PUBLICATIONS
THE BURNING BUSH
Volume 13 Number 2, July
2007
THE NUMBERS IN EZRA 2 AND NEHEMIAH 7: A SOLUTION IN FAVOUR OF THE
INERRANCY OF THE VERBALLY AND PLENARILY PRESERVED TEXT
Nelson Were
In Nehemiah 7 we are given a list of
returnees that Nehemiah found. It is almost identical to the list in Ezra
2. The repetition of this list confirms God’s faithfulness in preserving
His chosen people and His loyal love in bringing them back into the land
that He had promised their ancestors. Nehemiah (445/4 BC) is the second
witness to God’s covenant faithfulness and love to Israel, Ezra (537/6 BC)
being the first.
The total number who returned was
42,360 (Neh 7:66, Ezr 2:64). However the sum total of the individuals
mentioned in Nehemiah 7 is 31,089 whereas in Ezra 2, it is 29,818. This has
led some to question the inerrancy of the Bible. Opponents of the Bible
have found in these two chapters "a sceptical goldmine" and many "Christian
apologists" in addressing this chapter have opted to attribute these
distinctions to "scribal errors." Those who have used these lists to attack
the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
of the Holy Scriptures have pointed to the (1) disagreement in the numbers
of people given in the lists of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and (2) disagreement
in the total number from the lists with the total number as given in Ezra
2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66.
It is obvious from the table (below)
that there are many statistical differences between Ezra and Nehemiah.
These are not contradictions. Before we address and explain the
differences, we must first remember that every word of God is important.
Hence, these long lists of names are as equally the inspired Word of God as
the other more familiar Scriptures, such as John 3:16 and as such they
contain no errors whatsoever, and are to be accepted as inerrant just as
John 3:16 is inerrant.
|
List of the 17 Verses that Do Not Match Between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 |
|
Ezra 2
|
Nehemiah 7 |
Diff |
|
5 the children of Arah, 775
|
10 the children of Arah, 652
|
123 |
|
6 the children of Pahath-moab ... 2,812 |
11 the children of Pahath-moab ... 2,818 |
6 |
|
8 the children of Zattu, 945
|
13 the children of Zattu, 845
|
100 |
|
10 the children of Bani, 642 |
15 the children of Binnui, 648 |
6 |
|
11 the children of Bebai, 623 |
16 the children of Bebai, 628 |
5 |
|
12 the children of Azgad, 1,222 |
17 the children of Azgad, 2,322 |
1,100 |
|
13 the children of Adonikam, 666 |
18 the children of Adonikam, 667 |
1 |
|
14 the children of Bigvai, 2,056 |
19 the children of Bigvai, 2,067 |
11 |
|
15 the children of Adin, 454 |
20 the children of Adin, 655
|
201 |
|
17 the children of Bezai, 323 |
23 the children of Bezai, 324
|
1 |
|
28 the men of Bethel and Ai, 223
|
32 the men of Bethel and Ai, 123 |
100 |
|
33 the children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 725 |
37 the children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 721 |
4
|
|
35 the children of Senaah, 3,630
|
38 the children of Senaah, 3,930
|
300 |
|
41 The singers: the children of Asaph, 128
|
44 The singers: the children of Asaph, 148 |
20
|
|
42 The sons of the gatekeepers: ... 139
|
45 The gatekeepers: ... 138 |
1
|
|
59 and 60 list several names with one total of
652 |
61 and 62 names with one total of 642
|
10
|
|
65 200 singing men and women |
67 245 male and female singers |
45 |
When reading through Ezra 2 and
Nehemiah 7, sceptics point out first, the discrepancies in the number of
people in the various clans listed both in Ezra and Nehemiah; second, the
discrepancy between the numbers that would be arrived at by adding up the
individual numbers and the total given at the end of the list. But
strangely they do not point out or comment on the words used.
In addressing this, firstly we need to
take into consideration that both Ezra and Nehemiah are referring to the
same event here, namely, the return of the Jews to Palestine after the
Babylonian Captivity (Neh 7:6-7 cf Ezr 2:1-2). In addition to this, it
ought to be noted that there is a difference in time between Ezra 2 and
Nehemiah 7. Therefore, the dates of writing are different and the
statistical differences can be accounted for by the death of people and the
growth of families during the intervening years. Thus, it is possible that
the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah reflect the different counts at different
times of the Jewish return to Palestine. Higher totals might reflect clans
who added people along their journey, and lower totals might reflect deaths
or certain types of attrition on the journey and thus reasonably explain
the differences.
