"Disorder in the Bible: Rabbinic Responses and Responsibilities," Jewish Studies Quarterly 19...

Disorder in the Bible:Rabbinic Responses and Responsibilities*

Yonatan Moss

I. Introduction

“Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”This is the king�s simple order at Alice�s trial in Wonderland. But theking�s order was not obeyed; in fact, the queen goes on to declare toAlice�s consternation: “Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”1 Biblical lit-erature tends to follow, on the whole, the king�s precept: logical sequenceis observed. But often the biblical text strays unexpectedly into thequeen�s realm: earlier narration refers to subsequent events; later datesappear before earlier ones; and narrative, legal and poetic elements arearranged out of their proper chronological order. The problem of bib-lical disorder, or “chronological displacement” as it has been called,2 isone that has recurrently captured the minds of biblical interpreters fromantiquity to the present.3 The problem disturbed Jews as well as Chris-tians, and indeed, as I hope to show, it was not limited to the Bible.Early interpreters of Homer�s Iliad grappled with similar issues and dis-played a similar range of responses.

Jewish Studies Quarterly, Volume 19 (2012) pp. 104—128' Mohr Siebeck — ISSN 0944-5706

* This paper passed through several gestational phases. My thanks are due to IsaiahGafni, Christine Hayes, David Stern, Tzvi Novick, and the paper�s anonymous re-viewer for their most helpful comments at the different phases. I would also like tothank Sarit Kattan Gribetz and Moulie Vidas for their splendid suggestions for theimprovement of the paper and for expertly running the Princeton workshop at whichan earlier version was delivered.

1 Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, ch. 12; Martin Gardner, The Annotated Alice(New York: Norton, 2000) 121 and 124.

2 David Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures(Atlanta: Scholars, 1993).

3 For one recent source-critical approach to the problem, see Baruch J. Schwartz,“The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement, the Source Critical Solu-tion,” in Mishne Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honorof Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. N. S. Fox et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 29–48.

In this paper I identify three different approaches within rabbinicliterature to the problem of chronological displacement in the Bible.The first approach merely points out the lack of order but does notinterpret its meaning. In order to fully understand the biblical textsome of its elements must be rearranged – even if only in theory ratherthan in practice. The second approach, by contrast, sanctifies the givenorder of the text. It derives particular lessons from the apparentbreaches of order. The third approach, which I call the “meta-interpre-tive” approach, interprets the phenomenon of biblical disorder on ageneral, reflexive level: chronological displacement does not come toteach specific, local lessons but to inculcate one overarching lessonabout the nature of the biblical text; its very disregard for humanlyexpected narrative order is a testament to its divine origin.

I show that the phenomenological distinction between these threeapproaches is attested also in another exegetical tradition. Homericexegesis of the Hellenistic and Roman periods attests to a similar tripar-tite pattern. These parallels are not to be understood in terms of theinfluence of Homeric exegesis on the rabbis, but rather as an indicationof a shared exegetical culture in which both Homeric scholars and rabbisparticipated.

After identifying the three rabbinic approaches and pointing out theirparallels with Homeric interpretation, I focus on one talmudic passage –b. Ber. 10a – that dramatizes the question of textual disorder in the formof a short dialogue between a rabbi and a “rabbinic other.” In this passagethe first rabbinic approach to textual disorder is expressed by a min(heretic), someone outside of rabbinic society. R. Abahu, the min�s inter-locutor, responds by invoking the second rabbinic approach: he defendsthe given order of the text and derives an exegetical lesson from it.

Rather than reading the min�s words here as a historical witness to anon-rabbinic position, I make the case for interpreting it as the projec-tion of a position available within rabbinic culture. I argue that thisposition was perceived as potentially threatening due to the “anarchic”ramifications it had for midrashic procedure. If the biblical text, as itstands, is admitted to be disorderly, the rabbinic exegete might be freeto rearrange the text however he sees fit. Indeed, there are several mid-rashic techniques that do just this. It was anxiety about such proceduresthat motivated the anonymous authors of the b. Ber. 10a dialogue tosafely relocate the rabbinic viewpoint that admits biblical disorder tooutside of rabbinic society.

Finally, I adduce a similar process in early Christian literature. Ire-naeus of Lyons and Tertullian each accuse their opponents, the Valenti-

(2012) Disorder in the Bible: Rabbinic Responses and Responsibilities 105

nians, of rearranging scriptures and of interpreting scriptures out ofcontext so as to offer support for their doctrines. However, all the avail-able evidence, including the reports provided by Irenaeus and Tertullianthemselves, shows that the exegetical methods practiced by the Valenti-nians were no different from the usual allegorical techniques practicedby other Christians and strongly supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Iargue, therefore, that Irenaeus and Tertullian�s accusations against theValentinians are to be interpreted along the same lines as the Bavli�sportrayal of the min: a projection onto others of anxieties about thedestabilizing ramifications of one�s own exegetical methods.

II. Three Rabbinic Approaches to Textual Disorder

Tannaitic literature displays two of the three approaches to the questionof textual disorder in the Bible. The third approach is attested inAmoraic literature. In order to clarify the differences among these threeapproaches, I would like to introduce a simple, but fundamental, distinc-tion deployed in literary criticism, both in its ancient and moderninstantiations. This distinction, which has gone by different names, isbetween what may be called a narrative�s story and its plot.4 The pointof the distinction is to separate between the narrative�s underlying story-line, or simply, the story, and the way this story is told in practice: theplot. All three approaches to textual disorder that I discuss share oneinitial assumption (even if not all end up maintaining this assumption):that the sequence of the plot should match the sequence of the story.The three approaches then differ as to how to explain the fact that thebiblical text belies this assumption: its plot-sequence does not match itsunderlying story-sequence.

The first approach, first documented in Tannaitic sources, is knownas ein muqdam u-meuhar ba-torah, “there is no earlier or later in theTorah” (henceforth: ein muqdam). This approach observes that the bib-lical text – whether it be an entire book or a particular unit within abook – is not arranged according to the chronological or thematic order

106 Yonatan Moss JSQ 19

4 For the ancients see, e. g., Ps.-Cicero, Rhetorica ad Herennium, 3.9–10 (=3.16–17);Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 4.2.83–87, and generally, Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Lit-erary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study, trans. M. T. Bliss et al. (Leiden: Brill,1998) 213–214. For an overview of the moderns, see Seymour Chatman, Story andDiscourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1989) 19–22. See also Rene Nunlist, The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Conceptsof Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)23–33.

that the reader might expect. According to this approach, no particularmeaning should be attached to the demonstrable lack of textual order.5

The locus classicus in Tannaitic literature for the idea of ein muqdam is apassage that appears in both Mekhiltas:6

The enemy said… (Ex 15:9). This was the beginning of the passage, sowhy was it written here? Because there is no earlier or later in the Torah.Similarly: On the eighth day Moses called (Lev 9:1). This was the beginningof the passage, so why was it written here? Because there is no earlier or laterin the Torah. Similarly: In the year that King Uzziah died (Isa 6:1). This wasthe beginning of the book, so why was it written here? Because there is noearlier or later in the Torah. Similarly: O mortal, stand up on your feet (Ezek2:1). This was the beginning of the book, so why was it written here?Because there is no earlier or later in the Torah. Some say: O mortal, pro-pound a riddle (Ezek 17:2). This was the beginning of the book, so why was itwritten here? Because there is no earlier or later in the Torah. Similarly: Goand cry in the ears of Jerusalem (Jer 2:2). This was the beginning of the book,so why was it written here? Because there is no earlier or later in the Torah.Similarly: Israel is a ravaged vine (Hos 10:1). This was the beginning of thebook, so why was it written here? Because there is no earlier or later in theTorah. Similarly: I, Koheleth, was king in Jerusalem over Israel (Eccl 1:12).This was the beginning of the book, so why was it written here? Becausethere is no earlier or later in the Torah.

