Differences between the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah

Differences between the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah

 

 The supposed contradictions are differences between two recorded sets of numbers of those that returned from captivity in Babylon. These two sets of lists can be found in the book of Ezra chapter 2 and the book of Nehemiah chapter 7.

 

You can purchase my book looking into contradictions in the Bible on Amazon

Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk

 

 

16 Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

• Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
• Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

Ezra 2: 6The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve.

Nehemiah 7: 11The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand and eight hundred and eighteen.

This is a difference of 6 

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

• Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
• Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

Ezra 2:8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five.

Nehemiah 7:13 The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five.

This differences a bit larger being a difference of 100 between the two record numbers

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

• One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
• Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

Ezra 2:12 The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two

Nehemiah 7:17 The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two. 

Here we have a much larger difference between the two numbers, a difference of 1100

19. How many were the children of Adin?

• Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
• Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

Ezra 2:15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

Nehemiah 7:20 The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.

A difference of 201. This difference stands out as it is not a whole number. 

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
• Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

Ezra 2:19 The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three.

Nehemiah 7:22 The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight.

A difference of 105

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
• One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

Ezra 2:28 The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty and three.

Nehemiah 7:32 The men of Bethel and Ai, an hundred twenty and three.

A difference of 100

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

• 29,818 (Ezra)
• 31,089 (Nehemiah)

A difference of 1,271 between each list. Ezra differs from the recorded total amount by 12,542 while Nehemiah differs by 11,271. 

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

• Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
• Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

Ezra 2:65 Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women

Nehemiah 7:67 Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women.

 

Very clearly we have differences between the numbers recorded in these two lists. Some minor, a difference of just 6, while we also have some more major differences between the two of some 1100. It must also be pointed out that these are NOT the only differences in the two lists. In fact over half of the families in the two lists differ in the recorded numbers. 

Two families differ by just 1,another family differs by 4, two more families differ by 6, we have two families numbers that differ by 9, one differs by 11,  two numbers differ by a whole 100, one  differs by 105, one differs by 201,one differs by 300 and one by a a huge  1,100. All can be clearly seen when analysing one list against the other. So how can we reconcile these numbers against one another and demonstrate that there is not any error here? 

To make things even more complicated some of the numbers recorded in the Septuagint differ completely from the numbers in the Hebrew but also do not match with itself. Lets just take contradiction 21 for example, as already shown the numbers are recorded as 223 in Ezra and 123 in Nehemiah, however, the numbers recorded in the Septuagint are 423 in Ezra and 123 in Nehemiah making the difference 300 as opposed to the 100 in the Hebrew:

Ezra 2:28 The men of Baethel and Aia, four hundred and twenty-three. Brentons Septuagint 

Nehemiah 7:32 The men of Baethel and Ai, a hundred and twenty-three. Brentons Septuagint

Rather than “correcting” the difference, the Septuagint creates an even larger numerical difference which still requires explanation. 

I shall just give another example, contradiction 16. As seen, the difference in the Hebrew between the two records is 6. This jumps to 206 in the Septuagint:

Ezra 2:6 The children of Phaath Moab, belonging to the sons of Jesue and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve.

Nehemiah 7:11 The children of Phaath Moab, with the children of Jesus and Joab, two thousand six hundred and eighteen.

The first thing that we must note is that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were very likely originally ONE book, almost certainly written by ONE author (likely Ezra) and so if these recorded numbers do in fact contradict each other then the author actually contradicted himself when he recorded these two sets of lists. It has been understood through Masoretic tradition, the Septuagint evidence and church fathers that these two books indeed, at one stage, formed one book. 

(1) in order to make sense of Josephus’ enumeration of the biblical books (Contra Apionem §40), it must be assumed that he counted Ezra and Nehemiah as one. (2) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, quotes Jewish sources in Palestine which speak of the whole work as “Ezra”; cf. Eusebius Hist Eccl. 4.26.14. (3) The Talmud includes the activities of Nehemiah in the book of Ezra and even asks, “Why, then. was the book not called by his name?” (Bab Sanh. 93b; cf. B. Bat, 14b, where only Ezra is listed). (4) The Masoretes clearly regard the books as one because they count Neh 3:22 as the middle verse and add their annotations for the whole only at the end of Nehemiah. (5) The medieval Jewish commentators move directly from Ezra to Nehemiah without interruption; cf. the commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Rashi ad loc. in any Rabbinic Bible, e.g. Biblia Rabbinica (Jerusalem; Makor. 1972). (6) In the earliest Hebrew manuscripts the books are not divided. To this list we should add that (7) in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX the two books are treated as one [Williamson 1985: xxi].

