Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 2:64
The whole congregation together [was] forty and two thousand three hundred [and] threescore,
64. The same total i.e. 42,360 is given in Ezra, Nehemiah and 1 Esdras. The items however fail in all three lists to produce this figure.
Ezra
Neh.
1 Esdr.
Men of the people of Israel
24,144
25,406
26,390
Priests
4289
4289
2388
Levites
74
74
74
Singers
128
148
128
Porters
139
138
139
Nethinim and Solomon’s servants
392
392
372
Unregistered
652
642
652
Total
29,818
31,089
30,143
other MSS. 30,678
These remarkable discrepancies from the sum total in which there is so much agreement have been variously accounted for. ( a) Jewish interpreters have supposed that the sum total comprised members of the ten tribes who have not been enumerated: ( b) 1Es 5:41 adds the words ‘of twelve years old and upward’, and the unlikely suggestion has been made that the numbers of the totals include all over 12 years of age, although the numbers of the items included all over 20 years of age. ( c) The disagreement is considered to be due to the corruptions in the text arising from copyists’ errors in transcription of numbers and signs for numbers.
Of these explanations the last seems the most probable. But it is undoubtedly strange that the three disagreeing sum totals should come within 2000 of one another and yet should fall so far short of the total figure which each text has preserved.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The sum total is given without any variation by Ezra, by Nehemiah (see the marginal reference), and by Esdras (1 Esdras 5:41), who adds, that in this reckoning only those of twelve years of age and upward were counted.
It is curious that the total 42,360, is so greatly in excess of the items. Ezras items make the number 29,818; Nehemiahs 31,089, Esdras, 33,950. The original document was probably illegible in places, and the writers were forced to make omissions.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
The particular sums here recited come only 29,818; unto whom are added in this total sum, 12,542; which either were of the other tribes beside Judah and Benjamin, or were such as were supposed by themselves and others to be Israelites, but could not prove their pedigree by their genealogies, and therefore could not be so punctually and particularly described as the former.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
64. The whole congregation togetherwas forty and two thousand three hundred and threescoreThisgross amount is twelve thousand more than the particular numbersgiven in the catalogue, when added together, come to. Reckoning upthe smaller numbers, we shall find that they amount to 29,818 in thischapter, and to 31,089 in the parallel chapter of Nehemiah [see Ne7:66-69]. Ezra also mentions four hundred ninety-four personsomitted by Nehemiah, and Nehemiah mentions 1765 not noticed by Ezra.If, therefore, Ezra’s surplus be added to the sum in Nehemiah, andNehemiah’s surplus to the number in Ezra, they will both become31,583. Subtracting this from 42,360, there will be a deficiency of10,777. These are omitted because they did not belong to Judah andBenjamin, or to the priests, but to the other tribes. The servantsand singers, male and female, are reckoned separately (Ezr2:65), so that putting all these items together, the number ofall who went with Zerubbabel amounted to fifty thousand, with eightthousand beasts of burden [ALTING,quoted in DAVIDSON’SHermeneutics].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred [and] threescore. But the sums before given make no more, with Zerubbabel, and the ten principal men, than 29,829, so that there are more than 12,000 wanting; wherefore, in answer to the question, where are the 12,000? the Jews say in their chronology a these are they of the other tribes, who set up the altar on its bases, and gave money to the masons, c. Ezr 3:1, this was a much larger number than were carried captive see 2Ki 24:14, but not to be compared with the number that came out of Egypt, Ex 12:37. An Arabic writer b makes them 50,000, but wrongly.
