Difference between revisions of "Chronological and Thematic Order/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
<point><b>Blessings and curses (Vayikra 26)</b> – Ibn Ezra maintains that the blessings and curses of Vayikra 26 were originally part of the covenant of Shemot 24 and relayed then.<fn>Alongside the Revelation at Sinai, Hashem made a covenant with blessings and curses on all the laws that were commanded until that point.</fn>  He suggests that they were, nonetheless, written only at the end of Sefer Vayikra so as to group together "תנאי הארץ", the various warnings and conditions for living in the Land of Israel.<fn>Vayikra 26 sets expulsion as the punishment for transgressing the laws of Shemittah, while earlier chapters warned that those who violate sexual prohibition will be similarly "spewed forth" from the land.  [However, the fact that many other laws are sandwiched between those of sexual prohibitions and Shemittah, none of  which are explicitly punished by exile, significantly weakens Ibn Ezra's argument.]</fn> [The blessings/curses, thus, also segue into Sefer Bemidbar which opens with the intended entry into the Land.] See <a href="Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments" data-aht="page">Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments</a> for more.<fn>See the opinion of Rashbam there who also maintains that the blessings and curses are not recorded in their chronological place, but does not explain why.</fn></point> | <point><b>Blessings and curses (Vayikra 26)</b> – Ibn Ezra maintains that the blessings and curses of Vayikra 26 were originally part of the covenant of Shemot 24 and relayed then.<fn>Alongside the Revelation at Sinai, Hashem made a covenant with blessings and curses on all the laws that were commanded until that point.</fn>  He suggests that they were, nonetheless, written only at the end of Sefer Vayikra so as to group together "תנאי הארץ", the various warnings and conditions for living in the Land of Israel.<fn>Vayikra 26 sets expulsion as the punishment for transgressing the laws of Shemittah, while earlier chapters warned that those who violate sexual prohibition will be similarly "spewed forth" from the land.  [However, the fact that many other laws are sandwiched between those of sexual prohibitions and Shemittah, none of  which are explicitly punished by exile, significantly weakens Ibn Ezra's argument.]</fn> [The blessings/curses, thus, also segue into Sefer Bemidbar which opens with the intended entry into the Land.] See <a href="Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments" data-aht="page">Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments</a> for more.<fn>See the opinion of Rashbam there who also maintains that the blessings and curses are not recorded in their chronological place, but does not explain why.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Rebellion of Korach (Bemidbar 16)</b> – According to <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,<fn>This, at least, is how he is understood by Ramban.</fn> Korach's rebellion is not found in its chronological place, and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.<fn>This chronology is motivated by an understanding that the rebellion was mainly a reaction to this switch.  It led to much resentment, especially on the part of the firstborns, and as such< Ibn Ezra claims, the firstborns made up the bulk of the rebels.  See <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a> for more.</fn> If so, it is possible that it is placed later in Sefer Bemidbar in order to group it with the other rebellions of the book.<fn>The new placement also enures that it does not disrupt the cultic discussions in the earlier chapters.</fn> For elaboration and a discussion of how various understanding's of the rebel's grievances affect commentators' dating of the chapter, see  <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a>.</point> | <point><b>Rebellion of Korach (Bemidbar 16)</b> – According to <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,<fn>This, at least, is how he is understood by Ramban.</fn> Korach's rebellion is not found in its chronological place, and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.<fn>This chronology is motivated by an understanding that the rebellion was mainly a reaction to this switch.  It led to much resentment, especially on the part of the firstborns, and as such< Ibn Ezra claims, the firstborns made up the bulk of the rebels.  See <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a> for more.</fn> If so, it is possible that it is placed later in Sefer Bemidbar in order to group it with the other rebellions of the book.<fn>The new placement also enures that it does not disrupt the cultic discussions in the earlier chapters.</fn> For elaboration and a discussion of how various understanding's of the rebel's grievances affect commentators' dating of the chapter, see  <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a>.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>David's offensive wars (Shemuel II 8)</b> – Shemuel II 8 lists David's various wars against external enemies.  