The nationality of the Hebrew midwives is uncertain because the Hebrew phrase may be read either as “Hebrew midwives” or as “midwives to the Hebrews.” They may have been Egyptian midwives assigned to serve the Hebrew women. It is better to think of them as “midwives who helped the Hebrew women.” The term Hebrew should not be changed to “Israelite,” since it is sometimes used in reference to a larger group of people known as Semites rather than just the descendants of Jacob. (See the comment on “Hebrews” at 3.18.) In many languages there will be a technical expression for “midwife.” In fact, in some languages there may be at least two expressions, one used colloquially and the other a more elegant or polite term. In such cases the translator must decide which is more appropriate. In yet other languages the meaning of “midwife” will have to be described; for example, “woman who aids the womb” (Thai Common Language Version). A possible alternative model is “Shiphrah and Puah, two women who helped the Hebrew women give birth….”

Then the king of Egypt said: in many languages, using the equivalent of said (Good News Translation‘s “spoke”) will not be strong enough. In such cases it will probably be better to say something like “Then the king of Egypt gave a command to….” Then the next verse may begin with the phrase “He said to them….”

Shiphrah and Puah were the names of two midwives, but there may have been more. One … and the other … is literally “the first … the second….” “The two midwives” in Good News Translation may give the wrong meaning. The Hebrew text does not specify that there were only two. So translators should attempt to use language similar to Revised Standard Version‘s model, leaving open the possibility that there were other midwives available to the Hebrews. (See the alternative model above.)