a Seder Olam Rabba, c. 29. p. 86. b Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. 5. p. 82.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The whole number of those who returned, their servants, maids, and beasts of burden. Comp. Neh 7:66-69. – The sum-total of the congregation ( , as one, i.e., reckoned together; comp. Ezr 3:9; Ezr 6:20) is the same in both texts, as also in 1 Esdras, viz., 42,360; the sums of the separate statements being in all three different, and indeed amounting in each to less than the given total. The separate statements are as follow: –
According to Ezra According to Nehemiah According to 1 Esdras Men of Israel 24,144 25,406 26,390 Priests 4,289 4,289 2,388 Levites 341 360 341 Nethinim and servants of Solomon 392 392 372 Those who could not prove their Israelitish origin 652 642 652 Total 29,818 31,089 30,143
These differences are undoubtedly owing to mere clerical errors, and attempts to reconcile them in other ways cannot be justified. Many older expositors, both Jewish and Christian (Seder olam, Raschi, Ussher, J. H. Mich., and others), were of opinion that only Jews and Benjamites are enumerated in the separate statements, while the sum-total includes also those Israelites of the ten tribes who returned with them. In opposing this notion, it cannot, indeed, be alleged that no regard at all is had to members of the other tribes (Bertheau); for the several families of the men of Israel are not designated according to their tribes, but merely as those whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken away to Babylon; and among these would certainly be included, as Ussher expressly affirms, many belonging to the other tribes who had settled in the kingdom of Judah. But the very circumstances, that neither in the separate statements nor in the sum-total is any allusion made to tribal relations, and that even in the case of those families who could not prove their Israelitish origin the only question was as to whether they were of the houses and of the seed of Israel, exclude all distinction of tribes, and the sum-total is evidently intended to be the joint sum of the separate numbers. Nor can it be inferred, as J. D. Mich. conjectures, that because the parallel verse to Ezr 2:64 of our present chapter, viz., 1 Esdr. 5:41, reads thus, “and all of Israel from twelve years old and upwards, besides the servants and maids, were 42,360,” the separate statements are therefore the numbers only of those of twenty years old and upwards, while the sum-total includes those also from twelve to twenty years of age. The addition ”from twelve years and upwards” is devoid of critical value; because, if it had been genuine, the particular “from twenty years old and upwards” must have been added to the separate statements. Hence it is not even probable that the author of the 1st book of Esdras contemplated a reconciliation of the difference by this addition. In transcribing such a multitude of names and figures, errors could scarcely be avoided, whether through false readings of numbers or the omission of single items. The sum-total being alike in all three texts, we are obliged to assume its correctness.
Ezr 2:65 “Besides these, their servants and their maids, 7337.” is, by the accent, connected with the preceding words. The further statement, “And there were to them (i.e., they had) 200 singing men and singing women,” is striking. The remark of Bertheau, that by the property of the community is intended to be expressed, is incorrect; denotes merely computation among, and does not necessarily imply proprietorship. J. D. Mich., adopting the latter meaning, thought that oxen and cows originally stood in the text, and were changed by transcribers into singing men and singing women, “for both words closely resemble each other in appearance in the Hebrew.” Berth., on the contrary, remarks that , oxen, might easily be exchanged for or , but that has no feminine form for the plural, and that , cows, is very different from ; that hence we are obliged to admit that in the original text stood alone, and that after this word had been exchanged for , was added as its appropriate complement. Such fanciful notions can need no serious refutation. Had animals been spoken of as property, would not have been used, but a suffix, as in the enumeration of the animals in Ezr 2:66. Besides, oxen and cows are not beasts of burden used in journeys, like the horses, mules, camels, and asses enumerated in Ezr 2:66, and hence are here out of place. are singing men and singing women, in 1 Esdras , who, as the Rabbis already supposed, were found among the followers of the returning Jews, ut laetior esset Israelitarum reditus . The Israelites had from of old employed singing men and singing women not merely for the purpose of enhancing the cheerfulness of festivities, but also for the singing of lamentations on sorrowful occasions; comp. Ecc 2:8; 2Ch 35:25: these, because they sang and played for hire, are named along with the servants and maids, and distinguished from the Levitical singers and players. In stead of 200, we find both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras the number 245, which probably crept into the text from the transcriber fixing his eye upon the 245 of the following verse.
Ezr 2:66-67 The numbers of the beasts, whether for riding or baggage: horses, 736; mules, 245; camels, 435; and asses, 6720. The numbers are identical in Neh 7:68. In 1 Esdr. 5:42 the camels are the first named, and the numbers are partially different, viz., horses, 7036, and asses, 5525.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, 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. 66 Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; 67 Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. 68 And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: 69 They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. 70 So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
Here is, I. The sum total of the company that returned out of Babylon. The particular sums before mentioned amount not quite to 30,000 (29,818), so that there were above 12,000 that come out into any of those accounts, who, it is probable, were of the rest of the tribes of Israel, besides Judah and Benjamin, that could not tell of what particular family or city they were, but that they were Israelites, and of what tribe. Now, 1. This was more than double the number that were carried captive into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, so that, as in Egypt, the time of their affliction was the time of their increase. 2. These were but few to begin a nation with, and yet, by virtue of the old promise made to their fathers, they multiplied so as before their last destruction by the Romans, about 500 years after, to be a very numerous people. When God says, “Increase and multiply,” a little one shall become a thousand.
