Difference between revisions of "Chronological and Thematic Order/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<subopinion>Headings | <subopinion>Headings | ||
<p>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 is referred to by some as  a "כלל ופרט", a general formulation followed by details.</p> | <p>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 is referred to by some as  a "כלל ופרט", a general formulation followed by details.</p> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" (<a href="Bereshit24-29-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:29-30</a>)</b> – <a href="Bereshit24-29-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:29-30</a> reads, "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ... וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹת אֶת הַנֶּזֶם וְאֶת הַצְּמִדִים...  וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ".  <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit24-29" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit24-29" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 24:29</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink> and others claim that, despite the order of the verses,  Lavan only ran after seeing the | + | <point><b>"וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" (<a href="Bereshit24-29-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:29-30</a>)</b> – <a href="Bereshit24-29-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:29-30</a> reads, "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ... וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹת אֶת הַנֶּזֶם וְאֶת הַצְּמִדִים...  וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ".  <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit24-29" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit24-29" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 24:29</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink> and others claim that, despite the order of the verses,  Lavan only ran after seeing the jewelry on Rivka. <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit24-30" data-aht="source">Shadal </a><a href="ShadalBereshit24-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:30</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>explains that the verses are not really achronological, but rather verse 29 is a general statement which is explained by verse 30.<fn>The words "וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ" are basically equivalent to "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" in the first verse.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה" (<a href="Bereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a>)</b> – Even though Yaakov does not arrive in Charan until Bereshit 29, already in Bereshit 28:10 the reader is told "וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה". <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink><fn>See also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RadakBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> who explain similarly but without the formulation of a "כלל ופרט".</fn> explains that this is a "כלל ופרט"; the story opens with a general heading that Yaakov went from Beer Sheva to Charan, then steps back to explain what happened along the way.<fn>Cf. <a href="BavliSanhedrin95b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin 95b</a> which chooses not to read these words as a heading and instead suggest that Yaakov had indeed gone all the way to Charan and then returned to pray at Beit El.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה" (<a href="Bereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a>)</b> – Even though Yaakov does not arrive in Charan until Bereshit 29, already in Bereshit 28:10 the reader is told "וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה". <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink><fn>See also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RadakBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakBereshit28-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 28:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> who explain similarly but without the formulation of a "כלל ופרט".</fn> explains that this is a "כלל ופרט"; the story opens with a general heading that Yaakov went from Beer Sheva to Charan, then steps back to explain what happened along the way.<fn>Cf. <a href="BavliSanhedrin95b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin 95b</a> which chooses not to read these words as a heading and instead suggest that Yaakov had indeed gone all the way to Charan and then returned to pray at Beit El.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל י״י" (<a href="Shemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:8-9</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:8-9</a><a href="RashbamVayikra10-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 10:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> suggests that the repetition in these two verses of the fact that Moshe relayed the nation's words to Hashem  is an example of the Torah being "כולל ואחר כך מפרש".  Moshe did not relay the nation's words in verse 8, but only the next day after Hashem spoke to him about the upcoming revelation.</point> | <point><b>"וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל י״י" (<a href="Shemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:8-9</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot19-8-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 19:8-9</a><a href="RashbamVayikra10-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 10:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> suggests that the repetition in these two verses of the fact that Moshe relayed the nation's words to Hashem  is an example of the Torah being "כולל ואחר כך מפרש".  Moshe did not relay the nation's words in verse 8, but only the next day after Hashem spoke to him about the upcoming revelation.</point> | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
<point><b>Revelation</b> – R. Yehoshua in <multilink><a href="ShirHaShirimRabbah1-2-2" data-aht="source">Shir HaShirim Rabbah</a><a href="ShirHaShirimRabbah1-2-2" data-aht="source">1:2:2</a><a href="Shir HaShirim Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shir HaShirim Rabbah</a></multilink> suggests that <a href="Shemot20-14-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:14-16</a>, which describes the people's request that Moshe act as an intermediary rather than Hashem speaking to them directly, actually happened in the midst of Hashem's relaying of the Decalogue (after the second commandment) and not afterward where it is written.  <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot20-14" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot20-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:14</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> explains that it is recorded out of order so as not to interrupt the Decalogue, thereby allowing the commandments to appear in one continuous list.  For further discussion and the implications of this reading, see <a href="The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe" data-aht="page">The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe</a>.</point> | <point><b>Revelation</b> – R. Yehoshua in <multilink><a href="ShirHaShirimRabbah1-2-2" data-aht="source">Shir HaShirim Rabbah</a><a href="ShirHaShirimRabbah1-2-2" data-aht="source">1:2:2</a><a href="Shir HaShirim Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shir HaShirim Rabbah</a></multilink> suggests that <a href="Shemot20-14-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:14-16</a>, which describes the people's request that Moshe act as an intermediary rather than Hashem speaking to them directly, actually happened in the midst of Hashem's relaying of the Decalogue (after the second commandment) and not afterward where it is written.  <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot20-14" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot20-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:14</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> explains that it is recorded out of order so as not to interrupt the Decalogue, thereby allowing the commandments to appear in one continuous list.  For further discussion and the implications of this reading, see <a href="The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe" data-aht="page">The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe</a>.</point> | ||
