Ezra · Chapter 2

V. 1. The province-Of Judah, called a province, Ezra 5:8. And he calls it thus emphatically to mind himself and his brethren of that sad change which their sins had made among them, that from an illustrious, independent, and formidable kingdom, were fallen to be an obscure, servile, and contemptible province, first under the Chaldeans, and now under the Persians.

Verse 1. These are the children of the province] That is, of Judea; once a kingdom, and a flourishing nation; now a province, subdued, tributary, and ruined! Behold the goodness and severity of God! Some think Babylon is meant by the province; and that the children of the province means those Jews who were born in Babylon. But the first is most likely to be the meaning, for thus we find Judea styled, Ezra 5:8. Besides, the province is contradistinguished from Babylon even in this first verse, The children of the province-that had been carried away unto Babylon.

Verse 1. The children of the province — That is, of Babylon, for they are here spoken of whom Nebuchadnezzar had brought captive to Babylon, and not those of the ten tribes, who had been dispersed before, by the kings of Assyria, into various provinces; and who afterward returned to Jerusalem in separate companies. Zerubbabel was in the province of Babylon, and to him those captives joined themselves who lived nearest in the same province. This is the reason why those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned first, though a liberty of returning was granted to all the tribes. Another reason is, because the rebuilding of the temple principally concerned them, as Jerusalem was within their dominion. — Houbigant. That went out of captivity — By the words captivity and captives, when applied to the Jews being carried to Babylon, we are not to understand that they were made slaves to private persons, and bought and sold from one to another, as captives generally were: for they seem to have been transported to Babylon as a colony, to serve the king only. And we do not find that they ever became the property of private persons in Babylon, but lived there free; only subject, as is probable, to some services for the king. Otherwise Cyrus must have redeemed them from the masters, whose property they were, or at least have made a proclamation that every one should let them go free; of neither of which is any mention made. And besides this, when liberty was given to all, of returning to their own land, we find that but few, comparatively speaking, accepted of it, which would scarce have been the case had they been slaves to private persons. Every one unto his city — Either those cities and towns which had belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished, or possessed by other persons, whom they were not now in a capacity to disturb.

Verse 1. The children of the province. Judea under Zedekiah was reduced to a province of the Babylonian empire; or the phrase may import, the children of Israel who resided in the province of Babylonia.

LIST OF THE EXILES WHO RETURNED WITH ZERUBBABEL, 1-70.

Of this catalogue we have a duplicate in Nehemiah 7:6-73, and both lists were probably taken from the same source — a register of those families and classes who first returned from exile, made at the time of their return, and long preserved as a most interesting document. To any Jew, whose ancestors were among the families named in this catalogue, the document would be of incalculable value. “Their land and their cities,” says Patrick, “had been laid so desolate, and had been so long neglected, and were infested also by such bad neighbours, that it was a great piece of generosity in these men to return thither; and their names are recorded, to the eternal honour of them and of their posterity, they being the first planters of this country after it had been laid waste.”

1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezra 3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (verse 59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.

V. 2. Who came, &c.-This catalogue, differs in some names and numbers from that Nehemiah 7:6-64, which might be because several names were given to the same persons; and because of the many changes which might happen in the same families between the time of the first making of this catalogue by Ezra, and the making it anew so many years after.

Verse 2. Which came with Zerubbabel] There are many difficulties in this table of names; but as we have no less than three copies of it, that contained here from Ezra 2:1-67, a second in Nehemiah 7:6-69, and a third in 1Esdras 5:7-43, on a careful examination they will be found to correct each other. The versions also, and the Variæ Lectiones of Kennicott and Deuteronomy Rossi, do much toward harmonizing the names.

Though the sum total at the end of each of these enumerations is equal, namely 42,360, yet the particulars reckoned up make in Ezra only 29,818, and in Nehemiah 31,089. We find that Nehemiah mentions 1765 persons which are not in Ezra, and Ezra has 494 not mentioned by Nehemiah. Mr. Alting thinks that this circumstance, which appears to render all hope of reconciling them impossible, is precisely the very point by which they can be reconciled; for if we add Ezra’s surplus to the sum in Nehemiah, and the surplus of Nehemiah to the number in Ezra, the numbers will be equal. Thus:-The number in Ezra 29,818

Surplus in Nehemiah 1,765

———

Sum total 31,583

The number in Nehemiah 31,089

The surplus in Ezra 494

———

Sum total 31,583

If we subtract this sum 31,583 from 42,360, we shall have a deficiency of 10,777 from the numbers as summed up in the text; and these are not named here, either because their registers were not found, or they were not of Judah and Benjamin, the tribes particularly concerned, but of the other Israelitish tribes; see Ezra 2:36.

