The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel: The idea of Reuben’s sons is omitted here by some modern versions since it occurs again in verse 3, where his sons are actually listed; for example, New Century Version begins with “Reuben was Israel’s first son,” and New Living Translation has “The oldest son of Israel was Reuben.” However, if the reference to his sons is taken as a kind of summary for the following verses, then it must be understood in the sense of “descendants” (Good News Translation) because these verses take the genealogical line well beyond Reuben’s immediate offspring. If this information is postponed until verse 3, the remainder of verses 1-2 is not quite so parenthetical. So it will not be necessary to use parentheses as do Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.

As noted earlier, the writer uses the name Israel when referring to Jacob. Since readers may not distinguish between the individual and the nation, Good News Translation uses the name “Jacob” (see the comments on 1 Chr 1.34). But translators may use a footnote instead to indicate that Israel refers to Jacob here.

For he was the first-born; but because …: The Hebrew particle translated for (Good News Translation “Because”) seems to express a logical relationship here. It introduces an explanation of why Reuben, the firstborn, was not listed first in the genealogy even though he was the firstborn. This Hebrew particle may also function to express emphasis, so Knoppers renders the beginning of this sentence as “Indeed, he was the firstborn, but when….”

He polluted his father’s couch: Reuben had intercourse with Bilhah, one of his father’s concubines (Gen 35.22; 49.3-4). Good News Translation makes the meaning clear here by saying “he had sex with one of his father’s concubines.” While a literal translation would risk misunderstanding, languages have a variety of different and often roundabout ways of speaking of shameful behavior that spoils family relationships. In most languages there will have to be some reference to the wife of Reuben’s father, although not necessarily by name; for example, Revised English Bible says “he committed incest with a wife of his father’s,” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “he slept with one of his father’s concubines.” Another possible model is “he brought shame on the family by sleeping with a wife of his father.” Possibly an even more euphemistic way of speaking of this relationship will be used in some languages.

His birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: The Hebrew word translated birthright refers to the rights of a firstborn son in Jewish culture. This word is not actually used in the story of Reuben’s relationship with Bilhah (Gen 35.22). Revised English Bible renders his birthright as “the status of the eldest son,” and New Century Version says “the special privileges of the oldest son.”

The sons of Joseph refers to Manasseh and Ephraim. For this reason Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “the two sons of his brother Joseph.” Some Hebrew manuscripts have simply “Joseph” instead of the sons of Joseph, and this seems to be the text followed by Good News Translation. Knoppers prefers the shorter reading also. It may seem strange that the text says the sons of Joseph rather than “Joseph.” But probably the writer had in mind the text of Gen 48, especially verse 5, in which Jacob says to his son Joseph, “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.”

The passive verb was given will have to be made active in some languages. In the account in Gen 25, it was Esau who willingly gave up his rights as the older son to his younger brother. But here in 1 Chronicles, it should probably be understood that the father, Israel, withdrew the rights from Reuben and specifically gave them to Joseph and/or his sons. (This transfer of the birthright from Reuben to Joseph is not told elsewhere in the Old Testament.) So in some languages the most natural way of expressing this whole clause will be “the father gave to Joseph son’s the rights [or, privileges] as firstborn son which he took from Reuben.” But in other languages it will be possible to say simply “Joseph’s sons received the rights of the firstborn son that had belonged to Reuben.” Good News Translation says “he lost the rights belonging to the first-born son, and those rights were given to Joseph” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

So that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright: Good News Translation does not seem to translate this final part of the verse. Some interpreters understand the pronoun he to refer to Reuben. The grammatical structure of Revised Standard Version seems to clearly imply that Reuben was not enrolled according to the birthright (similarly New American Bible, Reina-Valera revisada). The following translations also follow this interpretation: “and he was no longer reckoned as the eldest son” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “Reuben was therefore no longer considered the firstborn” (Bible en français courant). But in Hebrew this clause is better understood as referring to Joseph. Osty-Trinquet, for example, follows this interpretation and puts the name “Joseph” within square brackets to show that the name is not in the Hebrew but has been added in translation to clarify the meaning. This interpretation is also the basis for Revised English Bible‘s rendering, which is “Joseph … who, however, could not be registered as the eldest son.” Compare also “In the list of the tribes, however, Joseph was not recorded first” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). The sense of this clause is that even though the birthright was transferred from Reuben to Joseph, Joseph was not registered as the oldest son.

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 .