This passage assembles a string of cases in which chronologically priorelements of the “story” appear later in the “plot.” The midrash takes acertain verse that might be thought to have been the starting point of theplot of a given book or literary unit, and it notes that this is not the case.The “opening verse” appears in the middle, not at the beginning. Thus,for example, “I, Koheleth, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Koh


5 For a discussion of several of the Tannaitic sources that employ ein muqdam, seebelow. See further the studies by Margarete Schluter: “Kein �fruher� und �sp�ter� in derTora? Polemische Aspekte eines rabbinischen Prinzips,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beit-r�ge 30 (2003) 1–38; “The Creative Force of a Hermeneutic Rule: The Principle �ThereIs No Earlier and Later in the Torah� in Midrashic and Talmudic Literature,” in Crea-tion and Recreation in Jewish Thought: Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Dan on the Occa-sion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. R. Elior and P. Sch�fer (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,2005) 59–84. For a more general study of ein muqdam, as well as other rabbinic andmedieval approaches to the problem of textual disorder, see Isaac Gottlieb, Order in theBible: The Arrangement of the Torah in Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Commentary(Heb.; Jerusalem and Ramat Gan: Magnes and Bar Ilan University Press, 2009).

6 Mekhilta d�R. Ishmael, Shira, 7 (Rabin-Horovitz ed., 139–140). The parallel is inMekhilta d�R. Shim<on bar Yohai on Ex 15.9 (Epstein-Melamed ed., 88). This passage isthought to have been common to both the Akivan and the Ishmaelite schools. SeeMenahem Kahana, Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion: The Originality of the Ver-sion of the Mekhilta d�Rabbi Ishma<el with respect to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shim<on benYohay (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 19–24.

1:12) is viewed as the book�s natural beginning, even though it onlyshows up in v.12.

According to the advocates of the principle of ein muqdam, there arediscrepancies between the order of the Torah�s story and the order of itsplot. What the text presents before us is the plot in a certain sequence; ifone sought to uncover the chronology of the Torah�s story one wouldneed to rearrange the sequence of its plot.7 It is clear, however, that theein muqdam approach is not advocating the actual rearrangement of thetext of the Torah, only its interpretation in an order different from thegiven one.8

What is interesting about the midrash�s formulation of the principleof ein muqdam and its repeated application to various instances through-out the Bible is that it is not so much a solution to the hermeneuticalproblem as an observation about its prevalence. No reason is given forthe fact that the verses that would seem to belong at the beginnings ofthe books of the Bible tend to be postponed to the middle. It is merelyobserved that this is “the way things are done” in the Torah. The prin-


7 It is instructive to compare this rabbinic position to Josephus� introduction to hisaccount of the Mosaic laws (Ant. Jud. 4.197). Josephus states that his only innovationwith respect to the biblical account was to rearrange the order of the laws. He explainsthat Moses recorded the laws in the scattered order in which he successively receivedthem from God, rather than in their proper thematic sequence. It is this latter sequencethat Josephus sets out to restore. As in the ein muqdam approach, Josephus points outthe disorder in the text and attaches no interpretive significance to it. But, unlike therabbis, he offers a historical explanation for this state of affairs. A similar historicalexplanation, this time for the disorderly arrangement of the psalms, was offered in thefourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius (Comm. Ps. on Ps. 72; PG 23, 604b)speculates that originally the psalms were arranged in their correct chronological order,but due to the ravages of idolatry and exile the people of Israel lost their scriptures. Inthe days of Ezra an effort was made to recover them, but they were not all found atonce. The order in which they now appear is the order in which they were found andnot the original historical order to which their events refer or the order in which theywere composed. Interestingly enough, this opinion was shared by the early twentieth-century Orthodox rabbi Haim Hirschensohn, who thought that originally the Bible wasarranged in strict chronological order and it was only due to the Babylonian exile thatthe original order was lost; see Hirschensohn, Seder La-mikra: The ChronologicalOrder of Scriptures (Heb.; Jerusalem, 1934), referred to in Gottlieb, Order in the Bible,11. Finally, compare these opinions about the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible to thewords of Papias (early second century) about the arrangement of the Gospel of Mark:“Mark became Peter�s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not,indeed, in order (ou mentoi taxei), of the things said or done by the Lord”; see Euse-bius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15, referred to in David Daube, “Alexandrian Methods of Inter-pretation and the Rabbis,” in Festschrift Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing and Lichten-hahn, 1953) 27–44, at 32; repr. in Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Litera-ture, ed. H. A. Fischel (New York: Ktav, 1977) 165–182, at 172.

8 Indeed, Schluter, “Kein �fruher� und �sp�ter,�” argues that the ein muqdam princi-ple originated as a polemical response to attempts to rearrange the biblical text.

ciple of ein muqdam is – in contradistinction to the two other approaches– remarkably non-teleological and, indeed, non-theological. It does notattach any special significance to the fact that the Torah�s plot-sequencedoes not match its story-sequence. The Torah was not arranged in thismanner with some greater purpose in mind.

The other approach in Tannaitic literature, known as the semukhin(“juxtaposed”) approach, differs from the ein muqdam approach pre-cisely on this last point. It posits that the given order of the biblicaltext is meaningful indeed. Even if it might seem out of order accordingto certain criteria, such as thematic continuity or chronologicalsequence, the text has been arranged in its particular order so as toconvey other legal, ethical or theological types of messages. Instancesof the semukhin approach are scattered throughout rabbinic literatureof all periods. Following is one early and succinct example:

Why was the passage about the wood-gatherer (Num 15:32–36) juxta-posed to the passage about tzitzit (Num 15:37–41)? In order to teach youthat a dead person is under the obligation of [wearing] tzitzit.9

Num 15:32–36 tells the story of a man who gathered wood on the Sab-bath, for whom God decrees death. Immediately following this story,God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites about the commandment ofwearing tzitzit, namely, fringes on the corners of their garments. Thefollowing verse (Num 16:1) resumes the story of the Israelites in thewilderness. Thus, the legal passage about tzitzit appears out of place inthe narrative flow. The midrash explains that this arrangement wasintentional: from the juxtaposition of the wood-gatherer who was exe-cuted with the commandment about tzitzit, we may deduce the legallesson that tzitzit must be worn by the dead as well as the living.10

The difference between the ein muqdam and semukhin approachesboils down to a difference of opinion over whether the text of the Torahis ultimately disorderly or orderly. Ein muqdam points out that the Torahis disorderly and leaves it at that. It seeks neither to solve the problem,nor to minimize its existence. On the other hand, semukhin claims that,contrary to appearances, the Torah is in fact orderly; it is just a matter ofredefining what constitutes order. This difference in approach may becompared to the difference between the two classical theological atti-tudes to the problem of evil.11 Do we say, as Voltaire famously did inCandide, that evil is a reality for which we do not have a satisfying


9 Sif. Zutta Num. 15, 36 (Horovitz ed., 288). Cf. Horovitz�s note ad loc.10 This ruling was later disputed. For a survey of the question, see Yechiel M.

Epstein, Arukh Ha-Shulhan (Warsaw, 1884–1893), Yoreh De<ah, chap. 351.11 See J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955) 200–212, repr. in The

explanation, or do we say, with Leibniz, that the evil we think we see inthis “best of all possible worlds” is only apparent and that therefore theso-called “problem of evil” is actually not a problem at all?12

I stress that the two classic rabbinic exegetical stances are to be readas two different responses to the same problem – indeed, as two oppos-ing responses – because some commentators have viewed ein muqdamand semukhin as complementary, rather than alternative, approaches.According to their interpretation, the idea of ein muqdam is understoodas a warrant, a license, for the semukhin method of seeking meaning inthe Torah�s arrangement that goes beyond chronological concerns.13

Other commentators, however, have read ein muqdam and semukhinas oppositional, rather than complementary approaches.14 The opposi-


Problem of Evil, ed. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1990) 25–37, esp. 26–27.

