Difference between revisions of "Chronological and Thematic Order/2"
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
<li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann, however, suggests that though most of the ceremony took place where written, the preparation of the stones (8:32), began much earlier,<fn>He assumes that this writing was a lengthy process and might have taken time to finish.</fn> immediately after the nation crossed the Jordan. </li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann, however, suggests that though most of the ceremony took place where written, the preparation of the stones (8:32), began much earlier,<fn>He assumes that this writing was a lengthy process and might have taken time to finish.</fn> immediately after the nation crossed the Jordan. </li> | ||
<li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – The directive regarding the ceremony in <a href="Devarim27-1-8" data-aht="source">Devarim 27</a> mandates that the stones be set up on the day that the nation crosses the Jordan ("בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן"), and <a href="Yehoshua8-30-35" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 8:32</a> states that Yehoshua did as commanded.  However, if the story is in its proper chronological place, then Yehoshua did not do as commanded.<fn>Based on the simple reading of Yehoshua, the ceremony did not take place n the day of the crossing, but after two battles!</fn>  R. Hoffmann, thus, suggests that the initial preparation of the stones (the plastering and writing) did indeed begin on the day of the crossing.</li> | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – The directive regarding the ceremony in <a href="Devarim27-1-8" data-aht="source">Devarim 27</a> mandates that the stones be set up on the day that the nation crosses the Jordan ("בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן"), and <a href="Yehoshua8-30-35" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 8:32</a> states that Yehoshua did as commanded.  However, if the story is in its proper chronological place, then Yehoshua did not do as commanded.<fn>Based on the simple reading of Yehoshua, the ceremony did not take place n the day of the crossing, but after two battles!</fn>  R. Hoffmann, thus, suggests that the initial preparation of the stones (the plastering and writing) did indeed begin on the day of the crossing.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The writing on the stones is mentioned in Yehoshua 8 to fill in the beginning of the story, providing the details of the preparatory stage of the ceremony.  See <a href="When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur" data-aht="page">When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur</a> for elaboration and other approaches regarding the timing of the ceremony.</li> | + | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The writing on the stones is mentioned in Yehoshua 8 to fill in the beginning of the main story, providing the details of the preparatory stage of the ceremony.  See <a href="When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur" data-aht="page">When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur</a> for elaboration and other approaches regarding the timing of the ceremony.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Shemuel's death (<a href="ShemuelI28-3-7" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 28:3</a>)</b><ul> | <point><b>Shemuel's death (<a href="ShemuelI28-3-7" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 28:3</a>)</b><ul> | ||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
<li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – It is assumed that Shemuel died in Shemuel 25, where the death is first mentioned and elaborated upon.</li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – It is assumed that Shemuel died in Shemuel 25, where the death is first mentioned and elaborated upon.</li> | ||
<li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – As the event is mentioned twice, it is obvious that one of the two mentions is out of place. The past perfect form of "וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" in Chapter 28 hints to the reader that the event occurred previously and is only being referenced here..</li> | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – As the event is mentioned twice, it is obvious that one of the two mentions is out of place. The past perfect form of "וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" in Chapter 28 hints to the reader that the event occurred previously and is only being referenced here..</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The death of Shemuel is repeated in the beginning of the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov even though it | + | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The death of Shemuel is repeated in the beginning of the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov even though it occurred earlier as necessary background to understand the revival of the prophet later in the story.<fn>The past perfect form, " וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" might hint to the reader that the event occurred previously.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
</subopinion> | </subopinion> | ||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
<li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – Despite the placement of the directive, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary17-14" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary17-14" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 17:14</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> posits that it was first commanded in the fortieth year.</li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – Despite the placement of the directive, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary17-14" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary17-14" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 17:14</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> posits that it was first commanded in the fortieth year.</li> | ||
