Now. This catalogue is given again, 2 Esdras vii. 6., and 3 Esdras v. 7., immediately (Haydock) after the long interpolated story (Kennicott) of the three guards, concerning the superior strength of wine, the king, women or truth, in which Zorobabel gains the victory, in favour of the latter. (Haydock)

The rest of the book is taken from other inspired writings; (Sandford) and this story may be borrowed from Josephus: so that there is no reason for asserting “that one whole book is now lost out of the sacred canon.” (Kennicott)

Yet this argument is by no means conclusive, as the Paralipomenon consists of such supplements, &c. These three catalogues vary considerably, not only in the proper names, but also in the numbers, (Haydock) though they must have been the same originally, and still give the same total, 42,360. We cannot find that number at present, by above 8,400. In many cases, the disagreement consists of a single unit, hundred, &c., which may lead us to suspect that the Palmyrene, or the more ancient Sidonian notation, may have been adopted in some Hebrew manuscripts, being used about the time of Christ. See Swinton’s tables, (Phil. Trans. xlviii., and l.) where the Sidonian coins express the units by small perpendicular strokes; and the Palmyrene inscriptions only admit four of these together, having an arbitrary mark for 5: “the hundreds and units after the tens, are expressed in both, in the same manner as the single units.” (Kennicott, 2 Diss.)

Cordell (manuscript note on this author) disapproves of this mode of correcting, and says that the females are included in the total sum, being 12,542, not recorded in the separate sums. But this number seems too small, as there are generally as many of that sex as of the other. (Haydock)

Some find the total 31,583, which leaves 10,777 wanting to complete 42,360, as these could not make out their genealogies, or were of the ten tribes. In this chapter only 29,818 are specified, whereas [in] 2 Esdras vii. has 31,089; the latter reckons 1765 unnoticed by Esdras, who has 494 not specified in Nehemias. The difference, that seems to make a reconciliation impossible, is what makes these authors agree; for, if you add the surplus of each to the other, the same total, 31,583, will arise. (Alting. ep. 59.) This solution, though ingenious, is not solid or satisfactory. (Rondet, t. v. p. 176.)

De Vence rather thinks that the difference is to be laid to the charge of transcribers, or that some people enrolled themselves after the registers had been made up; so that they are only included in the general sum. (Haydock)

Some things may have been inserted from 2 Esdras, though here out of place, (Grotius) as we find similar anachronisms, 1 Paralipomenon ix. 2., and perhaps Genesis xxxvi. 31. Nehemias may also have included those whom he brought back along with these; unless we allow that some one, by attempting to reconcile the two, has thrown all into confusion. It seems undeniable, that some additions have been made to the latter book, chap. xii. 11., and 22. The list given [in] 1 Paralipomenon ix. 4., comprises only those who came first from Babylon. (Calmet)

After this remark, it will hardly be requisite to specify all the variations of names and numbers. (Haydock)

“For what can be hence inferred, but that there are some arithmetical mistakes in Scripture, which no one denies?” (Huet)

“Almost all who are conversant with ancient copies, agree in the decision of St. Jerome, as they cannot but perceive that some variations have crept in, particularly with respect to numbers and proper names.” (Walton)

Province, born in Chaldea, (Menochius) or rather belonging to Judea, which was now considered as a province of the empire, (Calmet) and paid tribute, chap. iv. 13., and 2 Esdras ix. 36. (Tirinus)

In 3 Esdras, we read, “These are they of Judea.”

Nabuchodonosor had taken some of these; the rest were chiefly their descendants.

Juda now is used to denote Judea. (Haydock)