12 Compare the semukhin approach to textual disorder to Alexander Pope�s famouslines (Essay on Man 1.289–292): “All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee; All ChanceDirection, which thou canst see; All Discord, Harmony, not understood: All partialEvil, universal Good: And, spite of Pride and erring Reason�s spite, One truth is,Whatever IS is RIGHT.”

13 See, e. g., Moses Alshekh, Torat Moshe (Venice, 1601), p. 182 (on Lev 16:1–3):“Although there is no earlier or later in the Torah (ein muqdam …), nevertheless, what-ever was written out of order was only placed where it was so as to juxtapose it tosomething else, so as to teach a proper lesson, when we expound [by the principle of]semukhin.” Similarly, Gottlieb, Order in the Bible, 7–10, while aware of the oppositionalreading, advocates a complementary reading. See also the ambivalent formulation byYonah Frankel: “We will discuss two exegetical approaches that oppose each other, andcomplement each other: �juxtaposed passages� [i. e., semukhin] and �there is no earlier orlater in the Torah� [i. e., ein muqdam].” (Frankel, The Ways of the Aggadah and theMidrash [Heb.; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Masada, 1991] 1.183, as cited by Gottlieb, Order inthe Bible, 6, n. 14).

14 See, e. g., the words of the early twelfth-century German tosafist, R. Eliezer b.Nathan: “Even those who do not expound [by] semukhin in the rest of the Torah, willexpound [by] semukhin in the book of Deuteronomy. The reason for this is that the restof the Torah was uttered by the mouth of God, [and therefore] there is no earlier orlater [in it], but Moses, who arranged Deuteronomy passage after passage, did it so thatit might be expounded [according to the order in which he arranged it].” (ShalomAlbeck, ed., Sefer Ra�avan [Warsaw, 1904], chap. 34, p. 27; referred to by Gottlieb,Order in the Bible, 6, n. 14.) Eliezer b. Nathan viewed ein muqdam and semukhin asmutually exclusive principles. Only in Deuteronomy, where ein muqdam does not apply,is there room for semukhin. Alshekh articulated the complementary understandingcited in the previous note as a response to the challenge of how to harmonize betweenein muqdam and semukhin. His initial assumption, however, was that these are twocontradictory principles. For a forceful statement of the oppositional reading in mod-ern scholarship, see A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations,ed. and trans. G. Tucker and L. Levin (New York: Continuum, 2005) 240–242. See,however, Gottlieb, Order in the Torah, 16–17, where he points out that Heschel over-plays his hand by unduly associating ein muqdam and a concomitant rejection of semu-khin with R. Ishmael.

tional reading makes more sense to me for the following reasons. Tobegin with, the rabbinic sources, to the best of my knowledge, neverpresent these approaches as complementary, or even as compatible,with each other. Typically, ein muqdam and semukhin show up in com-pletely different contexts. In the one case where a variant of the einmuqdam approach is presented in conjunction with semukhin, it isdone in an oppositional rather than a complementary framework, as Iargue below. If these two approaches were complementary, we mighthave expected to find both approaches attributed to the same sage, yetI have found no such instances in Tannaitic literature.

That some strands of later tradition and certain modern scholars pre-sent the two approaches as complementary rather than oppositionalshould not surprise us, given the ever-increasing harmonizing tendencieswithin later rabbinic culture and among its medieval and modern con-tinuators.15 Speaking from the historical-critical vantage point, I preferthe reading that preserves difference over the one that harmonizes itaway: from the perspective of tradition, the non-harmonizing readingis the lectio difficilior.

This is not, however, merely a theoretical, a priori question. As indi-cated above, one passage in Sifrei Numbers seems to pit the twoapproaches against each other:16

While Israel was dwelling in Shittim, the people began to commit harlotry(Num 25:1) … R. Akiva says: “Every passage that is adjacent to anotherpassage learns things from that other passage.” Rabbi17 says: “Many pas-sages are adjacent to each other, yet are far from each other as far as East isfrom West! Similarly, you say: The Israelites would not listen to me (Ex 6:12),God said to him (to Moses): They will listen to you” (Ex 3:18).

Numbers 22–24 tell the story of Balaam, and chapter 25 moves on to thestory of Israel�s escapades with the daughters of Moab. The text makesno explicit connection between these two episodes. R. Akiva is of theopinion that the contextual juxtaposition of the two episodes comes toteach a specific lesson. Akiva�s hermeneutic is essentially the same as thesemukhin approach, which became normative in later rabbinic sources.According to this approach, there is meaning in the text�s arrangement,and it can be uncovered by proper exegesis.


15 On this phenomenon, see, e. g., Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylo-nian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) 143–147.

16 Sif. Num. 131 (Horovitz ed., 169). All translations from Hebrew and Greek aremine unless noted otherwise.

17 Thus according to Horovitz�s edition, based on Yalqut Shim�oni, chap. 178 (on Ex6); the Vatican manuscript and Yalqut, chap. 771 (on Lev 21) read “R. Meir.” See moreon this below.

R. Judah Ha-Nasi, who lived a generation after Akiva, counters thisapproach by stating that contextual juxtaposition does not necessarilyentail thematic continuity, nor does contextual isolation necessarilyentail thematic discontinuity. He demonstrates this by reading God�spromise to Moses in Exodus 3 that the Israelites will listen to him, asa response to Moses� complaint in Exodus 6 that the Israelites did notlisten in the past. Although these statements by Moses and God appearin different, distantly separated contexts, and in the reverse order, Judahreorders them so as to interpret them in dialogue with each other. Heseizes these cases as a springboard for further destabilizing the givenorder and for constructing new exegetical possibilities. Elsewhere inSifrei Numbers, he provides further justification for this method of inter-pretation, explicitly referring to it by the principle of ein muqdam.18

R. Akiva, and much of later rabbinic tradition, shifts the focus awayfrom the story and onto the plot. The given order of the text is inten-tional; it is meant to convey meaning. What is required is not rearrange-ment, but a correct interpretation of the order in which the text appears.Thus, I read the exchange between R. Judah Ha-Nasi and R. Akiva asevidence for the notion that the approaches respectively associated withein muqdam and semukhin are in opposition to each other rather than inharmony. I think that the weight of this passage, combined with thearguments presented earlier concerning the rhetorical distinction thatthe sources make between these two approaches, make a strong casefor an oppositional reading.

I should note, however, that there are those who read the response toR. Akiva�s statement not as an objection but as a qualification of, oraddition to, R. Akiva�s words.19 The difference between these two under-


18 Sif. Num. 64 (Horovitz, 60–61): And God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinaiin the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, in the first month (Num9: 1)…: This teaches you that there is no earlier or later in the Torah, for at thebeginning of the book he says: And God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai inthe tent of meeting on the first day of the second month (Num 1: 1), and here (Num 9: 1)he says in the first month; thus teaching you that there is no earlier or later in theTorah. R. (Judah Ha-Nasi) says: “This is not necessary, for it was already written [=earlier in the Torah] And the people of Israel ate the manna forty years until they came toa habitable land… (Ex 16: 35), and yet they had not yet eaten [it for forty years]! Ratherthis teaches you that there is no earlier or later in the Torah.” See Gottlieb, Order in theBible, 21–22.

19 The interpretation I advocate was forcibly argued by Horovitz in his commentson the passage in his edition of the Sifrei (p. 169). See Heschel, Heavenly Torah, 240–242 for the same interpretation. For the alternative interpretations, see Meir Friedmann(Ish Shalom), ed., Sifre (Vienna, 1864; repr. Jerusalem, 1978), p. 47a, chap. 131, n. 5,who understands R. Meir as adding to R. Akiva�s words: not only can one learnlessons from juxtaposed passages, but lessons can be learned in the same manner

standings hinges on the identity of Akiva�s respondent. Those who inter-pret the response as essentially in agreement with Akiva are heirs to areading, current in the nineteenth century, that had “R. Meir” ratherthan “Rabbi” (Judah Ha-Nasi) as the respondent. R. Meir, R. Akiva�sprominent disciple, could not be interpreted as flatly contradicting hismaster. Horovitz, in preferring the textual witnesses that read “Rabbi”to those that read “R. Meir,”20 removed this hermeneutical constraintand made the case that Rabbi and R. Akiva�s positions are diametricallyopposed. Inasmuch as there is now a general consensus that we shouldprefer Horovitz�s reading Rabbi over R. Meir, it seems that we shouldalso follow his interpretation of the passage, reading Rabbi and R.Akiva as taking contradictory, rather than complementary, stances: theformer advocating ein muqdam and the latter advocating semukhin.