<li><b> Motivation for positing achronology</b> – Ibn Ezra is motivated by the fact that it is only in the fortieth year that it was known that Yehoshua alone was to head the Conquest and that he would be the one to fight Amalek, and it was only by then that "the book," the Sefer Torah, was extant.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RashiShemot17-14" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot17-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:14</a><a href="RashiShemot31-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 31:18</a><a href="RashiVayikra8-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:2</a><a href="RashiBemidbar7-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 7:1</a><a href="RashiBemidbar9-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 9:1</a><a href="RashiYehoshua8-30" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 8:30</a><a href="RashiShofetim11-26" data-aht="source">Shofetim 11:26</a><a href="RashiShofetim17-1" data-aht="source">Shofetim 17:1</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> who disagrees and maintains chronological order, asserting that already here, Hashem hinted to Moshe that he was not to enter the land and that Yehoshua was to lead after his death.  Alternatively, one might suggest that Yehoshua is mentioned due to the role he played in the present battle, and not because of his future position of leadership.</fn></li> | <li><b> Motivation for positing achronology</b> – Ibn Ezra is motivated by the fact that it is only in the fortieth year that it was known that Yehoshua alone was to head the Conquest and that he would be the one to fight Amalek, and it was only by then that "the book," the Sefer Torah, was extant.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RashiShemot17-14" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot17-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:14</a><a href="RashiShemot31-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 31:18</a><a href="RashiVayikra8-2" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:2</a><a href="RashiBemidbar7-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 7:1</a><a href="RashiBemidbar9-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 9:1</a><a href="RashiYehoshua8-30" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 8:30</a><a href="RashiShofetim11-26" data-aht="source">Shofetim 11:26</a><a href="RashiShofetim17-1" data-aht="source">Shofetim 17:1</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> who disagrees and maintains chronological order, asserting that already here, Hashem hinted to Moshe that he was not to enter the land and that Yehoshua was to lead after his death.  Alternatively, one might suggest that Yehoshua is mentioned due to the role he played in the present battle, and not because of his future position of leadership.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The directive is recorded in Shemot only so as to conclude the narrative.</li> | + | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> – The directive is recorded in Shemot only so as to conclude the narrative of the battle.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Yitro's departure (<a href="Shemot18" data-aht="source">Shemot 18:27</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11:32</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar8-7" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 8:7</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar20-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:1</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink><fn>This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.</fn> posits that the story of Yitro's arrival, advice, and its implementation all occurred where found, in Shemot 18 before the Revelation at Sinai, but that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year. As Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro ((see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), he identifies his departure there with what is described in Shemot 18.<fn>Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro (see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), and assumes that his departure there is what is mentioned briefly at the end of Shemot 18. [In Shemot the text quickly mentions the fact to close the story, but leaves the details for Bemidbar when the departure actually took place.]</fn> He explains that the fact is, nonetheless,  recorded already in Shemot to "complete the story" [See <a href="Chronology – Shemot 18" data-aht="page">Chronology – Shemot 18</a> for elaboration and for those who maintain that other parts of the story, too, might only be mentioned here to "finish the narrative".]<br/> | <point><b>Yitro's departure (<a href="Shemot18" data-aht="source">Shemot 18:27</a>)</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11:32</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar8-7" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 8:7</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar20-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:1</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink><fn>This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.</fn> posits that the story of Yitro's arrival, advice, and its implementation all occurred where found, in Shemot 18 before the Revelation at Sinai, but that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year. As Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro ((see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), he identifies his departure there with what is described in Shemot 18.<fn>Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro (see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), and assumes that his departure there is what is mentioned briefly at the end of Shemot 18. [In Shemot the text quickly mentions the fact to close the story, but leaves the details for Bemidbar when the departure actually took place.]</fn> He explains that the fact is, nonetheless,  recorded already in Shemot to "complete the story" [See <a href="Chronology – Shemot 18" data-aht="page">Chronology – Shemot 18</a> for elaboration and for those who maintain that other parts of the story, too, might only be mentioned here to "finish the narrative".]<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Placement in Tanakh – </b>Yitro's departure back to Midyan is described in <a href="Shemot18" data-aht="source">Shemot 18</a>, after recounting the story of his arrival and giving of advice to Moshe, but before the account of the Revelation at Sinai. </li> | + | <li><b>Placement in Tanakh – </b>Yitro's departure back to Midyan is described in <a href="Shemot18" data-aht="source">Shemot 18</a>, after recounting the story of his arrival and giving of advice to Moshe, but before the account of the Revelation at Sinai.</li> |