It is likely that not all the battles were consecutive and that some might have occurred at other points in David's reign. For example the battle against Aram Tzova described in <a href="ShemuelII8-3-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 8:3-5</a> might be identical to that mentioned in <a href="ShemuelII10-6-19" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 10:6-19</a>. Tanakh nonetheless groups | + | <point><b>David's offensive wars (Shemuel II 8)</b> – Shemuel II 8 lists David's various wars against external enemies.  It is likely that not all the battles were consecutive and that some might have occurred at other points in David's reign. For example the battle against Aram Tzova described in <a href="ShemuelII8-3-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 8:3-5</a> might be identical to that mentioned in <a href="ShemuelII10-6-19" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 10:6-19</a>. Tanakh nonetheless groups all the wars together for thematic unity.</point> |
− | <point><b>Yeshayahu' initiation (Yeshayahu 6)</b> – According to several commentators,<fn>See Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit4-1" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiYeshayahu1-1" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 1:1</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, Ibn Ezra, Rid, and Shadal.</fn> this chapter constitutes Yeshayahu's initiation into prophecy,<fn>They point to the fact that Hashem ajks, "אֶת מִי אֶשְׁלַח... וָאֹמַר הִנְנִי שְׁלָחֵנִי".</fn> and as such, it should have opened the book. It is possible that here, too, thematic order takes precedence over chronological order.<fn>Shadal alternatively explains that though Chapter 6 was the first prophecy that Yeshayahu received, it was only relayed later.  According to him, then, the book is not really achronological.</fn> Chapters 1-5 describe the nation's sins, while Chapter 6 through 12 focus on their punishment. Even though Chapter 6 might have been | + | <point><b>Yeshayahu' initiation (Yeshayahu 6)</b> – According to several commentators,<fn>See Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit4-1" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiYeshayahu1-1" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 1:1</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, Ibn Ezra, Rid, and Shadal.</fn> this chapter constitutes Yeshayahu's initiation into prophecy,<fn>They point to the fact that Hashem ajks, "אֶת מִי אֶשְׁלַח... וָאֹמַר הִנְנִי שְׁלָחֵנִי".</fn> and as such, it should have opened the book. It is possible that here, too, thematic order takes precedence over chronological order.<fn>Shadal alternatively explains that though Chapter 6 was the first prophecy that Yeshayahu received, it was only relayed later.  According to him, then, the book is not really achronological.</fn> Chapters 1-5 describe the nation's sins, while Chapter 6 through 12 focus on their punishment. Even though Chapter 6 might have been relayed first, it is grouped with other prophecies of punishment.<fn>A second factor motivating the book's ordering might have been its future audience. When speaking to his contemporaries, Yeshayahu could open with a prophecy of doom since they were well aware of their misdeeds. Yet, when ordering his prophecies for future generations, it made sense for the prophet to begin with the nation's sins, giving the reader background to understand why the decree of destruction was deserved.</fn> See <a href="Yeshayahu's Mission in Chapter 6" data-aht="page">Yeshayahu's Mission in Chapter 6</a> for further discussion.</point> |
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
<subopinion>"לדורות" / "לשעה" | <subopinion>"לדורות" / "לשעה" | ||
<p>Tanakh might group laws which are relevant only for a specific time period (לשעה) separately from those which are relevant for all future generations (לדורות).</p> | <p>Tanakh might group laws which are relevant only for a specific time period (לשעה) separately from those which are relevant for all future generations (לדורות).</p> | ||
− | <point><b>The laws of Vayikra 6-7</b> – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the laws of sacrifices in Vayikra 6-7 were given together with those of Shemot 29, before the erection of the Tabernacle,<fn>He deduces this from the summary of the unit which declares, "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה לַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים. אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי".  The verse suggests that the laws were commanded at Mount Sinai rather than in the Ohel Moed, implying that they were given before the construction of the Tabernacle.</fn> and not together with the laws of Parashat Vayikra which were commanded in the Ohel Moed. They are nonetheless placed in Sefer Vayikra because all the laws of the Parashot of Tzav and Vayikra share a a common denominator | + | <point><b>The laws of Vayikra 6-7</b> – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the laws of sacrifices in Vayikra 6-7 were given together with those of Shemot 29, before the erection of the Tabernacle,<fn>He deduces this from the summary of the unit which declares, "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה לַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים. אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי".  