Thus far I have discussed the two approaches to biblical disorderrepresented in Tannaitic literature. The third approach, which I callthe “meta-interpretive approach,” only appears, to the best of myknowledge, in later sources. According to this approach, textual disorderis an intended feature of the text, inserted not so much to convey localmeaning, specifically relevant to the passage in question, as in semukhin,but rather for the purpose of teaching some overarching lesson aboutthe nature of the Torah�s textuality. Unlike the ein muqdam approachthat points out the Torah�s disorder but offers no explanation for it,and unlike the semukhin approach that essentially disputes the notionthat the Torah is disorderly, this third approach admits the Torah�s dis-order, but offers one grand explanation for it that would apply to eachand every case of disorder. To continue my earlier analogy withapproaches to the problem of evil, the meta-interpretive approach isanalogous to the position that there is indeed evil in the world, but itis there to serve some greater purpose (such as making us appreciate thegood).21

The meta-interpretive approach is displayed in a passage from GenesisRabbah. The issue is that Chapter 5 of the Book of Daniel ends with thedeath of Belshazzar, and Chapter 6 begins with the reign of Darius, but


even from passages that are not juxtaposed to each other. See also Wilhelm Bacher, DieAgada der Tannaiten (Strasburg: Trubner, 1890) 2.37, who follows Friedmann in read-ing “R. Meir” instead of “Rabbi.” He reads R. Meir as limiting rather than expandingor disputing R. Akiva�s statement. One may not apply the semukhin approach to justany two adjacent passages, for sometimes passages appear outside of their appropriatecontexts. See Gottlieb, Order in the Bible, 38–40, esp. 39, n. 10 for more literature on thesubject.

20 See n. 17 above.21 See Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” 27–32.

then Chapters 7 and 8 revert back to the reign of Belshazzar. The mid-rash comments:22

R. Huna said in the name of R. Aha: (this is) so that it might not be saidthat it [the Book of Daniel? the Bible?] is the words of piyutin,23 so that allmay know that he [Daniel?] pronounced it by means of the Holy Spirit. TheSages said: in order lisrog [to girth over (?); to knit together (?)] the entirebook, (demonstrating) that he pronounced it by means of the Holy Spirit[kedei lisrog �al ha-sefer kulo she�amaro be-ruah ha-qodesh.]

R. Huna and his master R. Aha, both active in the first half of thefourth century, view narrative disorder as an end in and of itself. It iswhat distinguishes the Book of Daniel, or – depending on how oneinterprets the ambiguous phrasing – perhaps the whole Bible,24 fromthe work of piyutin. Disorder bespeaks divine inspiration.

Piyutin is a loanword from the Greek word for “poet.”25 The “workof piyutin” therefore should be taken as referring to poetry. In setting upa contrast between the Bible and poetry, what kind of poetry mightHuna have had in mind here?26 It has been suggested that piyutin inour passage is the earliest reference to piyut in the sense now familiar


22 Gen. Rab., 85 (38.2) (Theodor-Albeck ed., 1033). This passage occurs after astring of expositions according to the semukhin approach. The redactor�s juxtapositionof the “meta-interpretive” statements of R. Huna in the name of R. Aha and the Sageswith the other midrashim following the semukhin pattern should not be interpreted asindicating that these interpretations are all cut from the same exegetical cloth.

23 pjifjs , following most manuscripts. London reads: pjqfjs; Paris: pifjs ; Vatican:pfifs ; Munich: pjfjis ; a marginal gloss on London: pjjfdjb. Commentary in the nameof Rashi (Venice, 1667): pjadb . The corruption of pjifjs and its transformation intopjjfdjb or pjadb (“fabrications”; “fabricators”) is a testament to the difficulties it poses.See more on this below.

24 The question is what the pronouns “it” and “he” refer to in R. Huna�s statement.25 Poietes with a metathesis of the oi diphthong and an added Hebrew plural -in

suffix.26 The editio princeps of Gen. Rab. reads divrei bada�in (“the words of fabricators”)

and interpolates an entire explanation. Samuel Jaffe Ashkenazi (sixteenth-century Tur-key), in his commentary Yefe Einayim, ad loc., adopts the explanation given in theeditio princeps, but adapts it to the piyutin reading. Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada derpal�stinensischen Amor�er (3 vols.; Strasburg, 1896–1898) 3.294, n. 2, suggests inter-preting the claim here as a defense against the attack by the third-century pagan phi-losopher Porphyry on the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel. As appeal-ing as Bacher�s suggestion might seem in terms of historical contextualization, it doesnot conform to the usage of the word piyutin. Why would Porphyry, or the historicalexpectation he had of the book of Daniel, be referred to in terms of poetry? MarcusJastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Mid-rashic Literature (New York, 1903) 1160, avoids the connection with poetry altogetherand derives piyutin from the Hebrew root patpet, “to chatter.” This is due to Jastrow�sgeneral policy of minimizing the number of Greek and Latin loanwords in the rabbiniccorpus (see Jastrow, Dictionary, vi–xii); nevertheless, it is clear that in this case it isindeed a matter of a Greek loanword.

to us of liturgical poetry. According to this reading, Huna is contrastingbetween the given biblical text and its rearrangement at the hands ofhymnographers.27 This explanation, however, does not seem likely, giventhe scarcity of evidence for piyut, in the liturgical sense, already extant inthis period.28 It is more likely that Huna uses piyut here in the common,non-technical sense of the Greek word. He is contrasting between theBible and his understanding of the works of literary poets: unlike“mere” poetry, order is not to be expected in the Bible.29

The second view expressed in this passage, in the name of the sages,seems to be saying something similar to R. Huna, but it is not clear whatexactly, as the interpretation of the verb lisrog, “to knit,” is obscure.30 Itmay be instructive to compare its usage here with a comment by thefourth-century Cappadocian bishop, Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatiseon the Inscriptions of the Psalms. Having raised the problem of thelack of chronological order in the arrangement of the psalms, Gregorywrites:31

After this the historical order in the inscriptions does not follow, but themeaning has been consistently knit (sunertetai) together. For the matter con-cerning Bathsheba and Uriah is much later than the account of Doeg the


27 Joseph Yahalom, Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity (Heb.; TelAviv: Hakibbutz Hame�uhad, 1999) 36–37.

28 Besides this source, the word piyut does not appear at all in rabbinic literature.Paytan shows up a couple of times, the earliest attestation being Lev. Rab. 30. As in theGen. Rab. passage, it is unclear whether the reference there is to liturgical piyut, in thelater sense of the word. Although there is clear evidence for liturgical poetry in therabbinic corpus, the nature of the relation between this and later classical piyut isdisputed. The talmudic evidence is hymnal rather than narrative. See Aaron Mirsky,The Piyyut: The Development of Post-Biblical Poetry in Eretz Israel and the Diaspora(Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 57–76.

29 Although, as I will show below, Homeric interpreters actually viewed the epics ofHomer, the poet par excellence, as disorderly in a manner similar to Huna�s conceptionof the Bible. See the discussion in the following section.

30 Earlier English translations demonstrate the interpretive challenge posed by thispassage. Midrash Rabbah (trans. H. Freedman; 10 vols.; 3rd ed.; London: SoncinoPress, 1983) 2.789 reads: “In order to bring the whole of the book of Daniel withinthe framework of an utterance inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Jacob Neusner, GenesisRabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation(3 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 2.206 offers: “It was so that the whole of the Book ofDaniel would be treated as stated by the Holy Spirit.”