<point><b>"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם"</b> – <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot12-1" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot12-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 12:1</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> claims that the command of "הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" in Shemot 12 was given before the warning about the Plague of Firstborns in Shemot 11,<fn>He assumes that the warning was given soon before the plague was to arrive (as Moshe says, "כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם"), while Chapter 12 had to be given by the beginning of the month.</fn> but was recorded only afterwards since Torah wanted to group the narrative of the plagues together and the laws relating to the month of Nissan together.</point> | <point><b>"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם"</b> – <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot12-1" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot12-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 12:1</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> claims that the command of "הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" in Shemot 12 was given before the warning about the Plague of Firstborns in Shemot 11,<fn>He assumes that the warning was given soon before the plague was to arrive (as Moshe says, "כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם"), while Chapter 12 had to be given by the beginning of the month.</fn> but was recorded only afterwards since Torah wanted to group the narrative of the plagues together and the laws relating to the month of Nissan together.</point> | ||
+ | </opinion> | ||
+ | <opinion>Speech vs. Action | ||
+ | <p>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.</p> | ||
+ | <point><b>Giving of Jewelry</b> – Rashbam suggests that in reality the giving of the jewelry to Rivka took place in the middle of the servant's conversation with her (after asking her who she is but before she invited him to stay). The narrator reverses the order so as not to interrupt the conversation. For elaboration and how this understanding of the verse relates to the disagreement regarding what the servant was looking for in Yitzchak's wife, see <a href="Wanted: A Wife for Yitzchak" data-aht="page"> A Wife for Yitzchak</a>.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Entry into Rachel's tent</b> – Though the opening of Shemot 31:33 implies that Lavan went straight from Leah's tent into that of the maidservants, several commentators<fn>See Rashbam, R"Y Bekhor Shor, Radak and Ramban.</fn> claim that really he went from Leah into Rachel's tent and only then into the tent of Bilhah and Zilpah.<fn>This is alluded to in the verse when it states, "וַיֵּצֵא מֵאֹהֶל לֵאָה וַיָּבֹא בְּאֹהֶל רָחֵל". Cf. Ibn Ezra's first explanation who instead claims that Lavan went into Leah's tent twice.</fn>  However, due to the lengthy exchange between Lavan and Rachel, Tanakh preferred not to interrupt the initial list and left the description of the interaction for the end.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>"לדורות" vs. "לשעה" | <opinion>"לדורות" vs. "לשעה" | ||
Line 105: | Line 110: | ||
<p>At times, closely related events, even if they did not take place consecutively, might be grouped together. This is especially true when the events are presented as a list.</p> | <p>At times, closely related events, even if they did not take place consecutively, might be grouped together. This is especially true when the events are presented as a list.</p> | ||
<point><b>Rebellion of Korach (Bemidbar 17)</b> – According to Ibn Ezra,<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 (according to Ibn Ezra) they 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 rather than disrupting the cultic discussions in the earlier chapters. See  <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a> for a discussion of how various understanding's of the rebel's grievances affect commentators' dating of the chapter.</point> | <point><b>Rebellion of Korach (Bemidbar 17)</b> – According to Ibn Ezra,<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 (according to Ibn Ezra) they 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 rather than disrupting the cultic discussions in the earlier chapters. See  <a href="Korach's Rebellion" data-aht="page">Korach's Rebellion</a> for a discussion of how various understanding's of the rebel's grievances affect commentators' dating of the chapter.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>David's Offensive Wars</b> – Shemuel II 8 lists David's various offensive 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 | + | <point><b>David's Offensive Wars</b> – Shemuel II 8 lists David's various offensive 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 them together for thematic unity.</point> |
<point><b>Feats of David's Warriors</b> – Shemuel II 2</point> | <point><b>Feats of David's Warriors</b> – Shemuel II 2</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Shelomo's internal enemies</b> – Melakhim I 3 describes how Shelomo took care of his internal enemies, Yoav, Shimi and Evyatar.  Though it is likely  that some of | + | <point><b>Shelomo's internal enemies</b> – Melakhim I 3 describes how Shelomo took care of his internal enemies, Yoav, Shimi and Evyatar.  Though it is likely  that some of these events overlapped with other events described later,<fn>The story of Shimi, for instance, takes place over more than three years, and likely overlapped with Shelomo's setting up of his administration described in chapters 4-5.</fn> they are all mentioned together in one unit as they share a common theme, the securing of Shelomo's reign.</point> |
<point><b>Miracles of the Wilderness</b></point> | <point><b>Miracles of the Wilderness</b></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>Two Authors | <opinion>Two Authors | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>Related to Two Stories | <opinion>Related to Two Stories | ||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
<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 | + | <point><b>Giving of jewelry</b> – Shadal<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 only states one action before the other since it cannot relay both facts at once.</point> |
<point><b>Moshe and Tzipporah</b> – According to R. Saadia, Shemot 4:20 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</b> – According to R. Saadia, Shemot 4:20 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>Michah</b></point> | <point><b>Michah</b></point> |
Version as of 11:38, 24 November 2019
Chronological and Thematic Order
Exegetical Approaches
Technical Displacement: Minor Details
At times, achronology in the text is a result of technical literary issues. 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 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 is referred to by some as a "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. This is perhaps most evident when components of two independent stories overlap in time. Tanakh will focus on each story individually rather than constantly switching back and forth between the two. As such, the same overall time period might be discussed from different vantage points, with material grouped by varying protagonists, perspectives, 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.
Personal vs. Political Perspective
When a protagonist's interactions on the political / national level overlap with what is going on in his personal life, Tanakh will often separate the two strands of the story rather than constantly switching back and forth to maintain chronological order. Thus, the same time period is told from two different perspectives in the textual equivalent of a split screen.
Individual vs. Universal
When an incident has both a universal and individual aspect to it, Tanakh will focus on one at a time.
Law vs. Narrative
Torah tends to separate its discussion of legal and narrative material. Thus, even if a unit of laws was relayed over a period of time and other events occurred simultaneously, Torah will distinguish between the two.
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.
"לדורות" vs. "לשעה"
Topic
At times, closely related events, even if they did not take place consecutively, might be grouped together. This is especially true when the events are presented as a list.
Two Authors
Related to Two Stories
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.