The Masoretic tradition regarded the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one book and referred to it as the Book of Ezra. This was also the Greek tradition, and the same Greek name, Esdras, was given to both books (see below). The division into separate books does not occur until the time of Origen (fourth century C.E.) and this division was transferred into the Vulgate where the books are called I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah). It was not until the 15th century that Hebrew manuscripts, and subsequently all modern printed Hebrew editions, followed this practice of dividing the books. However, there are good reasons (linguistic, literary, and thematic) for the argument that the two books were originally separate works (Kraemer), which were brought together by a later compiler, and are now to be read as a single unit (Grabbe).
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ezra-and-nehemiah-books-of

 

I do not believe that the answer to this contradiction is dependant on the books being originally one or in deed, two distinct and separate books. 

Many apologists have given their answer as to why the numbers do not agree. The two main answers given are: 

1. Copyist error. 

Many apologists attribute the numerical differences to copyist error. 

When dealing with supposed contradiction number 22 the popular website Answering Islam put the differences in totals down to copyist error.

“There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist’s error. The original texts must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have been larger.”
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/101-cleared-up-contradictions-in-the-bible/

This is also the answer offered for supposed contradiction 22. 

“As in question number 7, this is a copyist error, where a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 to 200.”
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/101-cleared-up-contradictions-in-the-bible/

While this hypothetically “could” account for an individual discrepancy, the fact there are numerous differences within one list of numbers would actually mean that we are not dealing with a single copyist error but rather multiple copyist errors that would have occurred in the multiple recorded numbers while the other numbers remained the same. 

Is it at all possible? yes of course, although to assert that there were multiple copyist errors occurring throughout these lists is highly unlikely. We must also note that there is no actual manuscript evidence for these supposed errors having happened. It is simply an assertion based on the fact that the numbers do not match and so the errors simply “had to have happened” at some point.  While this answer may satisfy some, in reality this answer simply isn’t satisfactory to anyone that believes in inerrancy of scripture and cannot be supported with evidence. This becomes even more unlikely when we take the readings found in the Septuagint into account. 

Got Questions gives copyist error as a possible answer, but actually states that it is unlikely to have created this many differences. 

“Two potential explanations exist that could help account for the differences in these lists. First, the lists may have originally been the same, but textual variations could have arisen in the copying of these lists. The change in a single pen stroke in Hebrew can change a number from tens to hundreds. Though this explanation is possible, it is unlikely to have resulted in this many variations.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/Ezra-Nehemiah-numbers.html

Some apologists have put the numerical differences down to the time difference between the two records. 

Let’s have a look at the answer given on the Answering Islam website when dealing with supposed contradictions 16-21. 

“There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.”

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible

 

While this may be an answer used by many, when we actually examine this claim, again it is a totally unsatisfactory explanation. If the recorded numbers referred to two different counts then there would be no contradiction as the lists would not have to align with one another seeing they would not be recording the same count.

We should not fail to notice that the lists in both Ezra and Nehemiah clearly state they are recording the same count, specifically the children of the province that went up out of the captivity. 

Ezra 2:1Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;

Nehemiah 7:6 These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city;

Both numbers do refer to the same count, those included in the count are specifically identified in both accounts. Therefore, the time difference between the two records is actually irrelevant to the answer. 

 

 It is also postulated that the variation of numbers can be accounted for by births, deaths, and or a difference between those that registered to leave the Babylonian captivity and those that actually did. 

“A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra’s register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah’s register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.”
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/101-cleared-up-contradictions-in-the-bible/

This is the second option given by the Got questions website, and the one they would seem to agree with.