II. Their retinue. They were themselves little better than servants, and therefore no wonder that their servants were comparatively but few (v. 65) and their beasts of burden about as many, Ezr 2:66; Ezr 2:67. It was not with them now as in days past. But notice is taken of 200 singing-men and women whom they had among them, who, we will suppose, were intended (as those 2 Chron. xxxv. 25) to excite their mourning, for it was foretold that they should, upon this occasion, go weeping (Jer. l. 4), with ditties of lamentation.
III. Their oblations. It is said (Ezr 2:68; Ezr 2:69), 1. That they came to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem; and yet that house, that holy and beautiful house, was now in ruins, a heap of rubbish. But, like their father Abraham, when the altar was gone they came with devotion to the place of the altar (Gen. xiii. 4); and it is the character of the genuine sons of Zion that they favour even the dust thereof, Ps. cii. 14. 2. That they offered freely towards the setting of it up in its place. That, it seems, was the first house they talked of setting up; and though they came off a journey, and were beginning the world (two chargeable things), yet they offered, and offered freely, towards the building of the temple. Let none complain of the necessary expenses of their religion, but believe that when they come to balance the account they will find that it clears the cost. Their offering was nothing in comparison with the offerings of the princes in David’s time; then they offered by talents (1 Chron. xxix. 7), now by drams, yet these drams, being after their ability, were as acceptable to God as those talents, like the widow’s two mites. The 61,000 drams of gold amount, by Cumberland’s calculation, to so many pounds of our money and so many groats. Every maneh, or pound of silver, he reckons to be sixty shekels (that is, thirty ounces), which we may reckon 7l. 10s. of our money, so that this 5000 pounds of silver will be above 37,000l. of our money. It seems, God had blessed them with an increase of their wealth, as well as of their numbers, in Babylon; and, as God had prospered them, they gave cheerfully to the service of his house. 3. That they dwelt in their cities, v. 70. Though their cities were out of repair, yet, because they were their cities, such as God had assigned them, they were content to dwell in them, and were thankful for liberty and property, though they had little of pomp, plenty, or power. Their poverty was a bad cause, but their unity and unanimity were a good effect of it. Here was room enough for them all and all their substance, so that there was no strife among them, but perfect harmony, a blessed presage of their settlement, as their discords in the latter times of that state were of their ruin.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Numbers and Gifts, Verses 64-70
Those returning to Judah had seven thousand three hundred thirty-seven servants and maids. Added to their total of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty makes a grand total of forty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-seven. This was a very small number as compared with the many who had been carried out of Judah and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but was in keeping with the predictions of the prophets that only a very small remnant would return. This is somewhat surprising otherwise, for the Jews grieved and mourned when they were taken away, living always in hope of returning. However, when the opportunity came to return the vast majority were unwilling, for they had become quite prosperous in their land of exile. To return to their homl:land would entail great hardships in travel and in settlement.
There are mentioned two hundred singing men and women among the servants and maids who were with them. The animals to carry the people and their burdens consisted of horses, mules, camels, and donkeys. There was a total of eight thousand one hundred thirty-six animals, of which over six thousand were donkeys. This must have been a noisy caravan, to say nothing of the vast amount of fodder and grain these would consume on such a journey.
When they had reached Jerusalem they gave of their substance
for the building of the house of God, according to their ability. The gold amounted to a present-day value of about $16,470,000; the silver to about $1,820,000. When the formalities of their arrival were finished the people settled into their cities and towns.
Lessons to be noted are: 1) The Lord preserved the Jews by their distinctive families in the captivity; 2) the Lord always has those of His special ministers to lead in His worship; 3) one must possess the right qualifications to be a part of God’s people (Mat 7:21-23); 4) those willing to suffer hardship in the Lord’s cause are a small minority.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. Ezr. 2:64-65 give the totals of the returnees.