The verse suggests that the laws were commanded at Mount Sinai rather than in the Ohel Moed, implying that they were given before the construction of the Tabernacle.</fn> and not together with the laws of Parashat Vayikra which were commanded in the Ohel Moed. They are nonetheless placed in Sefer Vayikra because all the laws of the Parashot of Tzav and Vayikra share a a common denominator; they are relevant for all future generations, while those of Shemot were pertinent only for the generation of the Wilderness.<fn>The laws of Shemot 29 deal exclusively with what was to take place during the Days of Consecration. As such, they appear in the midst of the directive to build the Mishkan.</fn>  For further discussion, see <a href="Relationship Between Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7" data-aht="page">Relationship Between Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7</a>.</point> |
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
<subopinion>Two Authors | <subopinion>Two Authors | ||
<p>If a book has multiple authors, each author's material might be grouped separately even if this means that some content is relayed achronologically.</p> | <p>If a book has multiple authors, each author's material might be grouped separately even if this means that some content is relayed achronologically.</p> | ||
− | <point><b>David and Golyat (Shemuel I 16-17)</b> – <multilink><a href="RShemuelbChofniGaonBereshit48-8" data-aht="source">R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon</a><a href="RShemuelbChofniGaonBereshit48-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit 48:8</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon</a></multilink> suggests that the story of David and Golyat might have preceded the story of Shaul's search for a musician. R"M Leibtag<fn>See his article, "עד היכן דברי שמואל?", in Alon Shevut 122 (1988). Cf. Hoil Moshe.</fn> explains that the achronology might result from the fact that Sefer Shemuel was written by multiple authors<fn>See Bavli Bava Batra 15a that Sefer Shemuel was written by the three prophets Shemuel, Gad and Natan.</fn> whose works were then combined. He suggests that since Shemuel was Shaul's prophet, he wrote Chapters 1-16, which concern the two of them, whereas Gad, David's prophet, wrote the units relating to David, beginning with his rise to power in Chapter 17.  This, though, resulted in small sections of overlapping, slightly inconsistent, and achronological content.<fn>Shemuel ended his story with Shaul's losing his kingship to David, and the description of the spirit of Hashem deserting him (highlighted in the story of the search for a harpist). Gad, though, chose to begin his tale with an earlier event, David's first heroic act, the killing of Golyat. These decisions resulted in the achronology.</fn>  For a full discussion, see <a href="Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17" data-aht="page">Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17</a>.</point> | + | <point><b>David and Golyat (Shemuel I 16-17)</b> – <multilink><a href="RShemuelbChofniGaonBereshit48-8" data-aht="source">R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon</a><a href="RShemuelbChofniGaonBereshit48-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit 48:8</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon</a></multilink> suggests that the story of David and Golyat might have preceded the story of Shaul's search for a musician.<fn>See above that one of the motivations for suggesting achronology is the fact that Shaul seems to have no idea who David is in <a href="ShemuelI17-55-58" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 17:55-58</a>. If the events had occured in the order in which they are written, Shaul should have already known David well as he had already been appointed as a harpist and arms-bearer.</fn> R"M Leibtag<fn>See his article, "עד היכן דברי שמואל?", in Alon Shevut 122 (1988). Cf. Hoil Moshe.</fn> explains that the achronology might result from the fact that Sefer Shemuel was written by multiple authors<fn>See Bavli Bava Batra 15a that Sefer Shemuel was written by the three prophets Shemuel, Gad and Natan.</fn> whose works were then combined. He suggests that since Shemuel was Shaul's prophet, he wrote Chapters 1-16, which concern the two of them, whereas Gad, David's prophet, wrote the units relating to David, beginning with his rise to power in Chapter 17.  This, though, resulted in small sections of overlapping, slightly inconsistent, and achronological content.<fn>Shemuel ended his story with Shaul's losing his kingship to David, and the description of the spirit of Hashem deserting him (highlighted in the story of the search for a harpist). Gad, though, chose to begin his tale with an earlier event, David's first heroic act, the killing of Golyat. These decisions resulted in the achronology.</fn>  For a full discussion, see <a href="Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17" data-aht="page">Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17</a>.</point> |
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
<category>Simultaneous Actions | <category>Simultaneous Actions | ||