31 Ronald E. Heine, ed. and trans., Gregory of Nyssa�s Treatise on the Inscriptions ofthe Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 2.178. See also Jean Danielou,L�etre et le temps chez Gregoire de Nysse (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 18–50. For more onpatristic attitudes to the question of the arrangement of the Psalms, see M. J. Rondeau,“D�ou vient la technique exegetique utilisee par Gregoire de Nysse dans son traite �Surles titres des Psaumes�?” Melanges d�histoire des religions: offerts a Henri-Charles Puech(Paris, 1974) 263–287.

Edomite. [Pss 50–51, LXX=51–52] For the latter occurred in the early daysof Saul�s tyranny, and the former happened a little before the end of David�skingdom. But the spiritual Word is not concerned about the chronologicaland material order of things ….

Gregory�s explanation appeals to the image of knitting in order to con-vey that the plot has been fashioned differently from the story. History,he goes on to say, follows the material order of things, while the Logosfollows a different, spiritual order. Perhaps Gregory can shed light onthe rabbis� use of the same image: the jumbled order of the Book ofDaniel ties the book together, proving that it was uttered through thedivine spirit.

In later midrash the meta-interpretive approach takes on cosmic pro-portions. According to the late rabbinic work, Midrash Shocher Tov, theTorah was arranged out of order so as to conceal its deepest and mostpotent secrets. Knowledge of the Torah�s true order would grant thepower to perform miracles and revive the dead.32 This is a far cryfrom the Tannaitic opinion that merely pointed out the lack of narrativeorder in the Torah without speculating about the theological significanceof this state of affairs.

To summarize, the rabbinic sources display three approaches to tex-tual disorder. The first merely notes the presence of disorder withoutmaking any attempt to resolve it; the second attempts to resolve theproblem by appeal to local, contextual juxtapositions. The third, whichfirst shows up only in Amoraic sources, offers an overarching solution:it is the text�s jumbled arrangement that underscores its special status.

III. Three Approaches to Textual Disorderin the Homeric Commentary Tradition

In a series of studies published some sixty years ago, David Daube andSaul Lieberman sought to trace the origins of rabbinic biblical inter-pretation, or at least much of its technical terminology, to the methodsof Homeric scholarship practiced in Hellenistic Alexandria.33 Major


32 Midrash Shocher Tov Ps 3 (Buber ed., 33). Some manuscripts grant also thepower of “creating worlds.”

33 David Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,”HUCA 22 (1949) 239–264; idem, “Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and theRabbis,” in Festschrift Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 1953) 27–44(repr. in Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature, ed. H. A. Fischel[New York: Ktav, 1977] 165–182); Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950) 20–82 (partially repr. in Fischel,

advances in the study of Homeric scholarship since then have consider-ably improved our ability to draw more detailed comparisons betweenthese two exegetical cultures. At the same time, however, certain meth-odological shifts that have recently occurred in rabbinic scholarship alsomake it necessary to reevaluate the historiographical “origins and influ-ence” paradigm in which Daube and Lieberman operated.

Daube and Lieberman wrote before the publication of Erbse�s super-ior edition of the ancient Iliad scholia and thus also before the crop ofexcellent studies of the exegetical methods of Homeric scholarshipresulting from that edition.34 Thanks to these advances in the study ofancient Homeric scholarship, we can move beyond adducing terminolo-gical parallels, as Daube and Lieberman did – relying mostly on second-ary accounts, both ancient and modern, of Homeric scholarship. We arenow in a position to draw detailed, diachronic comparisons betweendiverse exegetical attitudes to a specific topic as they are attested inthe two commentary traditions.35 Thus, in our particular case of atti-tudes to the problem of textual disorder, the ancient Homeric commen-tary tradition displays a range of approaches parallel to the three rab-binic approaches to the problem.

Before going into the details of the comparison, I must clarify mymethodological position on the historiographical meaning of this com-parison. As noted above, Daube and Lieberman operated within whathas been termed “the influence model” that is characteristic of the tradi-tional, modern historiographical paradigm. According to this model,cultures and societies are viewed as discrete, reified entities that haveidentifiable, individual, “authentic” identities that are subject to changeonly through their reception of influences from similarly identifiable,


Essays, 289–324). Daube understood the influences from Homeric exegesis and Greekrhetoric on rabbinic interpretation to be more substantive (see “Rabbinic Methods,”240 and passim), whereas Lieberman argued that the rabbis simply borrowed Greekterms for their own, homegrown methods (see Hellenism, 53, 62, 67–68).

34 Hartmut Erbse, Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (7 vols.; Berlin: De Gruyter,1969–1988). For studies of the exegetical methods of Homeric scholia based on Erbse�sedition, see, e. g., Martin Schmidt, Die Erkl�rung zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kulturder Heroenzeit in den bT Scholien zur Ilias (Munich: Beck, 1976); idem, “Portrait of anUnknown Scholiast,” in Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts andContexts, ed. S. Matthaios et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 119–158; Nicholas J.Richardson, “Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch,” Clas-sical Quarterly 30 (1980) 265–287; Roos Meijering, Literary and Rhetorical Theories inGreek Scholia (Groningen: E. Forsten, 1987); and Nunlist, Ancient Critic at Work.

35 For recent work along these lines, see Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis andHomeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011);eadem, ed., Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (Jerusalem Studiesin Religion and Culture 16; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012).

individual, alien cultures. Thus, the cultures of rabbinic interpretationand Homeric interpretation are conceived as two completely discretecultures, and any similarities between them are conceived in terms ofthe influence that the one culture (Homeric) had over the other (rabbi-nic).

Taking their cues from contemporary developments in historiographi-cal and literary theory, scholars of ancient Judaism in the past two dec-ades36 have been advocating for the replacement of this “influencemodel” with a “variations-on-a-theme” model.37 Rather than viewingthe rabbinic and Homeric commentary cultures as completely distinctspecies, scholars now increasingly prefer to view them as two subspecies,or manifestations, of one overarching, scholastic, text-and-commentary-centered culture shared by intellectuals across the late ancient Mediter-ranean world.38 It is within this emerging trend that I situate my readingof the parallels between rabbinic and Homeric attitudes to textual dis-


36 See Peter Sch�fer, “Introduction,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-RomanCulture, ed. idem (3 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 1.1–23, esp. 14–16; LovedayAlexander, “IPSE DIXIT: Citation of Authority in Paul and in the Jewish and Helle-nistic Schools,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 103–127; Michael L. Satlow, “Beyond Influ-ence: Toward a New Historiographic Paradigm,” in Jewish Literatures and Cultures:Context and Intertext, ed. A. Norich and Y. Z. Eliav (Providence: Brown Judaica Stu-dies, 2008) 37–53. See also, more generally, Moshe Rosman, How Jewish Is JewishHistory? (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007).

37 See the succinct formulation by Rosman, How Jewish, 142: “So cultural parallelsshould not be seen through the prism of influence, but rather that of comparison, astwo variations of a common tradition whose roots are obscure.” See also the usefulanalogy from football (soccer) given by Alexander, Ipse Dixit, 123: “Although the gameoriginated in England, it is meaningless at the end of the twentieth century to label thegame itself English …. The game has become an aspect of a global sporting culture, auniversal code understood and played with enthusiasm and skill across Europe and theworld. National distinctives operate not at the level of the system itself but within it,both formally (national anthems, team uniforms) and stylistically (in the idiolects thatgive variety and character to the playing style of different national teams). Similarlywith the Jewish and Hellenistic schools: only when we move down to a more detailedlevel of comparison can we identify distinctive cultural flavors within the broader struc-ture.”

