B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

וְשַׂ֣ר ׀ מַלְכ֣וּת פָּרַ֗ס עֹמֵ֤ד לְנֶגְדִּי֙ עֶשְׂרִ֣ים וְאֶחָ֣ד יֹ֔ום וְהִנֵּ֣ה מִֽיכָאֵ֗ל אַחַ֛ד הַשָּׂרִ֥ים הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים בָּ֣א לְעָזְרֵ֑נִי וַאֲנִי֙ נֹותַ֣רְתִּי שָׁ֔ם אֵ֖צֶל מַלְכֵ֥י פָרָֽס׃

Hello.

I was looking at this verse in hebrew and I was wondering if the traditional translation is well reflecting the original meaning.

my question is about "Michael".

which of the following is more relevant in meaning.

(1) one of the chief rulers is Michael

(2) Michael if the chief of rulers

(3) Michael is one of the rulers. but former ruler. he used be be ruler. but not now.

please share your thoughts with proper explanations.

thank you.

Daniel Kim,

Bible Student

Virginia U.S.A

Option 1) is the sense of the words.

Looking at all 29 instances of הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים, plural, with the definite article, I think it means that Michael is one of the rulers from a former time.
Michael is still a ruler, but he is one from a previous time. (from before Satan's rebellion?)
i.e. Exo 34:1; Num 6:12; Deu 10:2, 10; 2Ki 1:14; 17:34; 1Chr 9:2; 29:29; 2Chr 9:29; 12:15; 17:3; 20:34; 22:1; 25:26; 26:22; 28:26; Neh 5:15; Ps 89:49; Eccl 7:10; Jer 11:10; 34:5; 36:28; Zec 1:4; 7:7, 12; 8:11.
In 28/29 instances, harishonim always means "former" as in from a previous time.

The only place where harishonim might mean "chief" is in 1Chr 18:17. I think this is wrongly translated by LXX, KJV, etc. It is not that David's sons were his chief advisers, (which is not true), but that the older sons of David were at the hand of the king, as in 2Chr 22:1.