Chronological and Thematic Order/0

Chronological and Thematic Order

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Introduction

When deciding how to arrange a historical narrative, an author must balance the competing elements of chronology and thematic order.  Should events be told in the order that they occurred or based on their relationship to one another?  When should one component be preferred over the other?

The Biblical text sets chronological order as the norm, but in many places it is willing to sacrifice it for literary reasons. In several places in Torah, the achronology is explicit in the text.  Time or location markers such as people's ages, a switch of locale, or more rarely, definitive dates, clue the reader into the phenomenon.  More often, though, the true timing of scenes is ambiguous, and for textual or conceptual reasons a case might be made for achronology, but no definitive proof can be found in the text.

Two Units Reversed

At times, two textual units completely swap places with one another, appearing in reverse order.  This might occur when an event or law's import for future generations differs from its import for the generation when it happened.

• Laws of Sacrifices in Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7 – Vayikra 1:1 teaches that the national laws of sacrifices discussed in Chapters 1-5 were all said to Moshe in the Tent of Meeting.  In contrast, the directives of Chapters 6-7, aimed at the priests, were given earlier at Mt. Sinai (see Vayikra 7:37) and relate to to the sacrificial ceremonies surrounding the Tabernacle's consecration.¹  It is possible that the written account flips the true chronology due to the differing needs of the desert generation and the future nation.  In the desert, Moshe first transmitted the laws relating to priests since these were necessary for them to fulfill their immediate tasks.  When writing for generations, however, it was more important to begin with those laws which are relevant for all times, and only afterwards to include directives related to the one time event of the Mishkan's consecration.

Overlapping Units – Explicit Cases

When a narrative unit takes place over an extended period of time, often some of its components might overlap with the events of surrounding stories.  Instead of constantly switching back and forth between the two, the Torah often completes one narrative unit before moving to the other. This might take the form of a short epilogue in which a later event is brought forward to provide closure to an earlier one, or an introduction where an event is moved from its proper place to provide necessary background to another text. Alternatively, verses might be moved in either direction simply so as not to interrupt the earlier/later story.²  Several examples follow:

Events which are brought forward

• Epilogue / Death notices – The lives of the main protagonists discussed in Sefer Bereshit often overlap with those of subsequent characters.  Nonetheless, the text is organized so that it focuses on only one leader/forefather at a time, and tries not to interrupt his story with events that relate only to other figures.³  As a result, even though the death of each character might only happen during the life of the next protagonist discussed, it is consistently mentioned earlier together with the original cycle of stories relating to him.⁴ 
• Epilogue to the Manna Story – Shemot 16 focuses on the story of the manna's first arrival in the first year, but also mentions its later preservation in the Ark, and its being eaten throughout the forty years of wandering.⁵ Rather than interrupting later narratives to share these events in their chronological place, the text concludes the story here.  For a spectrum of opinions regarding the timing of the specific events mentioned in the epilogue, see Epilogue to the Manna Story.
• Moshe on the Mountain – The end of Chapter 24 describes Moshe's ascent to Mt. Sinai to receive the Tablets of Law.  Already there the text shares that he stayed on the mountain for forty days, even though the next chapters in which Moshe receives the commandments regarding the building of the Tabernacle occurred in the interrum.⁶  It is even possible that the forty days did not end until the middle of the story of the Golden Calf.⁷  The information is moved up in order to complete the narrative material before moving into legal material.  Though it could have also been told as part of the narrative of the story of the Golden Calf, that might have ruined the drama of the later story.
• The Censuses of Sefer Bemidbar – The beginning of Sefer Bemidbar contains several explicit time markers, openly displaying its achronology. The censuses of Chapters 1-4 take place in the second month of the second year, while Bemidbar 7:1-3 brings the reader back to the dedication of the altar in the first month. Bemidbar 10 resumes where the first unit ended, describing the travels of the second month. In other words, to reflect the true chronology, the chapters should have been ordered: a) Chapters 7-9 b) Chapters 1-6 c) Chapters 10ff.  Presenting the material in this order, however, would break up the main narrative of the book.  Since the events told in Chapters 7-9 are intricately connected with Chapter 10 and the travels of the rest of the book, the extensive list of censuses would have been an intrusion had they been placed in the middle.⁸

Events which are pushed off

• Tower of Bavel – Bereshit 10 lists the descendants of Noach.  In the middle of the genealogy list of Shem, it mentions that the dispersal took place in the time of Peleg.  Rather than breaking off the list in the middle to elaborate further, the story of the Tower and the ensuing dispersal is first told in Bereshit 11, after completing the list of Shem's offspring.

Elements moved in both directions

•  Yehuuda and Tamar –  Both the Yosef saga (Bereshit 37, 39-50) and the story of Yehuda's initial marriage and relationship with Tamar span many years, and overlap with each other.  The chronological order of the various events appears to be

Overlapping Units – Ambiguous Cases

¹ As such, they are really an extension of the discussion of the Miluim ceremony relayed in Shemot 29.  See R. D"Z Hoffmann who makes this point.

² Thus, the focal point of any unit tends to remain in its chronological place while supporting information and elaborations might be moved either forward or back.

³ This is not to say that Avraham may not play a role in any Yitzchak narrative, but only that if a certain event relates only to the life of Avraham, even if it happened at the same time as events being told that concern Yitzchak, it would not appear there in the text but rather earlier during the "Avraham cycle" of narratives.

⁴ For examples, see mention of the death of Noach in Bereshit 9:29, Terach in Bereshit 11:32, Avraham in Bereshit 25:8, and Yitzchak in Bereshit 35:19.

⁵ As such, the story basically overlaps with the rest of Torah.

⁶ See below that this itself is a source of contention among commentators, and  some assume that the command to build the Tabernacle only happened after the Sin of the Golden Calf.  Nonetheless, the simple reading of the story is that these commandments were given on the mountain when Moshe ascended the first time.

⁷ Though Rashi suggests that the nation began to worry about Moshe only on the fortieth day due to a miscalculation regarding the length of his absence, in reality it is very possible that the nation never knew how long Moshe was to supposed to stay on the mountain.  That information is only given to the reader in advance; the nation living at the time, though, had no way of knowing.  Ibn Ezra and Ralbag thus suggest that the fears regarding Moshe discussed in Shemot 32 began way before the fortieth day and the nation's interactions with Aharon and the building of the Golden Calf took place over many days rather than a few hours.

⁸ Cf. Ramban who views the entire unit from 1-8 as an epilogue to Sefer Vayikra, as it deals with odds and ends relating to the Mishkan.  According to him, the true narrative of the book begins only in Chapter 9, when the nation begins to prepare for its travels, and that is where chronological order takes over. 
Rashi, in contrast, suggests that one should view this change in order not as a bringing forward of that which occurred later, but a pushing off of that which occurred earlier.  He claims that Hashem did not want to begin Sefer Bemidbar with information that reflected derogatorily on the nation and thus delayed discussion of the Paschal sacrifice.  [Following -- , he asserts that this is negative because it highlights how the nation only brought the sacrifice once in the forty years of wandering.] It is difficult, however, to view the actual fulfillment of the commandment as negative.
Finally, see Abarbanel who tries to clai, that in reality there is no achronology in the text at all. 
[[??Cf. Cassuot and Censuses in teh Wilderness who suggests thatt he census described in Chapter 1 is really identical to that described in Ki Tisa which took place in the first yearad theverses are simply describing its conslusion.He would still have to provide a literary reason to expalin why the conlusion appears here rather than after chater 9.]  Seforno