TEXT, Ezr. 2:64-65
64
The whole assembly numbered 42,360,
65
besides their male and female servants, who numbered 7,337; and they had 200 singing men and women.
COMMENT
This grand total of 49,897 may be contrasted with the 601,730 plus the 23,000 Levites (Num. 26:51; Num. 26:62) who paused on the edge of the Promised Land under Moses and Joshua, and with the 1,570,000 plus the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in Davids time (1Ch. 21:5). It was indeed only a remnant, a few survivors, that returned: as Isaiah had prophesied (Isa. 1:9; Isa. 10:20 f).
In Ezr. 2:65, the singers are other than those for the Temple, in Ezr. 2:41.
The actual lists given previously add up to only 29,818; this is a reminder that the lists are only partial.
WORD STUDIES
ZERUBBABEL: a seed of Babylon: a reminder that God preserved a seed of His people through the Babylonian Captivity, from which His nation would once again spring to life,
TEMPLE SERVANTS (Ezr. 2:43): literally, the Nethinim: those given. The word is a plural form; it comes from the word Nathan. These were the persons given to the priests to assist with the menial tasks of preparing for sacrifice and worship.
JESHUA, or its variant, JOSHUA: Jehovah is Salvation, or Salvation from Jehovah. This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name, Jesus.
MINA: the basic meaning is to divide out, or measure out, or number. Money originally had to be measured, or weighed, at each transaction. This is the word Mene in the handwriting on the wall, in Dan. 5:25 f. Note that the consonants are the same as those in our word money, and in reverse order, the first two consonants in number. Can you find the two letters hidden in the denomination of a bill? In numismatics? Now you are looking at the building blocks of language!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(64) This sum total is the same in Nehemiah; but the several sums in Ezra make 29,818, and in Nehemiah 31,089. The apocryphal Esdras agrees in the total, but makes in the particulars 33,950, adding that children below twelve were not reckoned. Many expedients of reconciliation have been adopted; but it is better to suppose that errors had crept into the original documents.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The Sum Total Of The Arrivees ( Ezr 2:64 ).
Ezr 2:64
‘The whole assembly together was forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty,’
The sum total of the arrivees who represented Israel comes to 42,360. The male arrivees enumerated above come to 29,818, plus whatever number the defrocked priests came to. That leaves just over 12,000 to be accounted for. But in view of the fact that in the next verse female slaves and female singing women are counted, and in the following verses domestic animals are numbered, it would be quite remarkable if the female members of Israel were ignored. Indeed it would have been a direct insult. Thus we may see them as represented in the remaining 12,000. If it then be argued that 12,000 females hardly suffices when there are 30,000 males we can reply, firstly that many of the males might well have left their families behind, intending to bring them to Judea once they had satisfactorily settled and were confident that they would be able to feed them, and secondly that many of the males who made the decision to come might well have been unmarried. It was the unmarried ones who would be more prepared to take the risks involved in returning. Indeed this lack of females might well have been part of the cause of a number of them marrying foreign wives. But, of course, there would be Israelite women who had remained in the land who would also be available.