“A second, more likely explanation considers the circumstances in which the lists were created. Ezra’s list was compiled by Zerubbabel while the exiles were still in Babylon and before they made their trip to Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s list was compiled almost a century later, in Jerusalem, after the walls had been rebuilt. The differences in time and location could have resulted in the different numbers for each family.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/Ezra-Nehemiah-numbers.html 

 

However,  If all the numbers varied then this may have been a plausible answer but they do not, many of the numbers remain exactly the same. If the variation in numbers were due to births, deaths or even the number that had put their name down but didn’t actually go or included those who did leave who had not registered to leave then it is very odd that this only affected certain groups. Some of the recorded families would not have had any births or deaths or differences between those that registered to leave and those that did while others had huge variations. It is very unrealistic that these factors would affect only a certain number of the families and not all of them. There is also no real explanation as to how the total number of 43,360 match in the two recorded accounts if there are such differences in births deaths, those that actually travelled or time differences. If such an answer was correct we must then ask how the totals remained the same and how and why they both align in the first place. Again while this answer may be satisfactory to some, the fact is there really is no scriptural support for this answer. It is pure conjecture.

I believe that there are actually 2 possible answers to these numerical variations that are much simpler than these hypothetical answers, that in reality have no basis in scripture and can’t be supported by evidence. The first answer, is the one that I have understood to be correct for quite a while, in fact,  ever since I became aware of this contradiction and looked for an answer, maybe 4 or 5 years ago. The second is one that I have come up with through reading the texts closer while writing this book. The first answer is a bit long-winded and takes a fair bit of explanation, the second much easier to follow and actually, in comparison to answer 1, much quicker to explain. I shall leave you to decide which one, if either, answers this contradiction. 

Answer 1) . 

The list recorded in Ezra 2 is a factual list. It contains the accurate number of each family that left to return to Jerusalem from Babylon while the list recorded in Nehemiah is factually incorrect. By this I do not mean that the list recorded in Nehemiah is incorrectly recorded by the author, what I actually mean is that the numbers in the list are incorrect. The author correctly records a list that contained incorrect recorded numbers. Ok, let me explain this. 

Again, it is imperative that we look closely at the information that we are being given in each account. I have stressed this many times already and I will continue to do so. The small details are sometimes what are the most important aspect. 

Ezra states that “these are the children….. that went up out of captivity”, 

Ezra 2: 1 Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 

 

In the book of Ezra, Ezra is recording a factual number. He is stating the actual number of each group that left captivity and returned to Jerusalem. The numbers recorded in the book are an accurate record of an accurate list of numbers. These numbers are the reality of a factual count. 

This is contrary to the list of numbers that we have given in the book of Nehemiah where we are told that Nehemiah had found a register of the genealogy of them which came from captivity and he found written therein. 

 

Nehemiah 7: 5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein,

 

The list of numbers that then follows is simply the numbers that were in the found record, not the list as per the accurately recorded number in Ezra and importantly, neither does it assert that it is,  but rather it is an inaccurate list of numbers that Nehemiah had found. There is no mention of a list being compiled by Nehemiah or, nor is there any mention that these are the actual numbers of those that come up out of captivity. Rather Nehemiah simply states, these are the numbers on the list that he found. The list in Nehemiah is simply stating the numbers that were recorded within the register that Nehemiah had found, which were not the correct numbers. The numbers recorded in the book of Ezra are not based upon numbers taken from a register, they are the actual numbers of those that come up out of captivity. The numbers on the found record were inaccurate. The book of Nehemiah only records the numbers that were found in this list. So they are the accurately recorded numbers found on a list that contained inaccurate numbers. 

Maybe we can attribute this to a scribal or copyist error after all, however, rather than the errors occurring in the copying of the biblical texts, the errors were actually created by whoever produced the list that Nehemiah later found. 

 

But what about the total numbers of the congregation? Both Ezra and Nehemiah agree that this number was 42,360.

 

Ezra 2: 64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,

Nehemiah 7: 66The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,

 

These numbers, as already stated, are the clearest evidence against any assertion the differences between the numbers in the two lists are because of births and deaths or even those that left and those that arrived, etc. The fact that these two lists agree on this number demonstrates that they are recording the same count. It would be almost impossible, and is certainly improbable that they could be the same total if there really were such factors involved in the counts. 