Many Christian scholars attribute the
differences in numbers to "scribal errors." In explaining why both Ezra
2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total for the whole congregation was
42,360, and yet disagree after the totals are added up, Ezra having 29,818
and Nehemiah 31,089, one Christian apologist says:
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.
This is not an acceptable explanation
in light of God’s verbal and plenary preservation of His inspired words
(Matt 5:18). The Bible also teaches that God does not lie or bear false
witness (Num 23:19). So how do we explain these very real differences
without denying the inspiration, preservation, and inerrancy of Scripture?
Study the text itself!
First of all, the introduction to the
two lists specifies the contents. The lists specifically mention that they
contain the "number of the men of the people of Israel" (Ezr 2:2 cf Neh
7:7). When recording the total, both texts also state that the total number
given in the texts is the number of the "whole congregation together" (Ezr
2:64 cf Neh 7:66). It is clear from the text that first of all, those who
were recorded in both lists were only the men – the Hebrew word used here
in both lists is "ish" which means "a man," "a male," or "a husband"
(Exod 35:29, Gen 3:6). The word connotes maleness, as opposed to
femaleness. 1
The word for congregation is also the
same in both lists and is taken from the Hebrew word "qahal" which
means "a convocation, a congregation, an assembly, a crowd, a multitude, an
army (Ezek 17:17; 23:46, 47), the Hebrew community, an assembly of
nations." 2 From this, the
question of the numbers not adding up to the total given at the end of each
list may be reconciled by taking the number to be that of the men, without
including the women and children, though the total was given to mean the
whole congregation.
The question that needs to be asked in
our attempt to settle this issue of the sum total is this: Are there other
biblical accounts which employ this method of numbering? And the answer is
yes. See for instance Exodus 12:37 where only the men were counted who
journeyed from Rameses to Succoth (Exod 12:37), and Matthew 14:21; Mark
6:44; Luke 9:14 where only the men were numbered who ate the bread and fish
miraculously multiplied by Jesus. In all three Synoptic Gospels, the word
for "men" is "aner" which distinguishes man from woman like the
Hebrew "ish" which may also be rendered as husband.
Secondly, having reconciled the
apparent discrepancies with regard to the total amount, there still seems
to be other "discrepancies" for as one reads through the lists, the
breakdown of numbers in the lists also do not tally. How can this be
reconciled? Is it possible that these lists though referring to the same
event were compiled at different times? Returning to the texts, as one
carefully studies them, one would notice that it is not only the numbers
that are not the same, but certain names are also different—having
alternate forms. There are instances where the numbers agree but the names
are different; for example Ezra 2:18 and Nehemiah 7:24 which have 112 for
the number of the children of Jorah/Hariph; Ezra 2:44 and Nehemiah 7:47
which have among the Nethinims the children of Siaha/Sia.
Another observable distinction concerns
the same information but given in different forms. For example, Ezra 2:24
and Nehemiah 7:28 where the same group of people are referred to as
children ("ben" ie son, boy, young one) and men ("ish")
(compare also Ezr 2:20-21 with Neh 7:25-26). Thus, considering the
differences, we can say that there were two lists, and taking into account
the time that had elapsed since the period of Ezra 2 and the time when
Nehemiah found the register in Nehemiah 7, and the additional fact that the
"children" were referred to as "men," it seems that there could be another
census taken after the people arrived so as to update the register. This
could very well be the case for in Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah testified how God
had put a burden on him to conduct a census and the first step he took was
to look for the former register which he found and he noted the details of
it in the remaining part of that chapter. This would mean that both the
lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 were accurate records with no errors
whatsoever; the list found in Nehemiah being a list that was written after
the one in Ezra 2, taking into account the changes that would have taken
place within the time that had elapsed between the two writings.
Notes
1
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old
Testament, sv "ish," 2300.
2
Ibid, sv, "qahal," 2360.
Nelson Were (ThM) is a lecturer at Bomet Bible
Institute, Kenya.
Top
/ Back
|