Both this list in Ezra and the list in Nehemiah, in spite of its changes, give the same total. But that is probably because the number of arrivees in the initial immigration having been fixed, that was the number that was retained, having become sacrosanct. It is probable that in the second list the women were not specifically counted, but simply allowed to make up the number.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 64. The whole congregationwas forty-and-two thousand three hundred and threescore Dr. Lightfoot observes on this passage, “Here is a summa totalis [a sum total] of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, who returned out of captivity upon the proclamation of Cyrus; and there are here the numbers of several families reckoned, as making up that sum; whereas, if the total of these particulars be summed up, it reacheth not by sixteen thousand, or thereabouts, to that number of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Where, then, must we find those sixteen thousand, since they arise not in the number of the families here named? The families, here named are of Judah and Benjamin; and then certainly those sixteen thousand can hardly be imagined any other than of the ten tribes. It is apparent, that the returns of Judah and Benjamin planted Judaea: whom then can we imagine, but some of the ten tribes, to have planted Galilee, as that country was inhabited by a good part of the ten tribes before the captivity? It is very probable, that most of the twelve apostles, and many of the rest of the disciples who were of Christ’s constant retinue, were of the progeny of some of the ten tribes.” This will account for the difference between the general and particular sums in Ezra, and why the particulars in Ezra differ from those in Nehemiah 7. Dr. Lightfoot also observes, that Nehemiah found the list and catalogue of those who came up in the first year of Cyrus as it was then taken, and that he called over the names of the families as they lay in order there: that he observed the order of the old list, in calling them over, and listing them; but took the real number of them as they were, when he numbered them: that some families were now more in number than they were when the first list was made, and some fewer; and some that were in that list were not to be found now; for some had more of the same stock come up from Babylon since the first numbering; and others who had come up at first, and were then numbered, were now gone back again. See Lightfoot’s Chronol. p. 146.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
If the Reader will compare accounts in this of the return with that of their carrying away, he will find that they had multiplied as they had done in Egypt under all their affliction. Precious thought! the church may be, must be, oppressed, assaulted, persecuted; but it is Jesus’s church, and she shall increase. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation. Isa 60:22 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 2:64 The whole congregation together [was] forty and two thousand three hundred [and] threescore,
Ver. 64. Forty and two thousand ] Ten or twelve thousand whereof seem to be of the ten tribes that were first carried captive, and, together with Judah and Benjamin, made up that D St Paul speaketh of, Act 26:7 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 2:64-67
64The whole assembly numbered 42,360, 65besides their male and female servants who numbered 7,337; and they had 200 singing men and women. 66Their horses were 736; their mules, 245; 67their camels, 435; their donkeys, 6,720.
Ezr 2:64 the whole assembly numbered 42,360 This total is the same in Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7, and the apocryphal book of I Esdras.. However, when you add the number of individuals in the different lists, they are different: Ezra, 29,818; Nehemiah, 31,089 and I Esdras, 33,950.
Ezr 2:65 200 singing men and women This refers to secular musical entertainment (cf. 2Sa 19:35; Ecc 2:8; Eze 26:13).
Ezr 2:66-67 This list of domestic animals may relate to Ezr 1:6 (cf. Ezr 2:68-69).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
congregation = assembly, or muster.
forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. This number (42,360) agrees with Neh 7:66. The two lists of names are not alike; but there is no “discrepancy”. The two lists, while they agree in the numbers, and vary in names, yet have the totals identical. This shows the independence of the two accounts.
Numbered in Ezra 2 42,360
Named in Ezra 29,818
Named in Neh, not in Ezra 1,765 31,583
——————–
Difference between names and numbers 10,777
Numbered in Neh. 7 42,360
Named in Nehemiah 31,089
Named in Neh, not in Ezra 494 31,583
——————–
Difference between names and numbers 10,777
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Ezr 2:64-67
Ezr 2:64-67
A SUMMARY OF ALL THOSE WHO RETURNED
“The whole assembly together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, besides their men-servants and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred singing men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules two hundred forty and five; their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.”
“The numbers given earlier in the chapter add up to twelve thousand less than the total of 42,380 given in this verse. Reckoning up the smaller numbers we have 29,818 as given here and 31,089 as given in the parallel in Nehemiah. Ezra mentions 491 not mentioned by Nehemiah; and Nehemiah mentions 1765 not given in Ezra. If we add Ezra’s 491 to Nehemiah’s total and Nehemiah’s 1765 to Ezra’s total, they both equal 31,583, which is a deficiency of exactly 10,777.”
They may have been left out, either because they were not members of Abraham’s posterity, and from the Jewish viewpoint therefore did not count. There is also the possibility that these were women, the wives of the returnees.
“Two hundred singing men and singing women” (Ezr 2:65). “These were not singers appointed for use in the worship but musicians retained by the wealthy for their entertainment.”[21] Significantly, they were not listed as part of the assembly but along with other properties, the horses, mules and camels. Whitcomb thought that these singers were, “Hired by the Israelites for festivities and lamentations.” However, Hamrick, and others, insist that, “They were slaves maintained for the entertainment of the rich.”
“This catalogue of the property that Israel brought back to Palestine indicates the general poverty and low estate of the returnees. They had but one slave and one ass for every six of their number, one horse to every sixty, one camel to every hundred, and one mule to every one hundred and seventy and five.”
