New Living Translation).

New Living Translation has the following helpful model for verse 58:
• The Libnites, the Hebronites, the Mahlites, the Mushites, and the Korahites were all subclans of the Levites.
Now Kohath was the ancestor of Amram….

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He has not beheld misfortune in Jacob; nor has he seen trouble in Israel: In these parallel lines the Hebrew verbs are in the third person. For Revised Standard Version these third person verbs point to God as the subject, who is the referent for the pronouns He/he (so also New Revised Standard Version, King James Version, Revised English Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond, New International Version footnote). Most translations, however, understand these verbs as impersonal; for example, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible renders these lines as “One observes no calamity in Jacob, one sees no suffering in Israel,” and New International Version has “No misfortune is seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel.” These renderings will be more natural in a number of languages. Good News Bible uses the first person pronoun, saying “I foresee that Israel’s future will bring her no misfortune of trouble.” This rendering seems to be based on the Peshitta, in which the two verbs are in the first person, referring to Balaam. However, there seems to be no reason to deviate from the Hebrew text here (so also HOTTP). The Hebrew words for misfortune (ʾawen) and trouble (ʿamal) are similar in meaning in these parallel lines. Revised English Bible renders these words as “iniquity” and “mischief,” treating these lines as a moral assessment of Israel by God. However, it is doubtful whether such a moral assessment fits the context of a blessing. Revised English Bible‘s rendering can easily give the wrong suggestion that the Israelites are blessed because of their moral qualities. There is no hint of this in the book of Numbers, certainly not in view of the people’s behavior as reported in chapters 11–19. A morally positive assessment of Israel does not fit in well with the rest of the book either. In this context it is more plausible to understand that these words refer to physical misfortune and trouble. They could refer to the terrible calamities that Balak wanted Balaam to cause by cursing the Israelites. Jacob and Israel are parallel references to the same nation (see the comments on verse 7b). In some languages this would not be clear. If so, it may be better to mention only Israel in the translation (so Good News Bible). Other languages may have a way of indicating that Jacob and Israel refer to the same people by using a demonstrative back reference (so Chewa). Another way to do it is by rendering these two lines as follows: “No one has observed suffering among the Israelites, Jacob’s descendants; no one has seen any trouble for them at all.”

The LORD their God is with them: The Hebrew pronouns for their and them are singular, referring to Israel. Like Revised Standard Version, many languages will prefer plural pronouns here.

And the shout of a king is among them: The Hebrew word for shout is used normally for a battle cry or the sound of a trumpet (see 10.5-6, where it is rendered “alarm”). Here a human shout is in view. In Revised Standard Version it is ambiguous whether a king refers to some human king or to God as Israel’s king. Since this line is parallel to the previous one, New Revised Standard Version makes it explicit that God is in view here by saying “acclaimed as a king among them”. Other possible models that follow this interpretation are “He [God] receives their royal acclamation” (similarly Bible en français courant) and “They acclaim him as their king” (similarly Good News Bible, New Living Translation).

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Behold renders the Hebrew word hinneh. Here it introduces what Balaam wants to stress. In some languages it is better rendered “Listen” (New Living Translation) or “Yes indeed” (Chewa).

I have received a command to bless is literally “to bless I have taken.” The word order in the Hebrew puts emphasis on “to bless.” Balaam contradicts Balak’s earlier statement in verse 11, where Balak says “I took you to curse my enemies.” The Hebrew verb meaning “take” (laqach) is used in both passages. The Hebrew line here has been understood in various ways. Revised Standard Version follows the sense of the Hebrew here by adding the implied idea of a command. Rashi was similar with “I have received the command from him to bless them.” Most translations also express this sense; for example, King James Version has “I have received commandment to bless,” Good News Bible says “I have been instructed to bless,” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “I have assumed the charge to bless,” and New Jerusalem Bible uses “I have received the charge of a blessing.” WV adds the person who gave this command by saying “He [God] has commanded me to bless,” which some languages may find helpful. Bible en français courant and PV add the recipients of the blessing as follows: “I have accepted to bless this people.” Contemporary English Version adds both ideas, saying “My command from God was to bless these people.” The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta understand the Hebrew verb for “take” as a passive (luqqachti instead of laqachti), so that this line reads “I have been taken to bless.” Luther (1912) seems to have followed this reading with “to bless I have been brought over.” Compare also CRV with “I have been chosen to bless.” Although this reading makes sense as well, there is no reason to deviate from the meaningful Hebrew text here.

