"sons" or "son" 1 Chron. 1:41, etc.

The sons of Anah: Dishon. The sons of Dishon: Hamran, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.
1 Chronicles 1:41 NRSV


The son of Anah was Dishon. And the sons of Dishon were Hamran, Eshban, Ithran and Cheran.
1 Chronicles 1:41 NASB95

The BHS Hebrew reads the plural, “sons”.

It's not an error in the Hebrew, simply because the practice is of using the plural is observed a number of times in Chronicles.

Possible reasons:
1. stylistic
2. An example of the reductionistic tendencies of genealogical lists.

Roddy Braun in a footnote in the Word Biblical Commentary writes: The word may be understood with “a broader meaning than “son” in its most literal sense, including on occasion daughters, male descendants of later generations, and possibly also individuals unrelated by blood who became attached to the family through various historical, geographical, and sociological circumstances. If this be the case, a more general term such as “kindred,” “family,” or “descendants” would be more precise. In most cases, however, we are ignorant of the precise relationship of those named, making the use of a term other than the conventional “sons” equally problematic."
Roddy L. Braun, vol. 14, Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Chronicles, (2002). 18.

Rob

 

I looked up the Hebrew (yeah yeah it gave me an excuse to pull the ole BHS off the shelf and do some translating...like I needed one...:tongue3 and the verse is this:

41 בְּנֵי עֲנָה דִּישֹׁון וּבְנֵי דִישֹׁן חַמְרָן וְאֶשְׁבָּן וְיִתְרָן וּכְרָֽן׃

You'll notice I bolded the two appropriate terms. They are the masculine, plural constructs for the word "son." It is the Hebrew word ben. The only difference is the vav-consecutive at the beginning of the second but that is more of a conjunction than anything else.

Now I also looked down the page and noticed there is a textual variant here. Apparently a corrupt reading (it is noted as "Sebir") to be avoided is the singular here.

I think Braun's comment is appropriate. In the genealogies there is a frequent use of the plural to denote immediate and future progeny.

I did a quick scan of the genealogy in chaps 1, 2, and 3 and found this is the common way to illustrate a continued bloodline through a generation.

Just as a point of reference, I never trust Strongs. It misses nuance and important info imho. But that is secondary.:smilewinkgrin:

 

It doesn’t look like the new software is any better at displaying the Hebrew vowel points.

Anyway, a similar difficulty is seen in 1 Chronicles 2:8 and 2:31

Looking through only the first few chapters of Chronicles, the AV consistently translates the Hebrew plural noun in its plural form.

The AV translates the same word as “children” on occasion, (e.g. 1 Chronicles 1:43; 2:10; 5:11, 14, 23).

Rob

 

well that was a cut and paste job from Biblegateway.com with a little clean up on this end.

Hebrew is a funny language. How understand their idioms is tough, particularly in English.