<p>When a unit contains but one element, the entire unit might not just overlap with but actually occur totally simultaneously with another event.  In such cases, Tanakh does not have a choice but to tell one event before the other, even though this does not represent the reality.</p> | <p>When a unit contains but one element, the entire unit might not just overlap with but actually occur totally simultaneously with another event.  In such cases, Tanakh does not have a choice but to tell one event before the other, even though this does not represent the reality.</p> | ||
− | <point><b>Giving of jewelry (<a href="Bereshit24-22-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:22-25</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit24-22" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit24-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:22</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink><fn>This is one of two possibilities brought by him.</fn> suggests that the servant gave the jewelry to Rivka as he asked her about her lineage. Tanakh | + | <point><b>Giving of jewelry (<a href="Bereshit24-22-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:22-25</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit24-22" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit24-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:22</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink><fn>This is one of two possibilities brought by him.</fn> suggests that the servant gave the jewelry to Rivka as he asked her about her lineage. Tanakh states one action before the other only since it cannot relay both facts at once.</point> |
− | <point><b>Moshe and Tzipporah</b> – According to R. Saadia, <a href="Shemot4-20-26" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20</a> serves as a dual introduction to the following verses, telling the reader where each of Zipporah and Moshe were headed: Moshe put Zipporah and family on the donkey to head back to Midyan, while he then, alone, returned to Egypt. The text then continues as a split screen, first recounting the prophecy received by Moshe as he embarked on his mission, and then relating the simultaneous incident which occurred to Zipporah at the lodge.  See <a href="Mystery at" data-aht="page">Mystery at the Malon</a> for elaboration and how this reading affects one's understanding of the story.</point> | + | <point><b>Moshe and Tzipporah (<a href="Shemot4-20-26" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20-26</a>)</b> – According to R. Saadia, <a href="Shemot4-20-26" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:20</a> serves as a dual introduction to the following verses, telling the reader where each of Zipporah and Moshe were headed: Moshe put Zipporah and his family on the donkey to head back to Midyan, while he then, alone, returned to Egypt. The text then continues as a split screen, first recounting the prophecy received by Moshe as he embarked on his mission, and then relating the simultaneous incident which occurred to Zipporah at the lodge.  See <a href="Mystery at" data-aht="page">Mystery at the Malon</a> for elaboration and how this reading affects one's understanding of the story.</point> |
− | <point><b>Speech of Michah and mother</b></point> | + | <point><b>Speech of Michah and his mother (<a href="Shofetim17-2-4" data-aht="source">Shofetim 17:2-4</a>)</b> – R"M Sabato<fn>See his article, "<a href="http://etzion.gush.net/shvut/072i1/i_1sabato.html#_ftn1">ועתה אשיבנו לך</a>", in Alon Shevut 72.</fn> suggests that the awkward syntax of the verses might be partially explained if one posits that Michah and his mother were speaking at the same time.  He suggests that the words "וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ" in verse 3 are really the words of Michah (and belong in the middle of verse 2), but are placed later at the end of his mother's speech to show that these words overlapped with hers. <fn>According to this reading, Michah revealed his theft to his mother saying, "הִנֵּה הַכֶּסֶף אִתִּי אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו". As he continued to tell her, "וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ", his mother cut him off, simultaneous saying "בָּרוּךְ בְּנִי לַי״י".  This suggestion, though, does still not adequately explain the doubling of the fact that the monies were returned, nor why the last few words of Michah's speech would not appear at the beginning of verse 3.</fn></point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category name="Homiletical"> | <category name="Homiletical"> |
Version as of 13:35, 28 November 2019
Chronological and Thematic Order
Exegetical Approaches
Technical Displacement: Minor Details
In many cases, the majority and core of a given story is recorded in its proper chronological place and it is just one or two secondary components which are displaced. The displaced unit might be moved from elsewhere to join and thereby complete the central story ("להשלים את הענין") or it might be separated from the main narrative so as not to interrupt the story line ("לא להפסיק את הענין"):
Preludes and Epilogues: "להשלים את הענין"
A subordinate component of a story might be moved from its proper chronological place so as to complete a central narrative. This might take the form of a prelude or heading before the main story or an epilogue or summation at the end.
