And Shuppim and Huppim were the sons of Ir, Hushim the sons of Aher: According to Gen 46.21, Benjamin had sons named Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. Num 26.39-40 calls these sons Shephupham, Hupham, and Ard. It is generally accepted that Huppim and Hupham are variants of the same name. If Shuppim and Huppim are to be identified with these sons of Benjamin, then the words were the sons of Ir make no historical sense. According to 1 Chronicles, Shuppim and Huppim are several generations removed from Benjamin. It is possible, though not certain, that Ir is to be identified as Bela’s son Iri (verse 7), in which case Shuppim and Huppim would be great-grandsons of Benjamin. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the spelling of the names “Shuppim” and “Huppim” and an {A} rating to the reading “sons of Ir.”
Since the relationship of this verse to the preceding verses is not clear, translators have taken a variety of approaches, including the following:
• (1) Place this verse within parentheses to show that it fits loosely in the context (so An American Translation).
• (2) Assume that scribes miscopied the first half of this verse and the original meaning is lost. Braun and Osty-Trinquet, for example, translate “… and Shuppim and Huppim,” placing three dots in the translation to indicate that something is missing from the text. New American Bible similarly places three dots before these names and places them at the end of verse 11.
• (3) Rather than taking the names Shuppim and Huppim as names of individuals, these names are taken as clan or family names. The resulting translation for the first half of the verse reads “The Shuppites and Huppites were descendants of Ir” (New International Version, International Children’s Bible, Peregrino. These translations similarly translate the second half of this verse as “and the Hushites were descendants of Aher.”
• (4) Others correct the Hebrew text by placing the names “Shupham” and “Hupham” at the end of verse 11, unconnected syntactically with the rest of the verse, and translate verse 12 in this manner: “The sons of Dan: Hushim” (so New American Bible).
• (5) Some attempt to correct the difficult Hebrew text by omitting And Shuppim and Huppim were the sons of Ir, and reading “The sons of Dan: Hushim and the sons of Aher” (Revised English Bible; similarly Knoppers). But there is no manuscript support for this proposed change.
The translation of the second half of this verse in Good News Translation is supported by the fact that Hushim is listed as a son of Dan in Gen 46.23, and one expects the tribe of Dan to be mentioned in this chapter (see also the comments on the next section [The descendants of Naphtali (1 Chr 7.13)] regarding Bilhah, the mother of Dan). Dan was the fifth son of Jacob, born by Rachel’s maid, Bilhah. The first two Hebrew letters in the expression for sons (bn) of Ir may originally have been dn (“Dan”). Since the letters for “b” and “d” in Hebrew are similar in shape, a scribe may have written sons of instead of “Dan.”
The three Hebrew consonants in the name Aher are similar in shape to the name “Ard,” and may possibly be a scribal error for the name Ard, one of Benjamin’s sons according to Gen 46.21. The Hebrew word translated as the name Aher may also be understood as an adjective, meaning “another [tribe],” that is, referring to the tribe of Dan, so the last half of this verse may be rendered “and Hushim was the son of another” (so Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, which also has the following footnote: “probably the name of the father and of another son has been lost; perhaps a list of the descendants of Dan has been lost, which is not reported in Chronicles”). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project not only mentions the explanation in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente‘s footnote, but also notes the possibility that the author of 1 Chronicles deliberately chose the adjective “another” to replace the name “Dan.”
At the end of this verse the Septuagint reads “his son” instead of the sons of, which seems to make more sense than the plural in the Masoretic Text because only one son is named. La Bible Pléiade omits the name Aher and follows the Septuagint here by saying “Hushim, his other son,” that is, Hushim is another son of Ir.
Revised Standard Version follows the Masoretic Text in saying Hushim the sons of Aher, but such a translation makes no sense since only one son is mentioned. American Bible translates the Hebrew as “Hushim was of the sons of Aher.” Bible en français courant says “Hushim was the son of Aher” (similarly Moffatt, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Reina-Valera revisada). It is also possible to understand Hushim as “the Hushites” and sons as “descendants.” New International Version, for example, reads “and the Hushites the descendants of Aher.”
So how should this verse be translated? Almost certainly, the text as we have it now contains errors, and it is probably impossible to know what the original text said. The best that can be said is that translators should state in a footnote that something seems to have been omitted or added to the original Hebrew text and that the correct meaning is uncertain. Then translators may choose to follow an interpretation in existing translations used in the receptor language area. This Handbook recommends the Good News Translation translation.
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 .