<li><b>Possible chronological place </b>– <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11:32</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar8-7" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 8:7</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar20-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:1</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>,<fn>This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.</fn> however, posits that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year.<b><br/></b></li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place </b>– <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit11-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11:32</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar8-7" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 8:7</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar20-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:1</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>,<fn>This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.</fn> however, posits that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year.<b><br/></b></li> | ||
<li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in <a href="Bemidbar10-29-32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 10</a> with Yitro (see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), and therefore he identifies his departure there, in the second year, with what is described in Shemot 18.</li> | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in <a href="Bemidbar10-29-32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 10</a> with Yitro (see <a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a>), and therefore he identifies his departure there, in the second year, with what is described in Shemot 18.</li> | ||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
<li><b>Placement in Tanakh</b> – The directive to build the Incense Altar is found in Shemot 30, at the end of the discussion regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels and before the account of the Sin of the Golden Calf.</li> | <li><b>Placement in Tanakh</b> – The directive to build the Incense Altar is found in Shemot 30, at the end of the discussion regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels and before the account of the Sin of the Golden Calf.</li> | ||
<li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – Some scholars,<fn>See the discussion in <a href="Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar" data-aht="page">Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar</a> and see R"M Speigelman's article, "<a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%97%D7%98%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%9C">פרשת ויקהל (שקלים) - המשכן לאחר חטא העגל"</a>.</fn> however, have suggested that the Incense Altar was commanded to be built only after the sin. If so, the proper placement of the command would be Shemot 34.</li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – Some scholars,<fn>See the discussion in <a href="Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar" data-aht="page">Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar</a> and see R"M Speigelman's article, "<a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%97%D7%98%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%9C">פרשת ויקהל (שקלים) - המשכן לאחר חטא העגל"</a>.</fn> however, have suggested that the Incense Altar was commanded to be built only after the sin. If so, the proper placement of the command would be Shemot 34.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – This position views the Incense Altar as playing an important role in atonement | + | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – This position views the Incense Altar as playing an important role in atonement and, thus, suggests that it was first commanded only when Yom HaKippurim was instituted, in the aftermath of the sin.</li> |
<li><b>Reason for displacement</b> –The directive is mentioned earlier to close the unit on the vessels of the Mishkan.<fn>However, to highlight that the Incense Altar was not part of the original command, the directive appears after the unit's concluding verses.</fn></li> | <li><b>Reason for displacement</b> –The directive is mentioned earlier to close the unit on the vessels of the Mishkan.<fn>However, to highlight that the Incense Altar was not part of the original command, the directive appears after the unit's concluding verses.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
<point><b>Conquests of Machir (Bemidbar 32:39-42)<fn>This example is exceptional in this category in that it refers to an event which occurred earlier that is only mentioned later to complete the unit (איחור להשלים את הענין) rather than the opposite.</fn></b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:39</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> suggests that the conquests of Menashe mentioned here really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.<fn>Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.</fn>  A <multilink><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">student of R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">פירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב</a></multilink> goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine. A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.</fn>  According to both, the event is mentioned here only to complete the story and explain why Menashe, too, got land on the eastern bank of the Jordan.  For further discussion, see <a href="Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad" data-aht="page">Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad</a>.<br/> | <point><b>Conquests of Machir (Bemidbar 32:39-42)<fn>This example is exceptional in this category in that it refers to an event which occurred earlier that is only mentioned later to complete the unit (איחור להשלים את הענין) rather than the opposite.</fn></b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:39</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> suggests that the conquests of Menashe mentioned here really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.<fn>Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.</fn>  A <multilink><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">student of R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">פירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב</a></multilink> goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine. A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.</fn>  According to both, the event is mentioned here only to complete the story and explain why Menashe, too, got land on the eastern bank of the Jordan.  For further discussion, see <a href="Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad" data-aht="page">Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad</a>.<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Placement in Tanakh</b> – After discussing the petition of Reuven and Gad | + | <li><b>Placement in Tanakh</b> – After discussing the petition of Reuven and Gad and Moshe's giving them and half of the tribe of Menashe lands on the eastern bank of the Jordan, Bemidbar 32 describes the conquests of Menashe's descendants in the area.</li> |