Verse 2. Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, &c. — These were their heads, who undertook to conduct them: among whom Zerubbabel was their prince or leader, as Jeshua was high-priest, who is mentioned next to him. Nehemiah, whose name follows, is not the person whose book comes after this: for he did not go to Judea now, but afterward; or, if he did, he returned to Babylon again. The number of the men of the people — This is a kind of title to the following verses. This catalogue differs in some names and numbers from that Nehemiah 7., which might be, because several names were given to the same persons; and because of the many changes which might happen in the same families between the time of the first making of this catalogue by Ezra, and the making it anew so many years after.

Ver. 2. Came with Zerubbabel. These, eleven in number, were nobles and governors. Among them was Jeshua, the highpriest, called Joshua, who ranked next to the governor. Zechariah 3:1. Nehemiah was then young, and returned to Babylon again to encourage more of the Jews to leave that country.

2. Zerubbabel: Jeshua — These were the two chief fathers and guides of the people who returned. Both seem to have been born in Babylon, and the name Zerubbabel has this signification, from [wrz, Zerua, sown, that is, begotten, and lbb, Babel, Babylon. Zerubbabel is called by our author the son of Shealtiel, (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2;) so also in Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2; Matthew 1:12; and Luke 3:27; but according to 1 Chronicles 3:19 he was the son of Pedaiah and nephew of Shealtiel, or Salathiel. How to explain this difference is doubtful. There seems to be no corruption or confusion in the text of Chronicles. Perhaps Shealtiel died childless, and Pedaiah married his widow, and, according to levirate custom, his children were reckoned to his brother. Genesis 38:8: Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. At any rate he succeeded Shealtiel in the genealogy as the head of the house of David during the exile, and he was popularly called the son of Shealtiel, and no one disputed his title or authority. Jeshua was the son of Jozadak, the high priest, (Ezra 3:2; Haggai 1:1;) who was carried off among the exiles. 1 Chronicles 6:15. He is associated with Zerubbabel, as if they were the leading spirits and main promoters of the rebuilding of the temple. Ezra 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2. In two of the symbolical prophecies of Zechariah, (Ezra 3:1-10; 7:11-15,) Jeshua stands as head and representative of the Jewish people. The regal and priestly offices, as represented by these two men, are called in Zechariah 4:14 “the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Though Zerubbabel was a descendant of David, and Jeshua of Aaron, neither the monarchy nor the priesthood was fully restored after the exile. From that time the heart of all Israel began to yearn after Messiah, who should satisfy the noblest ideal of both king and priest. Nehemiah — Not the distinguished individual whose history is given in the Book of Nehemiah. Nearly all the individuals whose names occur in this list are otherwise unknown.

This verse contains the names of the chief leaders and elders of the returning exiles. The differences of form between some of the names in this list and that of Nehemiah vii are shown in the margin. Nehemiah’s list contains one name not found in this, namely, Nahamani. Nehemiah 7:7. This, with the rest, makes twelve persons who appear as the heads of the new community, and in this number there was, perhaps, a reference to the twelve tribes. The returned exiles thus cultivated the feeling that they somehow represented all the people of Israel, the “remnant” of all the ancient tribes. Comp. Ezra 6:17.

The rest of the list proper, which embraces verses 8-63, may be divided into five parts: 1) The men of the people of Israel, 3-35; 2) The priests, 36-39; 3) The Levites, 40-42; 4) The Nethinim and the children of Solomon’s servants, 43-58; 5) Persons unable to show lawful genealogy, 59-63. The following table will show at a glance the differences, especially of numbers, between Ezra and Nehemiah: —