38 In addition to the studies noted above, see Philip S. Alexander, “�Homer theProphet of All� and �Moses our Teacher�: Late Antique Exegesis of the Homeric Epicsand of the Torah of Moses,” in Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. L. V.Rutgers et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1998) 127–142. Other authors have argued for a gen-eral, late ancient culture that included both the rabbis and other exegetical commu-nities, but they have characterized this one, underlying culture as Hellenistic; see, e. g.,Daniel Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia,” in Cambridge Companion to theTalmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffe (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 2007) 336–363. Note that Alexander is careful not to dub hisaccount of the general, late ancient exegetical culture “Hellenistic.”

order. Rather than seeing these parallels as evidence of the influence ofone culture on another, I view them in the context of a joint culture ofcommentary on esteemed texts that these two contemporary and con-stantly changing communities had equal share in.

If rabbinic biblical interpretation and the Homeric commentary tradi-tion were two strands of the same culture, it should come as no surprisethat they display very similar ranges of approaches to the problem oftextual disorder. Indeed, a study of these similarities can help us betterunderstand the data on both sides. After reviewing the three responsesto disorder in Homer displayed in the scholia, I will use the Homericmanifestation of the meta-interpretive response in order to propose asolution to the meaning of R. Huna�s formulation of the same approachdiscussed earlier.

Homer was well known in antiquity for the breaches of order in hisepics.39 Homeric scholars devised three different approaches to the issue.The records of the opinions of successive generations of these scholarsare preserved in several medieval manuscripts of the Iliad and the Odys-sey in the form of glosses, or scholia, surrounding the Homeric text. Theearlier stage of Homeric commentary is mostly represented in the so-called A scholia, named after the siglum of the tenth-century Venetianmanuscript of the Iliad in which they are preserved. These trace back tothe work of the Alexandrian grammarians of the Hellenistic period.Another group of scholia, known as the bT scholia (also after the siglaof the two manuscripts in which they appear), are thought to derivefrom the Roman period,40 with much of the material, especially themore exegetical comments, possibly dating from as late as the third orfourth century.41

Both strands of scholia frequently address the issue of narrative dis-order in Homer, but their responses differ. The A scholia merely statethe fact that Homer tends to arrange “first things last,”42 while the bT


39 See Cicero, Ad Att. 1.16.1; Quintilian, Inst. Or. 7.10.11; Aelius Theon, Progym-nasmata (Spengel, 86). See further, Samuel Bassett, “usteron proteron OmerikwV(Cicero, Att. 1, 16, 1),” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 31 (1920) 39–62.

40 Eleanor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007) 18–22; Rene Nunlist, “Scholia,” in Homer Encyclopedia, ed. M. Finkelberg (3vols.; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2011) 3.776–779. See, however, Nunlist, Ancient Criticat Work, 17–19, for reservations about the historical, source-critical study of the scho-lia, and his discussion on pp. 87–93 of issues of narrative disorder in the Homericscholia, which draws on much of the same material I use here.

41 See Schmidt, “Unknown Scholiast,” 158.42 For the earlier scholia�s observation of the phenomenon of Homeric “disorder”

without any attempt to explain it, see, e. g. P. Oxy. VIII.1086 on Il. 2.764: dia5 panto5 V o<poihth5 V outwV ei>V ta5 ustera pr]o6 tero

4V a> ph6

4nta kata5 i>di6an sunh6 Jeian, “Throughout

scholia attempt to provide the reasons, usually of a rhetorical nature,43

that led Homer to arrange the text in this manner.44

As in the rabbinic tradition discussed above, so also in the Homericcommentary tradition, the third, meta-interpretive approach is rare andshows up relatively late on the scene. It appears only in the later bTscholia. A comment on the catalogue of ships in Book 2 of the Iliadreads:45

The poet is marvelous in that he follows nothing whatsoever in the [orderof the] storyline, but rather narrates all the elements in the reverse (ex ana-strophes), each in its due time: the strife of the gods, the abduction of Helen,the death of Achilles. For narration that follows the order [of occurrence] isa more recent thing (neoterikon) and typical of historical writing (sungraphi-kon) and it is far from poetic solemnity.

According to the bT scholiast, textual disorder demonstrates the text�santiquity and poetic solemnity. It is interesting that both for the rabbisand for the Homeric scholars, the meta-interpretive approach involvesdefending one�s revered text by contrasting it with an external foil. Butthe two traditions seem to be doing so through diametrically opposedconceptions of “poetry.” The scholiast contrasts Homeric poetry withhistorical writing, such that solemnity in the former meant the avoidanceof natural sequence. Conversely, R. Huna sees “the works of poets” asemblematic of natural sequence, in contrast to biblical literature.


the poem, the poet enters upon the last things first, according to his particular style”;Erbse, Scholia graeca, 5.620 (A Scholium): tou5 V me5 n >Apo6 llwn pe6 jnen: oti pro5 Vto5 deu6 teron pro6 teron a> ph6 nthken, “�Whom Apollo killed�: He [scil. Homer] entersupon it last first.” (I present the Greek originals of these scholia along with my transla-tions because of the relative inaccessibility of this literature.)

43 See Nunlist, Ancient Critic at Work, 90–91. This distinction between the A scho-lia pointing out disorder and the bT scholia providing explanations for it is consistentlymaintained. See Bassett, “Husteron Proteron,” 45 (referring to the A scholia): “Thearrangement we are studying … is a matter neither of rhetoric nor of emphasis.”

44 E. g. Erbse, Scholia graeca, 5.620 (bT Scholium) 24.605b: tou5 V me5 n >Apo6 llwnpe6 jnen : r< htorikw1 V a> ne6 strece th5 n dih6 ghsin· ja6 ge· kai5 ga5 r Nio6 bh. ti6V auth; a> po-le6 sasa dw6 deka pai1daV. u< po5 ti6noV; u< po5 >Apo6 llwnoV kai5 >Arte6 midoV. dia5 ti6 ; di�u< perhjani6an, “�Whom Apollo killed:� In the manner of rhetoric he [scil. Homer]reverses the narrative. �Eat� – for so did Niobe. Who was she? She lost her twelvechildren. By whom? By Apollo and Artemis. Why? Because of arrogance.” For a suc-cinct characterization of what the scholiast means here by describing Homer�s reversalas “in the manner of rhetoric,” see Quintilian, Inst. Or., 4.2.83. For further examples ofbT�s rhetorical explanations of disorder see, Erbse, Scholia graeca 1.11 (on Il. 1.8–10);3.255 (on Il. 11.671–761); 3.278 (on Il. 11.765–770); 4.238 (on Il. 16.335–337);

45 Erbse, Scholia graeca, 1.288–289 (b Scholium): Jauma6 sioV o< poihth5 V mhd�o< tiou1n paralimpa6 nwn th1V u< poJe6 sewV, pa6 nta d� e> x a> nastrojh1 V kata5 to5 n e> piba6 l-lonta kairo5 n dihgou6 menoV, th5 n tw1 n Jew1 n erin, th5 n th1 V <Ele6 nhV a< rpagh6 n, to5 n >Acil-le6 wV Ja6 naton· h< ga5 r kata5 ta6 xin dih6 ghsiV newteriko5 n kai5 suggrajiko5 n kai5 th1 Vpoihtikh1 V apo semno6 thtoV.

The scholiast, however, not only makes the contrast between Homericpoetry and historical writings. He also sets up a contrast between Home-ric poetry and “a more recent type of narration.” If we interpret the“new type of narration” as referring to post-Homeric epic poetry,46

this scholion could actually be used to illuminate Huna�s comment. Itmight be tentatively suggested that when Huna refers to the sequentialarrangement of poetry, it is not Homeric poetry but later poetry that hehas in mind, precisely the same type of poetry that the scholiast associ-ates with sequential order.

