How many were the children of Hashum? Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

I. Background of the Question

When examining the returning exiles in the Old Testament, Ezra 2:19 and Nehemiah 7:22 present numerical differences concerning those identified as the children (or descendants) of Hashum. Specifically, Ezra 2:19 states, “the men of Hashum, 223,” while Nehemiah 7:22 numbers them at 328. At first glance, this might appear to be a contradiction, yet it is a well-documented case of variation in the listings of returning exiles. The question under discussion is: Which figure is correct?

II. Biblical Citations

1. Ezra 2:19:

“the men of Hashum, 223.”

2. Nehemiah 7:22:

“the descendants of Hashum, 328.”

Both verses occur within census lists of those who returned from exile in Babylon. These lists were taken at slightly different points in time and for slightly different administrative purposes.

III. Historical and Literary Context

Ezra’s account focuses on the earliest phase of the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon, generally associated with Zerubbabel’s leadership and the initial resettlement of Jerusalem and Judah (Ezra 1–2). Nehemiah’s record comes from a later period when Nehemiah oversaw the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls (Nehemiah 1–7). By this time, more families or additional people could have arrived, or existing families could have merged under that same ancestral name.

During the Persian period in the 5th century BC, it was not uncommon for genealogical listings to grow when later registers were taken, reflecting further arrivals or clarifications of lineage. This difference, therefore, is quite plausible in light of how these post-exilic lists were compiled and updated.

IV. Possible Explanations for the Numerical Difference

1. Two Separate Counts in Different Phases

Because Ezra’s count (223) reflects an earlier group of exiles, over time, additional descendants or household members associated with Hashum’s lineage—perhaps younger generations—may have joined or been recognized by the time Nehemiah compiled his listing (328). Records could expand as families grew or as newly discovered relatives were incorporated into the official roster.

2. Scribal and Administrative Factors

Although the manuscripts of Ezra and Nehemiah maintain extensive consistency (confirmed through ongoing textual comparisons and manuscript evidence), minor numerical divergences can sometimes arise from the ways scribes recorded or preserved data. However, in this particular case, most scholars suggest that a mere copyist error is less likely than a legitimate difference in counting. The presence of the variant number across multiple manuscript traditions also indicates the difference was recognized early on and was not a later scribal slip.

3. Consolidation of Families

Households occasionally shifted in how they identified themselves when returning to Jerusalem. In some instances, several extended families that once were part of another head of household could have been consolidated under the banner of Hashum’s descendants for administrative or inheritance reasons, resulting in a higher count at the time of Nehemiah.

V. Textual Integrity and Reliability

While numbers like these may seem trivial, the fact that they are preserved in detail speaks to the care exercised by those who transmitted the Scriptures. The consistency of the broader lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 is attested by numerous ancient manuscripts, showing that copyists strove diligently to maintain exact wording. Where differences appear, textual critics and historians examine viable reasons—whether historical (additional arrivals) or related to administrative records. These practices confirm the serious and meticulous approach biblical writers took when chronicling the post-exilic community’s return.

It is also worth noting that archaeological discoveries—such as the Cyrus Cylinder, which confirms the policy of the Persian king Cyrus in allowing exiles to return and rebuild their temples—corroborate the overall historical framework described by Ezra and Nehemiah. This historical context provides a firm backdrop for appreciating why multiple listings would exist and why they might differ.

VI. Harmonizing the Numbers

Harmonizing these two passages typically involves viewing them as complementary snapshots of an evolving community. The first snapshot (Ezra 2) shows an initial count; the second snapshot (Nehemiah 7) reflects the updates as families consolidated, expanded, or arrived at new phases of the rebuilding effort. When both accounts are taken together, they provide a fuller sense of how the community was growing and organizing.

VII. Implications for Interpretation

1. No Contradiction in Purpose

The slight variation in numbers does not challenge the integrity of the biblical message. Both Ezra and Nehemiah provide accurate portrayals for their respective timeframes and purposes.

2. Growth and Expansion of the Post-Exilic Community

This numerical difference underscores the dynamic nature of the repopulation of Jerusalem. Seeing a higher total in Nehemiah simply reinforces the reality that the returning community expanded over time.

3. Confidence in Scriptural Records

Even with these differences, the Scriptural record consistently displays historical reliability, supported by internal coherence and outside evidence. The mention of specific genealogies and household names, along with such detail, testifies to the authors’ and scribes’ commitment to preserving accurate accounts.

VIII. Conclusion

In answer to the question “How many were the children of Hashum?” both numbers—two hundred and twenty-three and three hundred and twenty-eight—accurately reflect different points in the post-exilic period. Rather than indicating a contradiction, they highlight the growth of a particular family or group over time and the practical realities of compiling rosters used for community organization. The passage in Ezra 2:19 records the earlier total, while the passage in Nehemiah 7:22 reflects the later total. Taken together, these passages reveal a carefully documented return of the exiles, demonstrating the reliability of the Old Testament’s historical narrative and the faithful preservation of its written text.