Ezra. Nehemiah

Children of Parosh 2,172 2,172

“ Shephatiah 372 372

“ Arah 775 652

“ Pahath-moab of the children

of Jeshua and Joab

2,812 2,818

“ Elam 1,254 1,254

“ Zattu 945 845

“ Zaccai 760 760

“ Bani, (Nehemiah, Binnui) 642 648

“ Bebai 623 628

“ Azgad 1,222 2,322

“ Adonikam 666 667

“ Bigvai 2,056 2,067

“ Adin 454 655

“ Ater of Hezekiah 98 98

“ Bezai 323 324

“ Jorah (Nehemiah, Hariph) 112 112

“ Hashum 223 328

“ Gibbar (Nehemiah, Gibeon) 95 95

“ Beth-lehem 123

(Nehemiah men of

Beth-lehem and Netophah)

188

Men of Netophah 56

“ Anathoth 128 128

Children of Azmaveth,

(Nehemiah, Beth-Azmaveth)

42 42

“ Kirjath-arim, Chephirah and

Beeroth

743 743

“ Ramah and Gaba 621 621

Men of Michmas 122 122

“ Beth-el and Ai 223 123

Children of Nebo, (Nehemiah,

men of the other Nebo.)

52 52

“ Magbish, (Nehemiah, no

corresponding name)

156

“ the other Elam 1,254 1,254

“ Harim 320 320

“ Lod, Hadid, and Ono 725 721

“ Jericho 345 345

“ Senaah 3,630 3,930

“ Jedaiah, of the house of

Jeshua

973 973

“ Immer 1,052 1,052

“ Pashur 1,247 1,247

“ Harim 1,017 1,017

“ Jeshua and Kadmiel of…

Hodaviah, (Nehemiah,

Hodevah.)

74 74

“ Asaph (singers) 128 148

“ the porters 139 138

Nethinims and children of

Solomon’s servants

392 392

Children of unregistered

ancestors

652 642

Sum of the numbers in each

list

2,9818 3,1089

Whole congregation 42,360 42,360

Man servants and maid

servants

V. 3. The children-The posterity, as that word is constantly taken in this catalogue. Of Parosh-That descend either from Parosh, or from that family whereof Parosh was the chief. And so for the rest.

Verse 3. The children of Parosh] Where the word children is found in this table, prefixed to the name of a man, it signifies the descendants of that person, as from Ezra 2:3-21. Where it is found prefixed to a place, town, &c., it signifies the inhabitants of that place, as from Ezra 2:21-35.

Verse 3. The children — The posterity, as that word is generally taken in this catalogue. Of Parosh — That descended either from Parosh, or from that family whereof Parosh was the chief. And so for the rest.

LIST OF THE EXILES WHO RETURNED WITH ZERUBBABEL, 1-70.

Of this catalogue we have a duplicate in Nehemiah 7:6-73, and both lists were probably taken from the same source — a register of those families and classes who first returned from exile, made at the time of their return, and long preserved as a most interesting document. To any Jew, whose ancestors were among the families named in this catalogue, the document would be of incalculable value. “Their land and their cities,” says Patrick, “had been laid so desolate, and had been so long neglected, and were infested also by such bad neighbours, that it was a great piece of generosity in these men to return thither; and their names are recorded, to the eternal honour of them and of their posterity, they being the first planters of this country after it had been laid waste.”

1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezra 3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (verse 59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.

LIST OF THE EXILES WHO RETURNED WITH ZERUBBABEL, 1-70.

Of this catalogue we have a duplicate in Nehemiah 7:6-73, and both lists were probably taken from the same source — a register of those families and classes who first returned from exile, made at the time of their return, and long preserved as a most interesting document. To any Jew, whose ancestors were among the families named in this catalogue, the document would be of incalculable value. “Their land and their cities,” says Patrick, “had been laid so desolate, and had been so long neglected, and were infested also by such bad neighbours, that it was a great piece of generosity in these men to return thither; and their names are recorded, to the eternal honour of them and of their posterity, they being the first planters of this country after it had been laid waste.”

1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezra 3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (verse 59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.

V. 5. Seven hundred, &c.-In Nehemiah 7:10, they were only six hundred and fifty two, it seems seven hundred and seventy five marched out of Babylon, but some of them died, others were hindered by sickness, or other casualties, and so there came only six hundred and fifty two to Jerusalem. And the like is to be said in the like differences: which it suffices to hint once for all.

Verse 5. Seven hundred, &c. — In Nehemiah 7:10, they were only six hundred and fifty-two; it seems seven hundred and seventy-five marched out of Babylon, but some of them died, others were hindered by sickness or other casualties, and so there came only six hundred and fifty-two to Jerusalem. And the like is to be said in the like differences; which it suffices to hint once for all.

LIST OF THE EXILES WHO RETURNED WITH ZERUBBABEL, 1-70.

Of this catalogue we have a duplicate in Nehemiah 7:6-73, and both lists were probably taken from the same source — a register of those families and classes who first returned from exile, made at the time of their return, and long preserved as a most interesting document. To any Jew, whose ancestors were among the families named in this catalogue, the document would be of incalculable value. “Their land and their cities,” says Patrick, “had been laid so desolate, and had been so long neglected, and were infested also by such bad neighbours, that it was a great piece of generosity in these men to return thither; and their names are recorded, to the eternal honour of them and of their posterity, they being the first planters of this country after it had been laid waste.”

1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezra 3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (verse 59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.

LIST OF THE EXILES WHO RETURNED WITH ZERUBBABEL, 1-70.

Of this catalogue we have a duplicate in Nehemiah 7:6-73, and both lists were probably taken from the same source — a register of those families and classes who first returned from exile, made at the time of their return, and long preserved as a most interesting document. To any Jew, whose ancestors were among the families named in this catalogue, the document would be of incalculable value. “Their land and their cities,” says Patrick, “had been laid so desolate, and had been so long neglected, and were infested also by such bad neighbours, that it was a great piece of generosity in these men to return thither; and their names are recorded, to the eternal honour of them and of their posterity, they being the first planters of this country after it had been laid waste.”

1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezra 3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (verse 59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

Verses 20, 21. The children of Gibbar — Or, as it is in Nehemiah 7:25, of Gibeon, these being the citizens of that city. For this is not the name of a man, but of a place; and the same may be said of several names that follow. The children of Beth-lehem — The remainders of the inhabitants of that city: so little was Beth-lehem among the thousands of Judah! Yet thence must the Messiah arise. Netophah and Anathoth also, in the next two verses, were towns, not men.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

V. 21. Beth-lehem-And so these were the remainders of the inhabitants of that city. (And the like may be said of the two following names, Netophah and Anathoth, or others of the like nature.) So little was Beth-lehem among the thousands of Judah! Yet thence must the Messiah arise.

Verse 21. The children of Beth-lehem] The inhabitants: see before.

Verses 20, 21. The children of Gibbar — Or, as it is in Nehemiah 7:25, of Gibeon, these being the citizens of that city. For this is not the name of a man, but of a place; and the same may be said of several names that follow. The children of Beth-lehem — The remainders of the inhabitants of that city: so little was Beth-lehem among the thousands of Judah! Yet thence must the Messiah arise. Netophah and Anathoth also, in the next two verses, were towns, not men.

Ver. 21. The children of Bethlehem, is supposed to mean the people who were carried away from that town.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

Verse 33. The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono] These were cities in the tribe of Benjamin; see on 1 Chronicles 8:12.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

Verse 36. The priests] The preceding list takes in the census of Judah and Benjamin.

Verse 36. The priests — Having numbered the people that went of Judah and Benjamin, he proceeds now to the tribe of Levi, and first mentions the priests.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

V. 39. Harim-The head of one of the twenty four courses which David appointed, 1 Chronicles 24:8, of all which courses, some observe here are not above four or five that returned. There is another Harim mentioned above, ver. 32, but that was no priest, as this was ver. 36.

Verse 39. The children of Harim — The head of one of the twenty-four courses which David appointed, (1 Chronicles 24:8,) of all which courses, some observe here, are not above four or five that returned. There is another Harim mentioned above, verse 32, but that was no priest as this was, verse 36.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

41. Singers — See notes on 1 Chronicles 15:16-22.

42. Porters — Doorkeepers of the temple. See on 1 Chronicles 9:18.

V. 43. Nethinims-Persons devoted to the inferior services of the priests and Levites. Commonly supposed to be the Gibeonites, given, (so their name signifies) by Joshua first, and again by David, when Saul had expelled them, to the priests and Levites, for those services.

Verse 43. Nethinims — Persons devoted to the inferior services of the priests and Levites. Commonly supposed to be the Gibeonites, given (so their name signifies) by Joshua first, and again by David, when Saul had expelled them, to the priests and Levites, for those services.

Ver. 43. The Nethinims. These were the ancient Gibeonites, devoted to the inferior service of the temple. 1 Chronicles 9:2.

43. The Nethinim — The given ones, that is, given to the Levites as hereditary temple servants, to perform for them the menial work of the sanctuary See on 1 Chronicles 9:2.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

V. 55. Servants-Who had lived in Solomon’s family, and after his death, called themselves and their families by that name, esteeming it a great honour that they had been servants to so great a prince.

Verse 55. The children of Solomon’s servants] The Nethinim, and others appointed to do the meaner services of the holy house.

Verse 55. The children of Solomon’s servants — Who had lived in Solomon’s family, and after his death called themselves and their families by that name, esteeming it a great honour that they had been servants to so great a prince.

Ver. 55. The children of Solomon’s servants. These were either descendants of the artists who came to build the temple, or of captives in war employed as the Nethinims.

55. Children of Solomon’s servants — Descendants of those Canaanitish slaves upon whom “Solomon levied a tribute of bond service unto this day,” (1 Kings 9:20, 21,) and who probably became incorporated in Israel as proselytes. They were so closely associated with the Nethinim in their nationality and their work that they are here reckoned among them, and classed and numbered with them. Compare verse 58 and Nehemiah 11:3.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

Verse 59. Which went up from Tel-melah, &c. — These were names of some cities in the Babylonish empire, from whence many went along with the Jews to Judea. They were of the Jewish religion, and probably were the children of those who had been carried captive before the general captivity; but they had lost their genealogies, and could not show from what families they were derived, and therefore could not obtain any certain possession in Judea, as those did who knew and could show to what family and city they belonged.

59. Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan, Immer — These are the names of cities or districts in Chaldea, but they have not been identified with modern sites. Some take the last three to be names of persons.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

Verses 61, 62. And was called after their name — Namely, Barzillai; a name which he preferred before that of his own family, accounting it, as appears, a greater honour to be allied to so noble a family than to be a priest of the Lord. But by this vain ambition he deprived himself of the honour and advantage of the priesthood, as is here noted. They sought their register — The Jews were generally very exact in their genealogies, from their own choice and interest, that they might preserve the distinctions of the several tribes and families, which was necessary both to make out their titles to offices or inheritances, and to govern themselves thereby in the matter of marriages, and from the special providence of God, that so it might be certainly known of what tribe and family the Messiah was born.

61. The children of Barzillai — So called, as is immediately explained, because their ancestor, a priest, had married a daughter of the distinguished Gileadite, who showed great kindness to David. 2 Samuel 17:27; 19:32-39; 1 Kings 2:7. Their name — The name of the daughters. Hence the confusion in their genealogy.

V. 62. Genealogy-The Jews were generally very exact in their genealogies from their own choice and interest, that they might preserve the distinctions of the several tribes and families, which was necessary both to make out their titles to offices or inheritances, and to govern themselves thereby in the matter of marriages, and from the special providence of God, that so it might be certainly known of what tribe and family the Messiah was born.

Verses 61, 62. And was called after their name — Namely, Barzillai; a name which he preferred before that of his own family, accounting it, as appears, a greater honour to be allied to so noble a family than to be a priest of the Lord. But by this vain ambition he deprived himself of the honour and advantage of the priesthood, as is here noted. They sought their register — The Jews were generally very exact in their genealogies, from their own choice and interest, that they might preserve the distinctions of the several tribes and families, which was necessary both to make out their titles to offices or inheritances, and to govern themselves thereby in the matter of marriages, and from the special providence of God, that so it might be certainly known of what tribe and family the Messiah was born.

62. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy — Literally, these sought their register — the enrolled. According to Bertheau, the enrolled was the title of their register. The English version, however, gives the sense with sufficient clearness. As polluted, put from the priesthood — For, according to the law, no stranger might approach the altar to minister. Numbers 3:10; 16:40. All priests must be sons of Aaron.

V. 63. Tirshatha-The governor, Zerubbabel. With Urim, &c.-That this point which could not be found out by human skill, might be determined by Divine direction. Hereby it appears that the Urim and Thummim were lost in the destruction of the city and temple, tho’ the Jews fed themselves with hopes of recovering them, but in vain. And by the want of that oracle, they were taught to expect the great oracle, the Messiah.

Verse 63. The Tirshatha] This is generally supposed to be Nehemiah, or the person who was the commandant; see Nehemiah 8:9; 10:1, for the word appears to be the name of an office. The Vulgate and Septuagint write it Atershatha, the Syriac and Arabic render it the princes of Judah. Some suppose the word to be Persian, but nothing like it of the same import occurs in that language at present. If, as Castel supposed, it signifies austerity, or that fear which is unpressed by the authority of a governor, it may come from [Persian] ters, FEAR, or [Persian] tersh, ACID, the former from [Persian] tarsidan, to FEAR or DREAD.

Should not eat of the most holy things] There was a high priest then, but no Urim and Thummim, these having been lost in the captivity.

Verse 63. The Tirshatha — The governor or king’s commissioner, namely, Zerubbabel: whence Nehemiah is so called, Nehemiah 8:9, and 10:2. That they should not eat of the most holy things — That they should not partake of the sacrifices offered for sin, nor of the right shoulder of peace-offerings, nor of the show-bread; which were all most holy, and the portion of the priests alone. Till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim — Till the Lord himself should show, by an answer given to some high-priest, inquiring of him by Urim and Thummim, as had been anciently done, whether they were of the line of Aaron or not. But as God had ceased to give an answer this way long before this time, therefore, it was as much as to say, that as their names were not found in the authentic genealogical registers of the priests, they should for ever be excluded, till some divine oracle pronounced them to have a right to the priesthood. Hereby it appears, that the Urim and Thummim were lost in the destruction of the city and temple, though the Jews fed themselves with hopes of recovering them, but in vain. And by the want of that oracle, they were taught to expect the great oracle, the Messiah.

Ver. 63. Tirshatha, that is, Nehemiah the governor, as the Chaldaic reads. The Hebrew and the Gothic being sister tongues, ter designates the superlative degree, as tircadig, most blessed. Saxon Gram. So in our compound names, Tyrconnel, the most knowing or enlightened; tyrant, ruling above law. This title is given also to Zerubbabel.—Till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. The question he accounted too sacred for civil courts to determine. The present high-priest seemed not eligible to consult the oracle, for the two stones, which import light and perfection, were lost when Seraiah was put to death. 2 Kings 25:18-21.

63. The Tirshatha — A Persian title of the governor of a district, and, according to Gesenius: equivalent to Your Severity, or Dread Sovereign. Nehemiah is called Tirshatha, (Nehemiah 8:9; 10:1,) and this title is sometimes interchanged with hjp, governor. Comp. especially Nehemiah 12:26. In our text the title Tirshatha is to be understood of Zerubbabel, not, as some have supposed, of Nehemiah. Not eat of the most holy things — For strangers could no more lawfully eat of the hallowed things, such as the remnant of the meat offering, (Leviticus 2:3,) than they could minister at the altar. Compare marginal references. A priest with Urim — By whom the uncertain genealogy might be settled, and the divine will in the matter be determined. In the former times such matters had been settled by inquiring through those Urim and Thummim on the ephod of the high priest. See 1 Samuel 30:7, 8, and notes on Exodus 28:30, and Joshua 1:1. From this verse it appears that these sacred media of learning the divine counsel had been lost during the captivity, and we have no reliable record that they were ever replaced.

V. 64. The whole, &c.-The particular sums here recited, come only to twenty and nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen. Unto whom are added in this total sum twelve thousand five hundred and forty two. Which, either were of the other tribes beside Judah and Benjamin: or were such as were supposed to be Israelites, but could not prove their pedigree by their genealogies.

Verse 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.

7,337 7,387

Singing men and women 200 245

Horses 736 736

Mules 245 245

Camels 435 435

Asses 6,720 6,720

In the above tables we observe that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet according to both lists the entire congregation numbers 42,360. Verse 64 comp. with Nehemiah 7:66. The probability is, that neither list is meant to be a perfect enumeration of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such families of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all certain record of their genealogy, but were, nevertheless, true descendants of some of the ancient tribes. Here is evidence that with the exile the different tribe distinctions, especially in the northern kingdom, became lost, and that multitudes of real Israelites, both among those who returned from exile and those who did not return, thenceforth lost all record of their tribal lineage. It is also noticeable that Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list, and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah, (494+31,089=31,583,) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s surplus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers, (1,765+29,818=31,583.) Hence it may be plausibly supposed that 31,583 was the sum of all that could show their father’s house; that the two lists before us were drawn up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though one supplies the defects of the other. “In some cases,” says Wordsworth, “the author of the list in Ezra seems to have had fuller returns of the families to which the people belonged; in other cases, the returns in Nehemiah are more complete. This was natural, but the coincidences show that the one list confirms the other. It is not surprising that the members of the constituencies of the several families do not always tally in the two lists. By means of levirate marriages, or adoptions, the same persons might indifferently belong to two different father’s houses; and if women are reckoned, they might be ranged under the house of their father on one list, and of their husband on another.”

In several instances we have the names of places instead of men; as children of Gibeon, and Beth-lehem, (verses 20, 21.) and men of Netophah, Anathoth, Beth-el, etc. The reason of this is not apparent, but the meaning is, that the place named was either the ancestral home of the children or men whose numbers are given, or else it was the place to which they were assigned on their return from exile.

7. Children of Elam — Whether Elam is here the name of a place or person is uncertain. As no place of this name is ever mentioned in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and another Elam is mentioned in verse 31, the probability is, that in each place Elam is the name of a person.

V. 65. Women-For women as well as men were employed in this exercise in the temple-service.

Verse 65. And singing-women — For women as well as men were employed in this exercise, in the temple-service.

65-68. Servants… horses… camels — To some of these the returning Jews were helped by their wealthy friends and neighbours who remained in Babylon, (Ezra 1:4, 6;) but probably not a few of the wealthy themselves returned with all their possessions to Judah; and of their substance that they had acquired in the land of exile, they offered freely for the house of God. These wealthy ones were doubtless those who followed the advice of the prophet Jeremiah, and built houses and planted gardens, and made the most of their opportunities to improve and prosper while in exile. Jeremiah 29:5, 6, 28. In his place — Rather, upon its foundation; and these were to be lain on the site of the previous temple. On the site of the Solomonic temple, see note at the beginning of 1 Kings 6.

Verse 66. Their horses-seven hundred, &c.] They went into captivity, stripped of every thing; they now return from it, abounding in the most substantial riches, viz., horses 736, or, according to Esdras, 7036; mules, 245; camels, 435; asses, 6720; besides gold, and silver, and rich stuffs. See below.

65-68. Servants… horses… camels — To some of these the returning Jews were helped by their wealthy friends and neighbours who remained in Babylon, (Ezra 1:4, 6;) but probably not a few of the wealthy themselves returned with all their possessions to Judah; and of their substance that they had acquired in the land of exile, they offered freely for the house of God. These wealthy ones were doubtless those who followed the advice of the prophet Jeremiah, and built houses and planted gardens, and made the most of their opportunities to improve and prosper while in exile. Jeremiah 29:5, 6, 28. In his place — Rather, upon its foundation; and these were to be lain on the site of the previous temple. On the site of the Solomonic temple, see note at the beginning of 1 Kings 6.

65-68. Servants… horses… camels — To some of these the returning Jews were helped by their wealthy friends and neighbours who remained in Babylon, (Ezra 1:4, 6;) but probably not a few of the wealthy themselves returned with all their possessions to Judah; and of their substance that they had acquired in the land of exile, they offered freely for the house of God. These wealthy ones were doubtless those who followed the advice of the prophet Jeremiah, and built houses and planted gardens, and made the most of their opportunities to improve and prosper while in exile. Jeremiah 29:5, 6, 28. In his place — Rather, upon its foundation; and these were to be lain on the site of the previous temple. On the site of the Solomonic temple, see note at the beginning of 1 Kings 6.

V. 68. The house-That is, to the ruins of the house; or to the place were it stood.

Verse 68. When they came to the house of the Lord — That is, to the place in which the temple had stood, and where the ruins still remained. Offered freely — Made a new offering, besides that which they had brought out of Babylon, from their brethren there, mentioned Ezra 1:4, 6. By this it appears that the Jews were not made absolute slaves in Babylon, but had liberty to trade and get riches for themselves; some of them being advanced to considerable offices in the king’s court. Otherwise they could not have been able to offer such sums as are mentioned in the next verse.

65-68. Servants… horses… camels — To some of these the returning Jews were helped by their wealthy friends and neighbours who remained in Babylon, (Ezra 1:4, 6;) but probably not a few of the wealthy themselves returned with all their possessions to Judah; and of their substance that they had acquired in the land of exile, they offered freely for the house of God. These wealthy ones were doubtless those who followed the advice of the prophet Jeremiah, and built houses and planted gardens, and made the most of their opportunities to improve and prosper while in exile. Jeremiah 29:5, 6, 28. In his place — Rather, upon its foundation; and these were to be lain on the site of the previous temple. On the site of the Solomonic temple, see note at the beginning of 1 Kings 6.

V. 69. Sixty one thousand drams-Sixty one thousand drams of gold amount to something more than so many pounds of our money. So bishop Cumberland, who likewise supposes five thousand pounds of silver, to be about thirty seven thousand pounds sterling.

Verse 69. Threescore and one thousand drams of gold] דרכמונים darkemonim, drakmons or darics; a Persian coin, always of gold, and worth about 1£. 5s., not less than £76,250 sterling in gold. Five thousand pounds of silver] מנים manim, manehs or minas. As a weight, the maneh was 100 shekels; as a coin, 60 shekels in value, or about 9£.; 5000 of these manehs therefore will amount to £45,000, making in the whole a sum of about £120,000; and in this are not included the 100 garments for priests.

Thus we find that God, in the midst of judgment, remembered mercy, and gave them favour in the land of their captivity.

Verse 69. Threescore and one thousand drachms of gold, &c. — About seventy-five thousand and five hundred pounds of our money; for every drachm of gold is worth ten shillings of our money, and every mina, or pound of silver, nine pounds; for it contains sixty shekels, and every shekel of silver is worth three shillings of our money. And one hundred priests’ garments — Garments, as well as gold and silver, were wont to be laid up in treasuries, Matthew 6:20. We may infer then, from these rich offerings, not only, as has been just intimated, that the Jews were not made such poor slaves in Babylon as wrought for their lords and masters, but that there may not be all the truth imaginable in that common saying among them, that they were only the bran, that is, the dregs of the people, who returned to Jerusalem at the end of the captivity, and that all the fine flour stayed behind at Babylon. See Prideaux’s Connect., Ann. 536, and Dodd.

69. Threescore and one thousand — Literally, Six myriads and one thousand. Drams of gold — Rather, gold darics. These were a coin current in the Persian empire from the time of Cyrus onward, probably till the spread of the Macedonian power over the East. Gold darics have been discovered bearing on one side the figure of a king, with a bow in one hand and a lance or javelin in the other, and on the other side a figure of uncertain meaning. The coin weighs 128 grains, and is valued at $5.52. The whole amount of gold, then, contributed by these wealthy fathers was $336,720 — a gift worthy of the occasion. Five thousand pounds of silver — The Hebrew word here rendered pounds is µynm, manim, that is, mina. The silver mina or maneh is valued at $32, so that the whole amount of silver here named would be $160,000. Nehemiah’s numbers are different. Nehemiah 7:70-72. He says the Tirshatha gave 1,000 gold darics, 50 basins, 530 priests’ garments. Some of the chief fathers gave 20,000 darics, and 2,200 silver mina; and the rest of the people gave 20,000 darics, 2,000 mina, and 67 priests garments; so that the gross sum in Nehemiah is 41,000 darics, 4,200 mina, 597 priests’ garments, and 50 basins. Bertheau thinks Nehemiah’s text is the more accurate and complete; but here again, as in the lists above, one table may supplement the other, so that neither is in itself complete.

V. 70. And all Israel in their cities-And they dwelt in peace, in perfect harmony, a blessed presage of their settlement, as their discord in the latter times of that state, was of their ruin.

Verse 70. Dwelt in their cities] They all went to those cities which belonged originally to their respective families. EZRA

Verse 70. And all Israel in their cities — In the cities which their families had inhabited before their captivity. As to those who could not prove themselves Israelites by any genealogical register, they probably settled in those lands which were not claimed, or followed handicraft employments, of one sort or other, in the cities. Although their cities were out of repair, yea, in a ruinous state, 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 an afflictive cause, but their unity and unanimity were happy effects 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 comfortable settlement, as their discords in the latter times of that state were of their ruin.

70. In their cities — The cities assigned them as their future homes. With many these cities were ancestral homes. All Israel — The entire community of returned exiles who now represented the Israelitish nation.