IV. Textual Disorder and the Min

Having described the three approaches to textual disorder, we can nowdelve into one talmudic passage in which the concern with biblical dis-order gets mapped onto a rabbinic “other ” – that is, the exchange in b.Ber. 10a between R. Abahu and a min, referred to at the beginning ofthis paper

A certain min47 said to R. Abahu: “It is written: A psalm of David when hefled Absalom his son (Ps 3:1), and it is also written: A mikhtam of Davidwhen he fled from Saul in the cave (Ps 57:1). Which episode happened first?Did not the Saul episode happen first? Let it then be written first!” R.Abahu replied: “For you, who do not interpret juxtapositions (semukhin),this is difficult; but for us, who interpret juxtapositions, this is not difficult,as R. Yohanan48 said: �Whence do we know that juxtapositions are from theTorah? For it is written: �they stand fast [= they are juxtaposed, semukhim]forever and ever …� (Ps 111:8).� Why then was the episode of Absalom (Ps 3)juxtaposed with the episode of Gog and Magog (Ps 2)? So that if someoneshall say to you, is there such a thing as a slave who rebels against his master[Gog and Magog rebel against God]? You may respond, is there such a thingas a son who rebels against his father? Rather, just as the latter happened, sodid the former.”

The min challenges R. Abahu to explain why the arrangement of thepsalms does not follow the chronological sequence of David�s life. Abahureplies that this is a challenge only for the min himself, since he assumesthat all that matters is chronological sequence. Abahu and others likehim, however, derive exegetical meaning from semukhin (local juxtaposi-tions) precisely in those cases where chronological sequence is lacking.


46 Thus according to Nunlist, Ancient Critic at Work, 89.47 Thus according to the majority of manuscripts. Vilna prints jwfdu.48 According to Oxford and Paris; Florence and Munich read: xgrla ’x. Compare

Shocher Tov Ps 3 (Buber, 34), where a similar idea is attributed to R. Ishmael.

Earlier scholarship has identified the min in this exchange as a Mar-cionite.49 Marcion was a second-century Christian thinker who rejectedthe Old Testament. His followers continued to flourish in independentcommunities well into late antiquity.50 But this position does not standup to closer scrutiny. Marcion�s reasons for rejecting the Old Testamentwere moral and theological, not literary or historical. He conceived ofthe Old Testament God as a vindictive God who was superseded by theGospel of the Good God. Marcionite claims against the Old Testamentderived precisely from a literal reading of the text that did not call intoquestion its historical coherence.

More recent scholarship has generally cast doubt on the historicity,and even the Palestinian provenance, of such accounts as this exchangebetween Abahu and the min. There are two main reasons for this. Theexchange has no parallels in the Palestinian sources, and the language ofthe dialogue is Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.51

The heuristic strategy often adopted to deal with reports like this is toread them as reflective of tensions within rabbinic society rather than theactual positions of non-rabbinic groups.52 In this particular case there iseven more of a reason to employ this strategy, inasmuch as the contro-versy between Abahu and the min is actually a recapitulation of thedisagreement recorded in the Sifrei between Akiva and Judah Ha-Nasi.53 By deriving exegetical meaning from contextual juxtaposition,Abahu sides with Akiva, while the min represents a position not essen-tially different from that of Judah: textual disorder is pointed out butnot explained. I submit that the min does not represent an outsider here,


49 S. T. Lachs, “Rabbi Abbahu and the Minim,” JQR 60 (1970) 209–211.50 On Marcion and the Marcionite movement, see Adolf von Harnack, Marcion:

Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegungder katholischen Kirche (2nd ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924); see also the Frenchedition of the same work, which includes several updating contributions by contem-porary scholars: Marcion: L�evangile du Dieu etranger: une monographie sur l�histoire dela fondation de l�eglise catholique, trans. B. Lauret (Paris: Cerf, 2003).

51 For a recent balanced discussion of this issue and references to earlier literature,see Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2006) 16–17.

52 A classic example is Christine Hayes, “Displaced Self-Perceptions: The Deploy-ment of Minim and Romans in Bavli Sanhedrin 90b–91a,” in Religious and EthnicCommunities in Later Roman Palestine, ed. H. Lapin (Bethesda: University Press ofMaryland, 1998) 249–289. See Hayes, “Displaced Self-Perceptions,” 274, n. 56, forfurther literature in this vein.

53 As noted also by Gottlieb, Order in the Bible, 41; but see Schluter, “CreativeForce,” 78, n. 90: “It is hardly conceivable that Rabbi (Judah Ha-Nasi) … could havebeen referred to as a min.”

so much as an externalization, an “othering,” of the text-isolationiststance represented by the idea of ein muqdam.

Furthermore, in projecting Judah Ha-Nasi�s approach onto an ima-gined outsider, the author of this dialogue magnifies the threat of thisapproach by radicalizing the min�s claim. The min goes beyond justpointing out textual disorder, as did Judah and the other proponentsof ein muqdam. He uses textual disorder as an instrument for criticizingthe psalms in a way that the Tannaitic proponents of ein muqdam neverdid (“Did not the Saul episode happen first? Let it then be writtenfirst!”). By associating the text-isolationist approach with a min, theauthor of this dialogue has transformed it from a neutral exegeticalposition available within rabbinic literature into a dangerous, alienattack on the Torah itself.

Taking this speculation one step further, I suggest that this approachwas deemed so threatening to the champions of the increasingly popularsemukhin approach54 precisely because it hit so close to home. The logi-cal conclusion of the text-isolationist position, as we have seen in thecomment of Judah Ha-Nasi, was that for the purpose of correct exeg-esis, the biblical text may be rearranged.

Indeed there are strands of midrashic exegesis that do precisely this.Two salient examples are the midrashic techniques of miqra mesuras and�eiruv parshiyot. Miqra mesuras literally means “a reversed verse.” Thistechnique, which Lieberman and Daube already compared to the Home-ric hermeneutical technique of anastrophe,55 reverses the order of ele-ments within a verse.56 The same is true of the technique of <eiruv par-shiyot, “mixing passages,” whereby biblical passages are plucked out oftheir context and read, for hermeneutical purposes, as belonging toanother context.57


54 Over time there developed a whole range of exegetical techniques founded on thesemukhin approach, such as miqra nidrash le-fanav (“the verse is expounded by whatcomes before it”), mah ketiv batreh (“what is written after it?”). See Gottlieb, Order inthe Bible, 55–71 for a survey of these and other techniques associated with the semukhinapproach.

55 Lieberman, Hellenism, 64–67; Daube, “Alexandrian Methods,” 27–31.56 E. g., Mekh. d�R. Ishmael, Vayasa<, 4 (Rabin-Horovitz ed., 167); Sif. Num. 68

(Horovitz ed., 63). For the relation between ein muqdam and miqra mesuras, seeRichard Steiner, “Muqdam u-Me<uh

˙ar and Muqaddam wa-Mu<ah

˙h˙ar: On the History

of Some Hebrew and Arabic Terms for Hysteron Proteron and Anastrophe,” JNES 66(2007) 33–46. Note that the ancient Homeric commentators used the same technicalterm, anastrophe, to refer both to inverted word order within a sentence (miqramesuras) and to cases of non-sequential narration within the text as a whole (ein muq-dam). See Nunlist, Ancient Critic at Work, 89, n. 52.

57 E. g. Tos. Sotah 9, 6; b. Bava Qama 106b–107a. See also Sif. Num. 84 (Horovitzed., 80) where Num 10:35–36 is said, according to one opinion, to be “not in its place,”

I propose that the min in b. Ber. 10a is an externalization of an in-house ambivalence towards rabbinic interpretation.58 This ambivalencemay have been limited to the interpretive techniques noted above thatare founded on the notion that the Torah is out of order. It is alsopossible, though, that the ambivalence cut deeper. Perhaps there wasuneasiness about the general midrashic method of intertextual exegesis,a method that is predicated on a radical disregard for context. Versesfrom across the Bible are removed from their original contexts andplaced in new juxtapositions so as to generate new meanings. Despitethe attractions of this common midrashic procedure, its potential threatmust have been felt as well: a text can be made to say anything by simplyrearranging its constituent elements.