<li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:39</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> suggests that the conquests really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.<fn>Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.</fn>  A <multilink><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">student of R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">פירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב</a></multilink> goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine.</fn></li> | <li><b>Possible chronological place</b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar32-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:39</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> suggests that the conquests really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.<fn>Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.</fn>  A <multilink><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">student of R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="פירושתלמידרס״גדבריהימיםאב׳-כ״ב" data-aht="source">פירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב</a></multilink> goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar32" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.</li> | <li><b>Motivation for positing achronology</b> – A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.</li> |
Version as of 12:35, 7 December 2019
Chronological and Thematic Order
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Though the Biblical text sets chronological order as the norm, in several instances it nonetheless veers from the true order of events. Often, the displacement is somewhat technical and it is only a secondary component of a story which is out of chronological order. A minor detail might be moved from its proper chronological place elsewhere to complete the central narrative (להשלים את הענין), serving either as an introduction in the beginning of a unit or as an epilogue at the end. In other instances, an otherwise intrusive piece of a story is moved away from the core unit to serve either as a prologue or an appendix where it won't interrupt the main storyline (לא להפסיק את הענין).
In a second category of cases, chronology is sacrificed for thematic unity. This is especially evident when Tanakh recounts two stories which overlap in time. Rather than interweaving the two stories, Tanakh will focus on each individually, speaking of the same overall time period from different vantage points. It might distinguish between protagonists, a figure's personal and political role, or differing literary genres. Even when two units do not overlap in time, Tanakh might prefer to arrange certain units thematically, grouping together similar events, related laws or the like.
A third goal of achronology might be to impart homiletical messages. By juxtaposing material which would otherwise not be linked, lessons regarding proper behavior, Biblical characters, or Hashem's ways can be learned.
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 these instances, both the displaced and chronological components of a unit 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.23
"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.
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.
Preludes
An event which occurred earlier is displaced to serve as an introduction and/or provide necessary background to a later story.
- Placement in Tanakh – The birth of Kayin and Hevel is mentioned in Bereshit 4:1, after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
- Possible chronological place – R. Yochanan b. Chanina in Bavli Sanhedrin,44 nonetheless, asserts that the birth took place beforehand, while Adam and Chavvah were still in the Garden.
- Motivation for positing achronology – The anomalous past perfect form, "וְהָאָדָם יָדַע", might be an indicator of achronology. A second motivation might be polemical in nature. As Christians suggest that the sin in the Garden of Eden is what led to sexual desire, this position might want to stress that such desire existed even beforehand.
- Reason for displacement - The birth is mentioned at the opening of Chapter 4 because it is necessary to open the Kayin and Hevel story.
- Placement in Tanakh – Hashem's command to Avraham to leave his family and head to Canaan opens Bereshit 12 and, as such, would appear to be relayed to Avraham only after he had left Ur Kasdim, arrived in Charan, and settled there (as described in Bereshit 11:31).45
- Possible chronological place – R. Saadia, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, however, suggest that the command's proper chronological place is at the end of Bereshit 11, before Avraham departed from Ur Kasdim.46
- Motivation for positing achronology – In the story of the Covenant of the Pieces in Bereshit 15, Hashem tells Avraham, "אֲנִי י״י אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים". This implies that Hashem's command of "לֶךְ לְךָ" was given to Avraham in Ur Kasdim rather than in Charan, and must have taken place before his initial departure described in Bereshit 11:31.47
- Reason for displacement – Despite it occurring earlier, the command is first mentioned at the beginning of Bereshit 12 to introduce the Avraham narrative and the completion of his journey to Canaan.48 For further discussion, see Avraham's Aliyah.
- Placement in Tanakh – Sarah's conception and pregnancy with Yitzchak is described in Bereshit 21 right before the story of Yitzchak's birth, weaning, and the expulsion of Yishmael..
- Possible chronological place – Rashi, R. Avraham Saba, and Malbim, however, maintain that Sarah had conceived before or in the middle of the story of Avimelekh and Sarah described in the previous chapter (Bereshit 20).
