EZRA 2 | NEHEMIAH 7 | Difference |
v.5 sons of Arah: 775 | v.10 sons of Arah: 652 | -123 |
v.6 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,812 | v.11 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,818 | +6 |
v.8 sons of Zattu: 945 | v.13 sons of Zattu: 845 | -100 |
v.10 sons of Bani: 642 | v.15 sons of Binnui: 648 | +6 |
v.11 sons of Bebai: 623 | v.16 sons of Bebai: 628 | +5 |
v.12 sons of Azgad: 1,222 | v.17 sons of Azgad: 2,322 | +1,100 |
v.13 sons of Adonikam: 666 | v.18 sons of Adonikam: 667 | +1 |
v.14 sons of Bigvai: 2,056 | v.19 sons of Bigvai: 2,067 | +11 |
v.15 sons of Adin: 454 | v.20 sons of Adin: 655 | +201 |
v.17 sons of Bezai: 323 | v.23 sons of Bezai: 324 | +1 |
v.28 men of Bethel and Ai: 223 | v.32 men of Bethel and Ai: 123 | -100 |
v.33 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 725 | v.37 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 721 | -4 |
v.35 sons of Senaah: 3,630 | v.38 sons of Senaah: 3,930 | +300 |
v.41 sons of Asaph: 128 | v.44 sons of Asaph: 148 | +20 |
v.42 gatekeepers’ sons: 139 | v.45 gatekeepers’ sons: 138 | -1 |
v.60 miscellaneous: 652 | v.62 miscellaneous: 642 | -10 |
v.65 singers: 200 | v.67 singers: 245 | +45 |
Ezra’s itemized list of 29,818 people is short of the grand total by 12,542. Nehemiah’s itemized list of 31,089 is short of the grand total by 11,271. Moreover, each includes individuals not mentioned in the other account. Ezra references 494 persons not found in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah has 1,765 persons missing from Ezra. Adding Nehemiah’s additional names to Ezra’s equals 31,583, which is the same amount when adding Ezra’s additional names to Nehemiah’s. However, the combined numbers are still 10,777 short of the total 42,360 as affirmed in each account (Ezra 2:64; Neh. 7:66).
Qualifying Variables
· Each listing is representative, and neither claims to be exhaustive.
· Ezra’s list seems to have been compiled in Babylon before departure (cf. Ezra 2:1),2 while Nehemiah’s much larger list (accessed approx. 13 years later) focuses on those who actually arrived in Jerusalem (cf. Neh. 7:5). Births, deaths, and other circumstances would surely have altered these figures.
· The entire congregation consisted of men, women, and children, whereas only the “men” are specifically numbered (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). The conventional counting of males 20 years of age and above,3 along with the considerable time involved in preparing, relocating, and settling the multitude, must allow for the maturation of boys to men during the process.
· Since the primary focus of both Ezra and Nehemiah is Jerusalem in the land of Judah (Ezra 1:2-3; 2:1; 4:6; 5:1; Neh. 1:2; 2:5; 7:6), they document families of the tribes of “Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; Neh. 11:4, 36), along with prominent Levites (Ezra 2:40, 70; 6:18; Neh. 7:43). The whole congregation of Israel then included other tribes (numbering 10,777 persons) located in other cities (Ezra 2:70; 3:1; 6:16-17, 21; Neh. 7:73).
Contextual Perspective
While there will always be critics attempting to microscopically find fault, any questions or concerns that might be raised regarding the divine inspiration and integrity of the biblical record are unfounded. The primary aim of Ezra-Nehemiah is clearly theological, albeit within a real historical context, providing a spiritual foundation for future generations of God’s restored people.
Narrative details that might capture our interest, whether historical, chronological, statistical, et al., are merely secondary to this higher purpose and not designed to satisfy our superficial curiosities. Mathematical precision was obviously not the purpose of the respective reports, although the meticulous numbering does reflect the enormity of the task and demonstrates the careful attention to organization.
All things considered, the similarities between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are much more remarkable than the variations. While itemized differences reflect independent reporting, the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah both end up with the same exact number of repatriated Israelites surely confirms divine consistency.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Thanks to Joseph R. Nally, Jr., “Q&A Knowledgebase,” Thirdmill (retrieved 24 Sept. 2021), <Link>.
2 The masculine plural participle הָֽעֹלִים֙ [hā·‘ō·lîm] in Ezra 2:1 is more literally rendered “went up out of” (ASV) rather than “came up out of” (NASB).
3 Ezra 3:8; cf. Ex. 30:14; 38:26; Num. 1:3, 18-45; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 32:11; 1 Chron. 23:24, 27; 27:23; 2 Chron. 25:5; 31:17.
Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC
Related articles: Neal Pollard, The Restorers
Image credit: https://www.masterfile.com/search/en/confusing+math+equation+on+blackboard
No comments:
Post a Comment