The number 42,360, of course, does not match with the total number recorded in either list. When we add up the numbers given by each book, the total stated in Ezra is 29,818, and the total in Nehemiah is 31,089. Both of these numbers are very short of the 42,360 number given as being the total in both accounts. But obviously the biggest issue here is that if Ezra is recording the accurate and correct numbers as I have asserted, why do the numbers recorded not add up to 42,360? 

The answer again can be found simply by reading the texts and paying close attention to the information that is given. 

The number in the recorded count of those that returned amongst each family were MEN only as clearly stated in both Ezra and Nehemiah. 

Ezra 2:2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:

Nehemiah 7:7 Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah. The number, I say, of the men of the people of Israel was this;

Both Ezra and Nehemiah use the Hebrew word אַנְשֵׁ֖י ’an-šê, of men. It is only men that are included in the count. While the total number was 42,360, there were 29,818 men. This then leaves us with a difference between the total number of men counted amongst the congregation and the overall total of the congregation of 12,542. 

This difference between the two numbers can be answered in a few different ways, I shall give the 3 that I think are possible.

 Firstly, 12,542 is the number of women and children that came with the men. 

We see biblical evidence of a number recorded in the Bible that only included the men where both women and children were part of the congregation but excluded from the count.
In the very famous story of when Jesus fed the 5,000 and the 4,000 in Matthew 14 and 15 respectively, we see that this number recorded only referred to the number of men who were fed and did not include women and children. 

 

Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matthew 15:38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

 

The women and children are explicitly excluded from the count. While we get told that there were 5,000 and 4,000 men in those counts, there were clearly an unnumbered number of women and children in attendance who were also fed alongside the men on both occasions.  

Some have stated that 12,542 would be a rather small number of women and children if there were around 30,000 men. Obviously we do not know the breakdown of women and or children numerically within the total but even if we said that 90% of those would be women, which is actually a huge percentage and the true number may well have been lower, unless children were not permitted to leave,  that still leaves at least over half of the men having no wife, which is unlikely. This could itself be answered in numerous ways. The Israelites were coming from captivity. This was not a normal free life in Israel. Maybe while in captivity marriage was not something that was easy to partake in and thus marriages were much less common than in free Israel. We also know that many people stayed within the captivity and did not return. 

It could be that those that were married remained with their families and that the majority of those that returned were single males. This would make sense when we know for what purpose the returned, which was to rebuild the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, which information we are given in Ezra. 

 

Ezra1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

 

The temple would have been rebuilt by men and so it isn’t unreasonable to assume that more men would have returned than women. Of course, women would have been required for procreation, but this would not have necessitated an equal amount. 

 There are also other explanations such as that married men were not allowed to return or even that women were less likely to be permitted to return.  It is even possible that those with children were not permitted to leave or that they chose not to due to the dangers of travel. Those that were allowed to leave were mainly men and women without children. These are of course speculative answers as to why there would be such a low number of women and or children but they are answers based on the numbers that we are faced with. 

Secondly, It could be that women are excluded from the count completely and that we have no idea how many women returned as they are not recorded at all. 

Again we find biblical support for this. When the Israelites left Egypt through the guidance of Moses, we are told that the number was about 600,000. We are told that this number was in relation to men and the exclusion (besides) was children. 

Exodus 12: 37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

Women are not included at all in this count nor are they even included in the excluded as this only pertains to children. Of course we know women came out of Egypt but the Bible is totally silent regarding them and their numbers. 

The Hebrew word is translated as men in Exodus 12:37 is גֶּבֶר geber, which could possibly refer to everyone including woman, just as we today sometimes refer to mankind, which includes women and does not exclude them,  but I think this is a stretch and in reality this is only referring to men. 

In this verse we see that it is children that are the ones that are directly referred to as having not been included in the count. On this basis the 12,542 difference in Ezra would refer to children only. The number of women that returned from captivity would thus not have been recorded at all and would therefore be unknown, it could be close on 30,000, we wouldn’t know. 

A point that I feel supports this understanding is that the references to the exclusion of both women and children are found in the New Testament. The reference to the exclusion of just children, where women are not counted at all, is found within the Old Testament, just as both Ezra and Nehemiah are.