Prelude
An event which occurred earlier is displaced to serve as an introduction and/or provide necessary background to a later story.
Epilogue
A component of a story which is only to occur later is moved earlier to provide closure to the main unit.
Headings
An event which is soon to be discussed in the text is mentioned already in the heading of the unit, not because it takes place then, but to let the reader know what is to come. This phenomenon often takes the form of "כלל ופרט", a general formulation followed by details.
Summaries
An episode which occurred and was explicitly mentioned earlier in Tanakh is repeated in order to serve as a summary to a unit.
Prologues and Appendices: "לא להפסיק את הענין"
Secondary narrative components might be moved to form a prologue at the very beginning of a unit or an appendix at the end because setting them in their proper chronological place in the middle of the central unit would otherwise break the flow of the main narrative . The episode or topic which is displaced is either irrelevant to the main theme or message of the unit, of lesser import, or of a different literary character.
Prologues
An event is moved from its correct chronological place later in the text and placed at the very beginning of the unit where it will not disrupt the main topic.
Appendices
An episode is moved from its correct chronological place earlier in the narrative and placed at the very end of the unit where it will not disrupt the main topic.
Thematic Arrangement: Parallel Units
Tanakh will often prefer thematic ordering over strict chronology, juxtaposing related material even if this means not adhering to a historical timeline. In contrast to the above cases, in these instances both the displaced and chronological components tend to be of equal import.
Overlapping Stories
A preference for thematic ordering is often evident when components of two independent stories overlap in time. Tanakh will focus on each story individually, recounting them in parallel units, rather than constantly switching back and forth between the two. As such, the same overall time period might be discussed from different vantage points in the textual equivalent of a split screen, with material grouped by varying protagonists, realms of life, literary genre or other factors.
Figures
Tanakh will often focus on one individual protagonist at a time, even if this means compromising on chronological order.
Realms of Life
When a protagonist's interactions in two realms of his life (such as the personal / familial realm vs. the political /national realm) overlap, Tanakh will often separate the two strands of the story rather than constantly switching back and forth.
Individual vs. Universal
When an incident has both a universal and individual aspect to it, Tanakh will focus on one at a time.
Literary Genre
Torah often separates material of different genres. Thus, even if a unit of laws was relayed over a period of time and other events occurred simultaneously, Torah might group the legal and narrative material separately. Similarly, when a book contains both prophecies and history, each might be grouped alone even if this creates achronology.
Speech vs. Action
When an action occurs in the middle of a conversation, or an extended conversation occurs in the midst of a list of several actions, Tanakh might distinguish between the two.
Non-overlapping Stories
Even when two stories do not overlap in time, Tanakh might prefer thematic unity over a strict chronological recounting. This might be motivated by a desire to group together texts which share similar themes, laws which are relevant to the same time period, or content written by the same author.
Thematically similar units
At times, closely related events might be grouped together, even if this creates achronology.69
"לדורות" / "לשעה"
Tanakh might group laws which are relevant only for a specific time period (לשעה) separately from those which are relevant for all future generations (לדורות).
Two Authors
If a book has multiple authors, each author's material might be grouped separately even if this means that some content is relayed achronologically.
Simultaneous Actions
When a unit contains but one element, the entire unit might not just overlap with but actually occur totally simultaneously with another event. In such cases, Tanakh does not have a choice but to tell one event before the other, even though this does not represent the reality.
Homiletical Juxtaposition
Achronology might stem from a desire to relay a message through the juxtaposition of two stories which otherwise would not follow one another. The message might be a lesson in proper behavior, a showcasing of Hashem's attributes, or a means of highlighting a character's strengths or faults.