- Factors supporting achronology – Achronology might be hinted to in the text's employment of the past perfect form "וַה' פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה" rather than the form "ויפקוד ה'".49
- Reason for displacement – Despite having occurred earlier, the conception might be recorded first in Bereshit 21 to introduce the story of Yitzchak's birth.
- Placement in Tanakh – Amram and Yocheved's marriage is mentioned in Shemot 2, right before the story of Moshe's birth.
- Possible chronological place – R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, maintains that Amram and Yocheved had married before the decree of Paroh to kill all baby boys discussed in the previous chapter (Shemot 1).
- Motivation for positing achronology – If the marriage had occurred only after the decree, one would have expected that there should have been an attempt to hide not only Moshe, but also Aharon and Miryam, his older siblings. Since no such attempt is mentioned, it is assumed that that the marriage (and the births of Miryam and Aharon) occurred before the decree
- Reason for displacement – The marriage is mentioned later to properly open the story of Moshe's birth and its aftermath.
- Placement in Tanakh – The verses present Hashem as commanding Moshe regarding the last plague while he was standing in front of Paroh, after the Plague of Darkness.
- Possible chronological place – Ibn Ezra,50 however, suggests that this statement refers to Hashem's earlier informing of Moshe of the Plague of Firstborns when en route from Midyan in Shemot 4:23.51
- Motivation for positing achronology – Ralbag explains that if the verse occurred where written this would mean that Moshe received prophecy while in the middle of a conversation, and moreover, that he prophesied while standing in an idolatry-filled palace!
- Reason for displacement – The command is repeated here to introduce Moshe's statement to Paroh "כֹּה אָמַר י״י כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם. וּמֵת כׇּל בְּכוֹר", to remind the reader that this plague was indeed already announced by Hashem.
- Placement in Tanakh – Bemidbar 9 opens with a description of the first Pesach brought by the Israelites in the Wilderness, dating this to the first month. It then proceeds to speak of the petition of the impure who could not participate in the rite.
- Explicit achronology – In this case, achronology is explicit in the text. Bemidbar 1 opens in the second month, while Bemidbar 9 backtracks to speak of events of the first month.
- Reason for displacement – Abarbanel suggests that the Pesach of the first month is mentioned in the beginning of Bemidbar 9, not because it occurred there, but only to serve as a prelude to the main story of the unit, Pesach Sheni. Without the background of the events of the first month, the request of the impure would not make sense to the reader. For elaboration, see Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10.
- Placement in Tanakh – The ceremony on Mount Eival (including the writing on the stones, setting up of the altar and recital of the blessings and curses) is described in Yehoshua 8, after the battle against the Ai.
- Possible chronological place – R. D"Z Hoffmann, however, suggests that though most of the ceremony took place where written, the preparation of the stones (8:32), began much earlier,52 immediately after the nation crossed the Jordan.
- Motivation for positing achronology – The directive regarding the ceremony in Devarim 27 mandates that the stones be set up on the day that the nation crosses the Jordan ("בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן"), and Yehoshua 8:32 states that Yehoshua did as commanded. However, if the story is in its proper chronological place, then Yehoshua did not do as commanded.53 R. Hoffmann, thus, suggests that the initial preparation of the stones (the plastering and writing) did indeed begin on the day of the crossing.
- Reason for displacement – The writing on the stones is mentioned in Yehoshua 8 to fill in the beginning of the main story, providing the details of the preparatory stage of the ceremony. See When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur for elaboration and other approaches regarding the timing of the ceremony.
- Placement in Tanakh – The death of Shemuel is mentioned in Shemuel I 25, before the story of David and Naval, and repeated in Shemuel I 28 before the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov.54
- Possible chronological place – It is assumed that Shemuel died in Shemuel 25, where the death is first mentioned and elaborated upon.
- Motivation for positing achronology – As the event is mentioned twice, it is obvious that one of the two mentions is out of place. The past perfect form of "וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" in Chapter 28 hints to the reader that the event occurred previously and is only being referenced here..
- Reason for displacement – The death of Shemuel is repeated in the beginning of the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov even though it occurred earlier as necessary background to understand the revival of the prophet later in the story.55
Epilogues
A component of a story which is only to occur later is moved earlier to provide closure to the main unit.
- Placement in Tanakh – Right after Amalek is defeated in the nation's first year in the Wilderness, Shemot 17 tells how Hashem commanded Moshe to record the battle for posterity in "the book" and to speak to Yehoshua about wiping out Amalek.
- Possible chronological place – Despite the placement of the directive, Ibn Ezra posits that it was first commanded in the fortieth year.
- Motivation for positing achronology – Ibn Ezra is motivated by the fact that it is only in the fortieth year that it was known that Yehoshua alone was to head the Conquest and that he would be the one to fight Amalek, and it was only by then that "the book," the Sefer Torah, was extant.61
- Reason for displacement – The directive is recorded in Shemot only so as to conclude the narrative of the battle.
- Placement in Tanakh – Yitro's departure back to Midyan is described in Shemot 18, after recounting the story of his arrival and giving of advice to Moshe, but before the account of the Revelation at Sinai.
- Possible chronological place – Shadal,64 however, posits that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year.
- Motivation for positing achronology – Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro (see Yitro – Names), and therefore he identifies his departure there, in the second year, with what is described in Shemot 18.
- Reason for displacement – Yitro's leaving is recorded already in Shemot to "complete the story".65
- Placement in Tanakh – The directive to build the Incense Altar is found in Shemot 30, at the end of the discussion regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels and before the account of the Sin of the Golden Calf.
- Possible chronological place – Some scholars,69 however, have suggested that the Incense Altar was commanded to be built only after the sin. If so, the proper placement of the command would be Shemot 34.
- Motivation for positing achronology – This position views the Incense Altar as playing an important role in atonement and, thus, suggests that it was first commanded only when Yom HaKippurim was instituted, in the aftermath of the sin.
- Reason for displacement –The directive is mentioned earlier to close the unit on the vessels of the Mishkan.70
- Placement in Tanakh – The erection of the Tabernacle is described in Shemot 40, where it is said to have taken place on the first of Nissan.
- Proper chronological place – According to those who maintain that the Days of Consecration of the Mishkan described in Vayikra 8-9 began on the 23rd of Adar,73 the Mishkan's erection should be recounted only afterwards (in Vayikra 10).74
- Reason for displacement – One might suggest that the Tabernacle's erection is mentioned already in Shemot only to serve as an epilogue to the unit of chapters discussing the building of the Mishkan.
- Placement in Tanakh – Bemidbar 21:3 describes the conquest of Canaanite cities by Israel, in fulfillment of their vow after the victory over the King of Arad.
- Possible chronological place – Ramban suggests that this first took place after Yehoshua's death in the period of Judges, as described in Shofetim 1:16-17.
- Motivation for positing achronology – As both the verses in Bemidbar and in Shofetim speak of conquering the Canaanites and calling the conquered place "חרמה", it seems that they are speaking of the same event.
- Reason for displacement – The story is mentioned already here, despite the achronology, to complete the story, telling the reader how the nation's vow was fulfilled.
- Placement in Tanakh – After discussing the petition of Reuven and Gad and Moshe's giving them and half of the tribe of Menashe lands on the eastern bank of the Jordan, Bemidbar 32 describes the conquests of Menashe's descendants in the area.
- Possible chronological place – Ralbag suggests that the conquests really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.79 A student of R. Saadia Gaon goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.80
- Motivation for positing achronology – A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.
- Reason for displacement – Despite occurring earlier, the event is mentioned here to complete the story and explain why Menashe, too, got land on the eastern bank of the Jordan. For further discussion, see Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad.
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.
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 (or hiding) a character's strengths or faults.
Proper Behavior
Two nonconsecutive stories might be juxtaposed to teach a lesson in proper behavior.
Hashem's Attributes
Achronology might serve to link stories so as to highlight Hashem's ways and attributes.
Character
Juxtaposing stories that otherwise would not follow one another can help a reader compare and contrast different figures, often highlighting their merits or faults.
Defense of Avot
Achronology might be a means of obscuring a fault or sin of the Avot or nation.