 

What is also important to notice is that in neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, does it reference explicitly to being at the exclusion of anyone. It does not unequivocally state that the count excludes women and children nor does it state that only children are being excluded as we see in the verses already cited. It simply records the number of men in the count and then gives us a total amount of the entire congregation. Both Ezra and Nehemiah use the Hebrew הַקָּהָ֖ל haq-qā-hāl meaning the assembly, which rather than being exclusive, is inclusive, referring to the whole congregation and not excluding anyone from the count.  It would seem that by using this word the total number of 42,360 would most likely be in reference to everyone, men, women and children. 

While I do not feel that we can categorically state that the 12,542 refer to women and children, just women or just children, I do believe that it is almost certainly in reference to at least one of these variations and based on the inclusive language most likely refers to women and children who left with the men. 

 

When it comes to the number of singers that accompanied the congregation we can apply the same logic, the number recorded in Ezra is the correct number while the number in Nehemiah, while accurately representative of the number on the list that was found, is factually incorrect. The number of singers recorded on the list was inaccurate.
Interestingly, unlike with many of the other numbers, the Septuagint actually reads the same as the Hebrew in both Ezra, 200 and Nehemiah 245. 

Ezra 2:65  besides their men-servants and maid-servants, and these were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven: and among these were two hundred singing men and singing women. Brenton’s Septuagint. 

Nehemiah 7:67 besides their men-servants and their maid-servants: these were seven thousand three hundred and thirty seven: and the singing-men and singing-women, two hundred and forty-five. Brenton’s Septuagint 

The latin vulgate also reads 200 in Ezra and 245 in Nehemiah. 

Ezra 2:67 exceptis servis eorum et ancillis qui erant septem milia trecenti triginta septem et in ipsis cantores atque cantrices ducentae

Besides their menservants, and womenservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven: and among them singing men, and singing women two hundred.

Nehemiah 7:67 absque servis et ancillis eorum qui erant septem milia trecenti triginta et septem et inter eos cantores et cantrices ducentae quadraginta quinque

Beside their menservants and womenservants, who were seven thousand three hundred thirty-seven: and among them singing men, and singing women, two hundred forty-five.

 

This almost certainly demonstrates that these numbers were original, the overwhelming evidence would support these readings, and that any assertion to copyist error here is without doubt wrong and should be rejected.

 

Another possible answer

 

However, there is also another possibility, this again requires a more careful look at the texts and what they state. 

As I have already pointed out, Ezra names 494 people that Nehemiah does not and Nehemiah 1765 that Ezra does not. When we add these to the numbers recorded they both add up to  31,583. Ezra records 29,818 + 1765 as found in Nehemiah  = 31,583. Nehemiah records 31,089 + 494 found in Ezra = 31,583. 

So here we find that when the names missing in Ezra and those missing in Nehemiah, are added to the opposing list, the totals agree. This could then possibly mean that both lists are indeed accurate and are recording the number of people in each group in a different way from each other for different purposes, something the Bible often does. While we may not have anywhere stated the actual reason for the difference in the recording of these names, the fact that when each name that is missing from each list is added to the names on the opposing list the numbers match exactly, it is at least an indication that there is a reason for the difference in the recording of the names and that all the names are faithfully recorded between the two lists. 

When we use this number of 31,583, the difference in totals between the overall recorded names and the overall total of the congregation is 10,777 in both Ezra and Nehemiah as both agree there was 42,360 in total. We could now argue that this is the real number of women and children, or just women or just children that made up the rest of the congregation that left with the men. But, on yet even closer reading we find more details that could help us with our answer.

Both Ezra and Nehemiah tell us of those that were unable to reckon their genealogy, meaning they could not prove their genealogy.

Ezra 2:61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

Nehemiah 7:63 And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their name. 64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood

Therefore, it could very well be that the difference of 10,777 are those that were part of the overall count of the congregation which was 42,360, but were not included in the count of those that belonged to the numbered families, seeing they had no genealogical reckoning. The total of 42,360 were all men. As already demonstrated, we have no definitive exclusion of women and children. On this basis, the number of women and children that returned from captivity would be unrecorded.

The fact is that there are answers to this contradiction that can explain why the lists do not match and thus it would now have to be demonstrated that no answer provided can possibly be correct, something that simply stating 2 verses and opposing them against one another and asserting a contradiction can never possibly do.  Shabir will have to go back to work on this one. 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere