Bible Error: Babylonian Census

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
The books Ezra and Nehemiah report different numbers for the families returning from Babylon, and the similarity in wording indicates that one of the authors either miscopied the numbers used by the other author, or else was using a different manuscript. Either way, the Bible would seem to be in error.

Can anyone on this forum reconcile the following discrepancies?





"The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five." (Ezra 2:5)
"The children of Arah, six hundred fifty two " (Nehemiah 7:10)

"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two." (Ezra 2:12)
"The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two ." (Nehemiah 7:17)

[The Laughing Man]

Well, you already resolved the discrepancies yourself by stating, and I quote, "one of the authors either miscopied the numbers used by the other author, or else was using a different manuscript." Please, before you try to post any more "errors" or "contradictions," do some research on what the word "inerrancy" means in reference to the Bible. Here's a link to get you started: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt

[Joseph Alward]

JINX72

Well, you already resolved the discrepancies yourself by stating, and I quote, "one of the authors either miscopied the numbers used by the other author, or else was using a different manuscript." Please, before you try to post any more "errors" or "contradictions," do some research on what the word "inerrancy" means in reference to the Bible. Here's a link to get you started:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources...chicago.stm.txt

JOE ALWARD
I am well aware of the Chicago Statement.

"Inerrancy" means different things to different folks. To many fundamentalists, it means the absence of any error, discrepancy, or contradictions, because all of the Bible is the direct word of God. Indeed, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is God-breathed."

Those who have adopted the Chicago Statement's definition of inerrancy will no doubt be able to reconcile the differences between Ezra and Nehemiah, but for those who think the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah were written by these men as God guided their pen, any admission of an error is tantamount to admitting that God is flawed, and that's an impossible admission for them, of course.

[The Laughing Man]

Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
I am well aware of the Chicago Statement.

Good. Please refer to it often when dealing with issues of inerrancy.


"Inerrancy" means different things to different folks.

This statement is really irrelevent and distracting. If you aren't going to bother to stick to a definition of inerrancy, then why bother making arguments against it? Or is it that you are arguing against the fundamentalist stance on inerrancy?


To many fundamentalists, it means the absence of any error, discrepancy, or contradictions, because all of the Bible is the direct word of God. Indeed, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is God-breathed."

Almost. Please add the words "in the original autographs" (or something similar) after the word "contradictions."


Those who have adopted the Chicago Statement's definition of inerrancy will no doubt be able to reconcile the differences between Ezra and Nehemiah, but for those who think the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah were written by these men as God guided their pen, any admission of an error is tantamount to admitting that God is flawed, and that's an impossible admission for them, of course.

Of course, because unlike errancy advocates, inerrancy advocates have actually done in-depth research to back up their position.

Hmm... In checking one of the websites I like to use for research, they mention that Nehemiah 7:5 states (which it does) that he found a list with these numbers on it, which he then records. So it is not a difficult thing to conclude that Nehemiah is correctly/inerrantly recording what the list said, though the list itself might have been in error. Thus, this would not constitute a biblical error.

[Joseph Alward]

JINX72In checking one of the websites I like to use for research, they mention that Nehemiah 7:5 states (which it does) that he found a list with these numbers on it, which he then records. So it is not a difficult thing to conclude that Nehemiah is correctly/inerrantly recording what the list said, though the list itself might have been in error. Thus, this would not constitute a biblical error.

JOE ALWARD
I don't consider it a problem in the least, but for those who believe that the lips of God were at the ear of Nehemiah when he copied down the numbers, the discrepancy is a huge problem. You see, if the all-knowing God had guided Nehemiah--as they fervently believed he did, then surely God would have used his power to make sure that Nehemiah's accounting was without flaw.

In the future, when I label a biblical problem an "error," I may attach the words, "to those who believe that God guided the Bible-writers." If I fail to do this, you should assume that's what I mean.

The problem with assuming that any contradiction is due to a transcription error, or corrupted text, is that we don't have the original text, so we cannot know for sure which "error" is caused by transmission, and which is "real." Who is to say, then, that perhaps all of the scriptural stories about Yahweh are not made up, and maybe the gospels are fiction, too? Thus, the safest "inerrancy," I believe, is the one described by Saint Augustine:


"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

[jpholding]

Mr A,

I don't consider it a problem in the least, but for those who believe that the lips of God were at the ear of Nehemiah when he copied down the numbers, the discrepancy is a huge problem.

That sounds like a highly fundamentalist viewpoint. :smile: Who holds that?

In the future, when I label a biblical problem an "error," I may attach the words, "to those who believe that God guided the Bible-writers." If I fail to do this, you should assume that's what I mean.

Very vague. Guidance can mean any degree of help between lip-to-ear down to a nudge, "Hey, why don't you write a book?" -- knowing the author will do what needs to be done.

The problem with assuming that any contradiction is due to a transcription error, or corrupted text, is that we don't have the original text, so we cannot know for sure which "error" is caused by transmission, and which is "real."

My goodness, Mr A, are textual critics then merely wasting their time? Numbers are the most notorious victims of such errors. A huge list as in Ezra-Nehemiah is a breeding ground for copyist slipups.

Who is to say, then, that perhaps all of the scriptural stories about Yahweh are not made up, and maybe the gospels are fiction, too?

Did you just press that panic button of your own accord? Logically that makes not a bit of sense.

[The Laughing Man]

Joseph Alward: You see, if the all-knowing God had guided Nehemiah--as they fervently believed he did, then surely God would have used his power to make sure that Nehemiah's accounting was without flaw.

Why would you assume such a thing? If there's one thing that the Bible teaches us is that humans aren't perfect and we often make mistakes, and that God often does not get in the way of us making those mistakes. Moses made a mistake and angered God, and thus was not allowed to enter the Promised Land before he died. Does that mean the Bible is in error? No! It means that Moses was. Perhaps God had a purpose behind Nehemiah finding and using a slightly erroneous list or, more likely, perhaps He is more concerned with more important things than temporary lists of numbers.


The problem with assuming that any contradiction is due to a transcription error, or corrupted text, is that we don't have the original text,

True, but we do have thousands of manuscript copies - more than any other ancient text.


so we cannot know for sure which "error" is caused by transmission, and which is "real."

We cannot know 100%, yes, but in studying the manuscript copies, one can make a very educated argument one way or the other. For instance, let's say that we have several manuscript copies of an ancient document which read:

MC#1: "ABCDFFGHIJKLMMOP"
MC#2: "_BCDEF__IJKLMN__"
MC#3: "ABCBEFGHIIKLMNOP"
MC#4: "A__DEFG_I__LMNOP"

How difficult would it be to conclude that the original autograph most likely read, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP?" Not very. It is also not difficult to tell why and how the errors crept into the manuscript copies by studying both them and history.


Who is to say, then, that perhaps all of the scriptural stories about Yahweh are not made up, and maybe the gospels are fiction, too?

No doubt that errancy advocates would ignorantly say that. In any case, your statement is quite a leap of logic, to say the least.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

so we cannot know for sure which "error" is caused by transmission, and which is "real."

JINX72
We cannot know 100%, yes, but in studying the manuscript copies, one can make a very educated argument one way or the other. For instance, let's say that we have several manuscript copies of an ancient document which read:

MC#1: "ABCDFFGHIJKLMMOP"
MC#2: "_BCDEF__IJKLMN__"
MC#3: "ABCBEFGHIIKLMNOP"
MC#4: "A__DEFG_I__LMNOP"

How difficult would it be to conclude that the original autograph most likely read, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP?" Not very.

JOE ALWARD
I disagree. I think it would be very difficult to conclude that MC#1 was the "original autograph." The hypothetical evidence you present is evidence that the Manuscripts 2, 3, and 4 might have been derived from the first one, but this isn't evidence that MC#1 was necessarily the "original, " is it?

Could it not have happened like this:

MC#0: "AB___FG_____M__P" (the autograph)
MC#1: "ABCDFFGHIJKLMMOP"
MC#2: "_BCDEF__IJKLMN__"
MC#3: "ABCBEFGHIIKLMNOP"
MC#4: "A__DEFG_I__LMNOP"

[Joseph Alward]

[QUOTE] JOE ALWARD
I don't consider it a problem in the least, but for those who believe that the lips of God were at the ear of Nehemiah when he copied down the numbers, the discrepancy is a huge problem.

JP HOLDING
That sounds like a highly fundamentalist viewpoint. Who holds that?

JOE ALWARD
Jerry Falwell, for example.

[Blake Reas]

Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
I am well aware of the Chicago Statement.

"Inerrancy" means different things to different folks. To many fundamentalists, it means the absence of any error, discrepancy, or contradictions, because all of the Bible is the direct word of God. Indeed, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is God-breathed."

Those who have adopted the Chicago Statement's definition of inerrancy will no doubt be able to reconcile the differences between Ezra and Nehemiah, but for those who think the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah were written by these men as God guided their pen, any admission of an error is tantamount to admitting that God is flawed, and that's an impossible admission for them, of course.

Joseph I don't know who you think we are, Do you actually think that we are KJV only Christians? They are the only ones who hold to inerrancy in that manner, also if you knew about the Chicago doctrine of Inerrancy you would not post such nonsense! Maybe you where setting up a Straw Man and you got caught with your pants down!


In Christ,
Blake

[Joseph Alward]

Joseph I don't know who you think we are

JOE ALWARD
I think the "we" in this forum consists of a diverse group of individuals, with diverse views. Some of the members of this forum may be the "KJV only" fundamentalists you referred to, and others are "NIV fundamentalists." Some of them are Chicago Statement inerrantists, such as you.

[The Laughing Man]

Joseph Alward: JOE ALWARD
I disagree. I think it would be very difficult to conclude that MC#1 was the "original autograph."

You misunderstand. I'm not saying my MC#1 example is the autograph (which, incidently, you really don't need to qualify as "original" as that is redundant) or even necessarily the first manuscript copy (with 2, 3, and 4 following in chronological order). I simply gave the numerical designations to indicate different manuscript copies.


The hypothetical evidence you present is evidence that the Manuscripts 2, 3, and 4 might have been derived from the first one, but this isn't evidence that MC#1 was necessarily the "original, " is it?

See above.


Could it not have happened like this:

MC#0: "AB___FG_____M__P" (the autograph)
MC#1: "ABCDFFGHIJKLMMOP"
MC#2: "_BCDEF__IJKLMN__"
MC#3: "ABCBEFGHIIKLMNOP"
MC#4: "A__DEFG_I__LMNOP"

Why would the autograph have blank spots? Writer's block? :hrm: No, my intention was to show that it is not unreasonable to derive what the autograph looked like from the manuscript copies that exist. As I said, one cannot be 100% sure, but one can be sure enough.

Of course, using your example, you'd need some evidence to support what you are deriving the autograph to be. As it stands, the manscript copies do not support your position either in my example or in real life in regards to the Bible.

[Joseph Alward]

JINX72
How difficult would it be to conclude that the original autograph most likely read, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP?" Not very.

JOE ALWARD
I disagree. I think it would be very difficult to conclude that MC#1 was the "original autograph."

JINX72
You misunderstand. I'm not saying my MC#1 example is the autograph (which, incidently, you really don't need to qualify as "original" as that is redundant)

JOE ALWARD
I realize that it is redundant to call the autographs "original." That is why I put the phrase, "original autographs" in quotes. I was quoting what you had called them.

[jpholding]

Jerry Falwell, for example.

Well :rofl: I sure hope you aren't under the impression that Falwell is an end-all in Evangelical scholarship. He and people like Charles Stanley are OK for the blue-haired old ladies but you'll find a higher quality of ideology here.

As for those lists, I'll throw some points out. Aside from the copyist errors -- and do I take your silence as agreement, in terms of numbers being common victims? -- lists like these served a certain purpose in the ancient world that involved stuff like claims on land, family honor, etc. The idea that the lists represent two stages -- one at the time of leaving Babylon, the other later on in Judaea -- is sound in principle. Once folks showed up, it;'s easy to see them claiming different available allegiances. I find it advantaegous at different times to identity myself with different groups. Thus: If Joshua Jones married Deborah Smith in Babylon, he may have declared his allegiance to the Jones family in Babylon, but when they got to Judaea, if they found the Jones property full of garbage, he would smartly change his allegiance claim to the Smiths.

As a whole such claims would have been debated, and been changed, over time, and I would assume that the list(s) were recopied and adjusted accordingly -- or maybe not always. Either way, Mr A, I think you're beating a non-issue for inerrancy into the ground. Except for a pedantic Western literalist inerrancy that's more like what FTill and the Church of Christ believe, and maybe Falwell too, than what it held by people here.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
The idea that the lists represent two stages -- one at the time of leaving Babylon, the other later on in Judaea -- is sound in principle. Once folks showed up, it's easy to see them claiming different available allegiances.