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 2:64. It must be understood that the number of the whole congregation means the leaders or heads, similar to the numbering in Num 1:46; Num 26:51. What I mean is, the comparison between these various numbers will give a fair estimate of the size of the congregation at the different times referred to. By such a comparison it is evident that the population was considerably reduced in course of the captivity. The ravages that were made into the personnel as well as the population in general accounts for this cutting down of the list. This was to be regretted, but at the same time the fact fulfilled several predictions or the subject. More than once the Lord had predicted that his people would be exposed to the hardships of captivity, which would destroy their sons and daughters, as well as their old men and women. But in connection with such warning and predictions, he also gave them the assurance that a remnant would be salvaged out of the wreck of the years. On this subject, which is a mixture of joy and sadness, see 2Ki 19:30-31; Isa 1:9; Isa 10:20-21; Jer 23:3; Eze 6:8; Mic 2:12. This prediction is written in many other places which will be noted in the studies of the prophetic books, to be considered in a later volume of this Commentary.
Ezr 2:65-67. The whole congregation mentioned in the preceding verse was independent of these secondary persons. But the large number of such, as well as the goodly number of animals, all shows the prosperous state of the Israelites in spite of their long exile in a heathen land. Another point is in evidence, and that is the kindness of the nation that had the jurisdiction over them. Instead of cutting them down to a mere token, and driving them out with a be-gone-and-the-soonerthe-better attitude. Cyrus sent them out with his blessing, and with financial aid.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
forty: Though the sum total, both here and in Nehemiah, is equal, namely, 42,360, yet the particulars reckoned up only make 29,818 in Ezra, and 31,089 in Nehemiah; and we find that Nehemiah mentions 1,765 persons who are not in Ezra, and Ezra has 494 not mentioned in Nehemiah. This last circumstance, which seems to render all hope of reconciling them impossible, Mr. Alting thinks is the very point by which they can be reconciled; for, if we add Ezra’s surplus to the sum in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah’s surplus to the number in Ezra, they will both amount to 31,583; which subtracted from 42,360, leaves a deficiency of 10,777, which are not named because they did not belong to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, or to the priests, but to the other Israelitish tribes. Ezr 9:8, Neh 7:66-69, Isa 10:20-22, Jer 23:3
Reciprocal: Psa 147:2 – he
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 2:64. Forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore This is more than double the number which were carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar. But here occurs a small difficulty; (like that in the end of the foregoing chapter;) for if we put together the several sums before mentioned, they amount to no more than twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen; so there wants about twelve thousand to make up this number of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Therefore, either these were of the rest of the tribes of Israel, who came up with those of Judah and Benjamin: or, they might be Levites or other Israelites, who could not make out their descent: or else, which is most probable, some mistake in the numbers has been made by transcribers, which might easily happen, even though in general very great care was taken.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The totals 2:64-67
There is a discrepancy between the total number of exiles the writer gave here (49,897) and the sum of the various groups he just mentioned (29,818). Perhaps the women and children made up the difference, though if this was the case there were many more men than women and children. This may have been the case in view of the rigors that the people would have had to experience moving from Babylon to Jerusalem.
"More likely is the suggestion that since this is a composite list, some families simply were omitted; but the overall total remains correct." [Note: Breneman, p. 85.]
Another explanation follows.
"There is general agreement that the divergences are copying errors, arising from the special difficulty of understanding or reproducing numerical lists." [Note: Kidner, p. 43.]
Some of the Jews took their servants back to Judah with them (Ezr 2:65). The ratio was about one servant to every six Jews, which confirms the wealth of the Jews then (cf. Ezr 2:69). Twenty years later most of them were poor (cf. Hag 1:6; Hag 1:9; Hag 2:17). These singers (Ezr 2:65) may have been entertainers, since they are distinct from the temple singers (Ezr 2:41). If they were, their presence would illustrate further the returning exiles’ prosperity.
"The [one-humped Arabian] camel [Ezr 2:67] can carry its rider and about four hundred pounds and can travel three or four days without drinking." [Note: Yamauchi, "Ezra-Nehemiah," p. 619.]