Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Sergio,

> Bekoraw, according to The Contemporary English 
> Version among others, can be rendered as "The 
> rights as the first-born son".
> Gen 25:31 also shows that those rights not 
> necessarily went to the firstborn. The fact that 
> the tribe of Joseph is reported in the AT as 
> having a "double portion" (it was treated as two 
> separate tribes with their own plot in the 
> Promised Land) seems to me to support the idea 
> that the bekoraw could be transferred from the 
> literal firstborn son to any other.

HH: But there was an interesting mechanism 
involved here. Jacob adopted Joseph's two sons as 
his own. So each of them received one share of 
Jacob's inheritance. Since there were two sons, 
and they represented Joseph, it could appear as 
though Joseph received a double portion and thus 
the inheritance of a firstborn son:

Gen. 48:5 ¶  "Now then, your two sons born to you 
in Egypt before I came to you here will be 
reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be 
mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine.
Gen. 48:6 Any children born to you after them 
will be yours; in the territory they inherit they 
will be reckoned under the names of their 
brothers.

> And here comes my question:
> Some time ago I read that in the kingdom of 
> Israel and Judah, the heir to the throne not 
> necessarily was the first born, but the king 
> could appoint any of his sons. If this is so 
> (I'm not sure if there is agreement about this 
> or it is just a theory) is this linked to the 
> issue of the rights as the first-born son?

HH: I think it was normally the custom in Egypt, 
too, for the eldest son to be the successor to 
the Pharaoh:
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/royal_women.htm

The rules of succession provided that the next 
pharaoh would be the eldest son by the King's 
Great Wife.

HH: Surely, that was normally the custom in 
Israel too. It does seem related to the rights of 
the firstborn but also to the honor that a 
firstborn son would have in the eyes of his 
father as the eldest son. But David appointed 
Solomon to succeed him, even though there were 
older sons. So the king did have the right to 
name his successor, it seems.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard
> From huyxh8s02 AT sneakemail.com  Fri Oct 22 13:16:56 2004
Return-Path: <huyxh8s02 AT sneakemail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from monkey.sneakemail.com (sneakemail.com [38.113.6.61])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id DD80B4C042
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:16:55 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 7998 invoked by uid 501); 22 Oct 2004 17:16:55 -0000
Date: 22 Oct 2004 17:16:55 -0000
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Encoding: 8bit
From: "David N. da Silva" <huyxh8s02 AT sneakemail.com>
Message-ID: <6609-64216 AT sneakemail.com>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Exo 14:7
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:16:56 -0000

KJV is:

And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and 
captains over every one of them.

I have a variant reading to propose that is quite different.   As always, I 
appreciate comments from anyone whose Hebrew is better than mine (that is, 
from anyone at all) :

And he took six hundred of his best chariots; they were Egyptian chariots 
with a third man, a shield-carrier, in every one of them.

The word at issue is shaliysh.  Its root means third.   It gets translated as captain many times 
in the KJV.   In many cases there is a definite association with chariots, and in no case where 
it is translated captain, is a connection with chariots (or horses) ruled out.   So I think it 
means the third man on a chariot.   What is harder is to say whether "shield-carrier" 
or "captain of the chariot" is a better reading.  I do think it is a technical term 
having to do with chariot warfare: I do not propose  it could mean shield-carrier in a 
non-chariot context.

The passage of all of them that is least favorable to shield-carrier is Eze 
23:23, which is still about horses, but about riding them rather than 
chariots.  A term for a man on the chariot team, would of course have had to 
get a new meaning when applied to cavalry.

2Kings 7:17, "And the king appointed the shaliysh on whose hand he leaned to have 
charge of the gate" is interesting.   If we accept that shaliysh does mean a third 
man in a chariot, we must suppose this means the third man on the king's chariot.  No 
one would have been the 'captain' of a chariot which had the king on it.

There were both two- and three-man chariots in the late bronze age.   There 
is always a driver and a man with a weapon (bow, usually).  If there is a 
third man, he carries a shield.   In the classic battles it was the Hittites 
who used three men; the Egyptians used two.  But the Egyptians did adopt the 
Hittite style.   I don't know anything about Philistine chariots.   The fact 
that there were 2- and 3- man versions, explains why the author of this 
passage specified that these were 3-man chariots.

As to whether the passage which KJV gives as "all the chariotry of Egypt" could in fact 
mean "Egyptian chariots", I don't know.   I hope someone who knows, will say.   thank 
you.
--------------------------------------
David Nunes da Silva