He has blessed, and I cannot revoke it: This translation might suggest that Balaam is referring to the blessing in the previous prophecy (not this one). This is what NET suggests in a footnote. However, the Hebrew line here could also be interpreted as a general principle (similar to verse 19) by saying “And when he has blessed, I cannot revoke it” (similarly Good News Bible). Instead of he has blessed, the Septuagint has “I will bless” (so also New English Bible, La Bible de Jérusalem: Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée). However, we agree with HOTTP that there is no reason to change the third person verb form here in the Hebrew text. The rendering I cannot revoke it may be misleading since it may suggest that Balaam wanted to revoke the blessing but he couldn’t. The Hebrew does not imply this. A model that avoids this implication is “I will not revoke it” (similarly Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, WV). The decision made on how to translate this clause matters; it affects how Balaam is portrayed in the prophecy and the narrative.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Verse 19 clearly indicates the divine source of the prophecy and forms the basis for the point that is made in verse 20 (God’s blessing upon Israel cannot be reversed). It also expresses a general principle, so verb forms that indicate habitual or repeated action should be used in some languages.

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent: Compare 1 Sam 15.29 with these two parallel lines. Balaam compares the God of Israel with human beings here. Man refers to men and women in this context, so it is better rendered “people” (Good News Bible). Son of man is literally “son of a human.” This idiomatic expression is used here in the sense of “human being” or “mere mortal”. A literal rendering of this phrase may give the wrong suggestion that it refers to some unnamed person’s child, or idiomatically, to some extraordinary individual (so Chewa). The Hebrew verb for repent is used here in the sense of “change[s] his mind” (Good News Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). NBV says “come back on his decision.”

Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?: These are parallel rhetorical questions to which the implied emphatic answer is “No.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh makes this implied answer clear by saying “Would He speak and not act, Promise and not fulfill?” In some languages it may be helpful to express the point these questions make by means of strong positive statements. Good News Bible uses statements, but some rhetorical underscoring should be included to duplicate the impact of the original poetry as follows: “Whatever he promises, he always does; He speaks, and it is done all the time.” This second half of the verse contrasts with the first half: God cannot fail like a human being; on the contrary, he always keeps his promises. The Hebrew verb for fulfil is literally “cause to arise” (see 1 Sam 3.12 for one other instance of this verb). This verb is used here to express that the LORD makes everything happen that he has previously said would happen. So he will most certainly fulfil his promises made through Balaam with reference to Israel.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And Balaam took up his discourse, and said: See verse 7a.

Balaam’s second prophecy in verses 18b-24 consists of eleven parallel couplets. Like the first oracle, this second one seems to divide into two parts (after the introduction in verse 18b, verses 19-20 and 21-24), with constituent segments that are also roughly in parallel: verses 19 and 21b-22 focus on God, the LORD; verses 20 and 23 focus on not cursing Israel; and verses 21a and 24 focus on blessing in Israel. See the comments on verse 7b concerning the need to translate Balaam’s oracles in a distinctive manner, that is, in a style (or genre) that highlights their prophetic function.

Rise, Balak, and hear: NCV renders Rise as “Stand up.” With this command Balaam tells Balak to pay attention since he is already standing, so NBV says “Pay close attention,” and Good News Bible has “Come.”

Hearken to me, O son of Zippor is literally “give ear to me….” The Hebrew verb for hearken comes from the same root as the word for “ear.” Bible en français courant and PV render hearken to me as “listen carefully to me,” but NBV is more poetic with “lend me your ear.” Son of Zippor is parallel with Balak (see 22.2).

With these two parallel lines Balaam prepares Balak to receive the next prophecy of the LORD.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And he came to him, and lo, he was standing beside his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him: This sentence is very similar to verse 6 (see the comments there). The only major difference is the use of the Hebrew verb meaning came instead of the verb meaning “returned.” In spite of this difference, Good News Bible uses the verb “went back” both here and in verse 6.

And Balak said to him, “What has the LORD spoken?”: Balak’s question shows how anxious he is to know what the LORD said. He is now portrayed as being more anxious than in verse 6, where he does not ask anything. In many languages only direct speech will bring out this anxiety in an effective manner. This is why we do not recommend the indirect speech in Good News Bible here (“Balak asked what the LORD had said”). There is another reason why Balak’s question should really stand out in translation: it has no parallel in the context of the other prophecies. (Before the third prophecy in chapter 24 Balak does not ask this question either.) Balak explicitly mentions the LORD: this shows his resignation to the fact that it is the LORD, the God of the people whom he is trying to curse, who ultimately decides about who will be blessed or cursed.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .