Other attempts at reconciliation are not so accept able, as when Junius and Malvenda (Poll. Synop. on i Chron. viii.) make Yediael, the third son of Benjamin according to Chron. vii. 6, the same as Ashbel the second son of the next chapter, and who identify also Becher, whom the former passage men tions as Jediael's elder brother, with Nohah who is mentioned in the latter passage as younger by two degrees than Ashbel. Another class of variations is easily reconciled by a careful discrimination of the word p (son). This noun is often used in these lists to designate any lineal descendant. When, therefore, in Gen. xlvi. 2i, Naaman and Ard occur in the same category with Bela and Becher as sons of Benjamin in the first degree, while the parallel place in Numbers registers them as the sons of Isis son, i.e., his sons in the second degree, this to the intelligent reader will not seem an in consistency, but a very proper, and it may be a profound use of language; for let him consider the different character of these two lists, and remember the division of the nation into (1.) Tribes ; (2.) Mishpachoth or clans, etc. (Josh. vii. 14). Now, as a general rule, the gnrndsons of Jacob are re garded as the founders of the minor divisions, the institution of the larger ones being invariably attri buted to his literal and adopted sons. Whatever names therefore occur in our two lists in common, designate the same persons in different relations : the first refers all its names upward, first to Jacob as the symbol of the nation's unity, and then to his sons as representing the simplest and highest plurality, that of the Tribes ; whereas the second refers all its names downwards towards the subdivisions of clans, etc. Thus in the case of Benjamin, all the names which in the list of Genesis are classed under this patriarch are simply the names of per sons who are to be regarded as integral members of the tribe of Benjamin ; but in the list of Num bers this relation is no longer considered, the same persons are now mentioned in the new and wider relation of founders of Illishpaehoth or clans ; i. e., no longer In1 (Rug Binyamin), sons of Benjamin,', members of his tribe merely ; but trizut} iv:: 4:3 (Env Binyamin mishp'chotham), sons of Benjamin after (or in relation to) their families' or clans. We now ap proach the gist of the difficulty. Why is BECHER'S name absent from Num. xxvi. 35, when not only his elder brother, Bela, but probably four younger brothers and two nephews appear in the eminent position of heads and founders of `families' or clans? Keil (Biblischer Commentar fiber des A. T.) is one of the latest writers who has noticed the difficulty. He acknowledges the force of it, as a genealogical discrepancy of more than a formal kind; and be suggests the same solution which had occurred to older commentators (see Bishop Patrick on Num. xxvi. 33). Becher, Gera, and Rosh,' says he, referring to the three names which disappear from the second list, are here wanting, for no other reason, undoubtedly, than because they either died childless, or at any rate did not leave behind them a progeny sufficiently numerous to form independent clans or families.' Now, how ever applicable this view may possibly be to the case of the others, it can hardly be true of Becher. Our third list (r Chron. vii. 8, 9) attributes to him an offspring scarcely less numerous, and not at all less conspicuous in military prowess, than his eldest brother's, who is ever mentioned as the fore most man of the senior clan of the tribe which was pre-eminent in Israel for warlike energy and enter prising activity. The sons of Becher [were] Ze mira, and Joash, and Eliezer, and Elioenai, and Omri, and Jerimoth, and Abiah, and Anathoth, and Alameth. All these are the sons of Lecher. And the number of them, after their genealogy by their generations, heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour, was twenty thousand and two hundred.' This statement occurs in our third genealogical document, which belongs (at the very earliest period assigned to it) to an age subse quent to the date of our second genealogy by some fifty or sixty years at least. Becher, therefore,
must not be excluded through incapacity or want of offspring from the muster-roll of the plains of Moab ; but our belief is, that he was not in fact excluded on that occasion. We have alrea4 noticed, at the beginning of this article, that (three verses only previous to the register of the sons of Benjamin) in Numb. xxvi. the name Becher actually occurs with a 4--ozn nrint20, a gen; or clan, of Bachrites, amongst the sons of EPH RAIM (verse 35).
This name has by some been identified with the Ben?! oft Chron. vii. 20, but without reason as it seems; for Bered is the son of Shuthelah according to that passage, and not the son of Ephraim, as Becher is represented in Num. xxvi. Now, ex cept this, no other name has been attempted to be identified with Becher as an Ephraimite from any other genealogy. Under these circumstances, then, conjecture, which we would never lightly resort to, may be allowed ; for if it be allowable at any time, it is surely when it originates an alteration which, though slight in itself, squares well with the many conditions of a case otherwise inextricably compli cated. We would therefore propose to transfer from the 35th verse * to the 38th of Num. xxvi., the clause, Of Becker the family of the Bachrites,' in serting it in its natural place between Bela and his family and Ashbel and his family ; the 33th verse would then stand thus—` The sons of Benjamin, after their families : of Bela, the family of the Belaites : of Becher, the family of the Bachrites : of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites,' etc., etc. This would produce an agreement with both the preceding and the succeeding lists, which we have seen the facts of the case to require.
The occurrence of Becher's name among the Ephraimites has been accounted for, by supposing that Becher [the Benjamite] or his heir and head of his house, married an Ephraimitish heiress, a daughter of Shuthelah (I Chron. vii. 20, 21), and so that his house was reckoned in the tribe of Ephraim, just as Jair,' etc. (See Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 175.) We have not space here to state in full our grounds of dissatisfaction with this view. Whether Jair's adoption as a Manassite were ex jure hozreditatis, according to Num. xxxvi. 6 (which is certainly doubtful)," or his transjordanic property accrued to him, as a suc cessful adventurer, and only in right of conquest (as seems probable from Dent. xii. 12-15, and Num. xxxiii. 41), it is difficult, at any rate, to make his case parallel to Becher's. The assumption that Becher married Shuthelah's daughter, and so became incorporated into the tribe of Ephraim by the law of succession just referred to, cannot be sustained. No daughter of Shuthelah as an Ephraintite heiress would be likely to appear on Moses' register, con trary to his specific law, as giving right of inheri tance to a Benjamite; moreover, that Becher and his family of Bachrites should remain by the side of Shuthelah and the family of the Shuthelahites is quite incompatible with the terms of the assump tion itself, according to which Becher, as becoming the heir of Shuthelah, instead of retaining a status of his own, would merge into that of Shuthelah. But what need is there of argument in a case so plain ? Becher, as we have seen, did not cease to be the head of a Benjamite Mishpachah long after the census of the plain of Moab (1 Chron. vii. 6-9). That his family subsequently became insig nificant (if not extinct), either by some calamity like the Benjamite war of extermination, which probably fell heavy upon this particular branch of the tribe, or else by the Captivity, we conclude from the omission of his name and family from the fourth of our genealogies. There is an ominous blank throughout that lengthy catalogue (see 1 Chron. viii. throughout), touching the subject of our article, who does not appear again elsewhere.
For BECTIER, said to be the son of Ephraim, in our text and version of Num. xxvi. 35, but now shewn to be probably the same as the Becher of Gen. xlvi. 21, and i Chron. vii. 6, 3, see preceding article passim.—P. H.