JOE ALWARD
I think you're suggesting that there was one census as the Hebrews were about to leave Babylon, and another one when they arrived home? I could see that happening, perhaps, but are at least two types of textual evidence that indicates that it didn't happen.

First, each author seems to state that both sets of numbers represent the ones arriving ("came again") at Jerusalem and Judah:


Now these are the children...whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one into his city (Ezra 2:1)

These are the children...whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city (Nehemiah 7:5-6)

If either Ezra's or Nehemiah's numbers applied to those leaving Babylon, they probably would have said, "These are the children who left Babylon."

The second thing that speaks against the allegiance-switching scenario, and for the scribal error theory, is the type of discrepancy shown below:


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

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

The number of servants is the same in both censuses--7337, which is what you would expect if the two censuses were taken at the same time. However, under the two-censuses-two-different-times theory, there would have to have been a change of 45 singers out of only about 200 singers, but zero change in servants out of 7337.

Isn't scribal error a much more likely explanation for the difference in the number of singers?

[jpholding]

Yo Mr A,

I think you're suggesting that there was one census as the Hebrews were about to leave Babylon, and another one when they arrived home?

Yes, though I also see them modifying the original census over time even beyond that. Which means that your reply below may be of no effect anyway.

First, each author seems to state that both sets of numbers represent the ones arriving ("came again") at Jerusalem and Judah:

Interesting approach, but you're assuming the formula at the beginning of the list was always attached to the list, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The original census listing would not have started out, "Now these are.." etc. This is a narrative addition which in both cases would have to be added on later after a certain amount of time had passed and the list was put into a narrative context, like the books attributed to Ezra and Nehemiah. Here again I think you're using a Falwell heremeutic. :smile: Whereas oddly, I'm the one who hypothesizes a development process. Ironic, isn't it? Redaction isn't quite the four-letter word some think it is.

Isn't scribal error a much more likely explanation for the difference in the number of singers?

In that particular case, yes. Keep in mind I see a mix of scribal errors AND deliberate changes. Not always possible to decide which of course, but that one makes more sense as a scribal error -- there are not many reasons for a temple singer to abandon such an honorable position, short of death or defamatory behavior.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
I see a mix of scribal errors AND deliberate changes.

JOE ALWARD
I can only see scribal errors. But, there could have been allegiance-switching. However, if any occurred, I would have expected that some of the switchers would have wished to inform the Jerusalem census official, in order to avoid any confusion that might later cause them problems.

Thus, it seems likely the census official would have been made aware of at least some switching. Being aware of it, he would have known that the Babylon census and the Jerusalem census figures would not match, so he would have made this part of the record. The fact that no such record appears in either Ezra and Nehemiah is evidence that no switching occurred. Not proof. Just evidence.

[jpholding]

can only see scribal errors. But, there could have been allegiance-switching. However, if any occurred, I would have expected that some of the switchers would have wished to inform the Jerusalem census official, in order to avoid any confusion that might later cause them problems.

That depends, though, on who is holding the "official" version, does it not? I don't think the books of Ezra or Nehemiah would be the designated "official" carrier of such lists. In fact by my view the last official list may indeed have looked different than those in Ez and Neh.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
All right, I guess we agree that there probably are scribal mistakes, but we're not sure how many--if any--of the differences in numbers can be accounted for by allegiance-switching.

Thanks for the discussion.

[jpholding]

Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD
All right, I guess we agree that there probably are scribal mistakes, but we're not sure how many--if any--of the differences in numbers can be accounted for by allegiance-switching.

Thanks for the discussion.

No problem. You've been a pleasure to discuss with. I see you got your avatar in place -- yourself! :smile:

Aside on debating formally, I'll look over your page again next week and we can maybe plot to start first week of March after some things slow down for me.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
Aside on debating formally, I'll look over your page again next week and we can maybe plot to start first week of March after some things slow down for me.

JOE ALWARD
No hurry. I enjoy the informal discussions. If you plan to challenge one of the arguments I present in an article on my web page, don't spend too much time thinking about it without first checking with me to see if I'm still willing to defend it. Some of those articles were written five years ago, and I wasn't as smart then as I think I am now.