Whether motivated by opposition to the particular notion of ein muq-dam or by ambivalence towards midrashic methods in general, the anon-ymous authors of the b. Ber. 10a passage chose to project onto a rabbi-nic other the position that questions the given order of the biblical text.If this interpretation is correct, they would not be the first to projecthermeneutical methods common in their own camp onto their oppo-nents. A parallel process is attested in early Christian literature, whichwas also a product of the general late-ancient exegetical culture thatproduced Homeric and rabbinic interpretation.59 Irenaeus of Lyons inthe late second century and Tertullian of Carthage in the early thirdcentury accuse Gnostic opponents of theirs, the Valentinians,60 of rear-ranging the order of scripture and of interpreting passages out of con-


and, according to Judah Ha-Nasi, to be a “book unto itself.” See the discussion inLieberman, Hellenism, 38–43.

58 My argument that b. Ber. 10a is an externalization of inner-rabbinic anxiety overmethods of interpretation is similar to the argument put forth by Hayes for b. San.90b–91a; see “Displaced Self-Perceptions,” 250–251, where she says: “Our rabbinicauthors introduce or exploit the presence of minim … and Romans in our passage inorder to voice and thus grapple with their own ambivalence and radical doubt concern-ing non-contextual methods of exegesis … non-contextual exegesis attributed to thesenon-rabbis are displaced expressions of radical doubt and anxiety on the part of therabbis themselves.” Although Akiva, who represents the semukhin approach here, is ingeneral more associated with “non-contextual” exegesis, it is Judah�s ein muqdamapproach which in this case leads to more of a “non-contextual” exegetical result.

59 The redactors of the Bavli responsible for the exchange between Abahu and themin were also part of this same general culture, even if they were chronologically andgeographically distant from Irenaeus and Tertullian. For an argument for the partici-pation of these Babylonian rabbis in the same “Hellenistic” culture as their predeces-sors, see Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia.”

60 In qualifying the followers of Valentinus as Gnostic, I do not intend to take sideson the debate about whether Valentinus himself should be regarded as a Gnostic. SeeChristoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentianischen Gnosismit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992).

text in order to provide scriptural support for their doctrines.61 Theycompare the procedures of the Valentinians to the contemporary literarytechnique of the Homerocentones, “patch-work poets” whose poetry wascomprised solely of Homeric verses rearranged in new sequences so as toconvey new messages.62

But there are problems with the accusations of Irenaeus and Tertul-lian against the Valentinians. Irenaeus provides examples to prove thatthe Valentinians rearranged scriptures, but an examination of this evi-dence does not bear out his claim. What the Valentinians did was radi-cally allegorize parts of the scriptures, thereby reading certain passagesout of context. This same allegorical technique, however, was practicedjust as vigorously by Irenaeus and Tertullian themselves!63


61 Elsewhere (De resur. mort. 2. 7), Tertullian accuses his Gnostic opponents of notdiscussing things in the proper logical order so as to mask the defects of their argu-ments.

62 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.1 (Harvey ed., vol. 1, 1.1.15). Dominic J. Unger and John J.Dillon, trans., St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies (ACW 55; New York: PaulistPress, 1992) 41: “They disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures and, asmuch as in them lies, they disjoint the members of the Truth. They transfer passagesand rearrange them; and, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by thebadly composed phantasy of the Lord�s words that they adapt…” Ibid. 1.9.4 (Harvey,ed., 1.1.20; Unger and Dillon, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 47): “After having entirely fabri-cated their own system, they gather together sayings and names from scattered placesand transfer them, as we have already said, from their natural meaning to an unnaturalone. They act like those who would propose themes which they chance upon and thentry to put them to verse from Homeric poems, so that the inexperienced think thatHomer composed the poems with that theme, which in reality are of recent composi-tion. Actually many are so misled by the contrived sequence of the verses that theyquestion whether Homer may not have composed them thus…” See further R. L.Wilken, “The Homeric Cento in Irenaeus, Adversus haereses I.9.4,” Vigiliae Christianae21 (1967): 25–33. See also Tertullian, Praescr. 39: “You see in our day a totally differentstory composed out of Virgil, the matter being adapted to the verses and the verses tothe matter. Hosidius Geta, for instance, has very fully extracted from Virgil the tragedyof Medea. A near relative of my own from the same poet has amongst other literarytrifles arranged the Table of Cebes. Moreover, Homerocentones is the common name forthose who from the poems of Homer patch together into one piece, quilt-like, works oftheir own, out of many scraps put together from this passage and that. Unquestionably,the divine writings are more fruitful in affording resources for any kind of subject. Nordo I hesitate to say that the Scriptures themselves were arranged by the will of God insuch a manner as to afford material for heretics, inasmuch that I read that there mustbe heresies (see 1 Cor. 9.19), which cannot exist without Scriptures.” (This is a slightlymodified version of T. Herbert Bindley�s translation in Tertullian : On the Testimony ofthe Soul and on the Prescription of Heretics [London : SPCK, 1914] 89.) Note Tertul-lian�s invocation of the meta-interpretive approach to textual disorder. Scriptures wereintentionally arranged out of order so as to provide material for heretics (somethingwhich was a theological necessity).

63 See R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significanceof Origen�s Interpretation of Scripture (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox

If what Irenaeus and Tertullian had in mind was the Valentinian reli-ance on biblical prooftexts artfully strung together from different con-texts, once again Irenaeus and Tertullian engage in this type of exegesisno less vigorously than their opponents. There is no evidence to supportthe claim made by Irenaeus and Tertullian that the Valentinian methodsof scriptural interpretation were essentially different from their own. Thedifference was not in exegetical method, but in the doctrines served bythis method. Whatever Irenaeus and Tertullian said about the exegeticalmethods of their opponents, the same could be said of their own exege-tical methods.64 Like the authors of b. Ber. 10a, Irenaeus and Tertullianwere projecting onto others claims that could potentially be madeagainst their own exegetical cultures.

V. Conclusion

Comparative studies of the Homeric, rabbinic, and patristic corporahave traditionally imagined the communities that produced these cor-pora as clearly distinct entities that normally operated in isolationfrom one another. Since the three communities were conceived as sepa-rate entities, comparisons had to focus primarily on transferable “items,”such as individual words, sayings and themes. As a result, similaritiescould only be explained in terms of imagined “points of contact” and“paths of migration” that could allow for the transference of theseitems.65

This paper has offered an alternative perspective. Drawing on devel-opments afoot in the study of late antiquity for more than a decade now,I have suggested that we view the three exegetical communities as allpart of one culture. This viewpoint allows me to focus on the sharedapproaches and processes that can be identified through a close, rhetori-cally sensitive reading of the three corpora.66 All part of the same exe-getical culture, the different communities of interpreters faced similarproblems, and they each independently devised similar responses to


Press, 2002) 110–113; idem, “Notes on Tertullian�s Interpretation of Scripture,” JTSn. s. 12 (1961) 273–279; and Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Tertullian�s Scriptural Exegesis in Depraescriptione haereticorum,” JECS 14 (2006) 141–155.

64 Tertullian was not unaware of this rhetorical strategy. See his statement (Herm.45.6) that Hermogenes, in his depiction of matter as irregular, confused and with fre-netic motion, was painting a portrait of himself.

65 See, e. g., Daube, “Rabbinic Methods,” 240–241; Lieberman, Hellenism, 26–27.66 For a similar argument, see Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of

Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 1–27.

these problems. The responses, in turn, provoked similar anxieties aboutthe responsibilities that they entailed; and the anxieties, once again,required new – and similar – responses.

I opened this paper with the queen�s order in Alice in Wonderland:“sentence first, verdict afterwards.” Alice, who had read about trials inbooks and had a clear idea of how they should run, was bewildered bythe queen�s blatant disregard for proper juridical procedure. What Alicerealized only later was that it was all just a dream.

The late ancient encounter with biblical literature is reminiscent ofAlice�s experience of her trial. Like Alice, who came with certain expec-tations about the sequence of a trial, the late ancient Jewish and Chris-tian readers of scripture came with expectations regarding the historicalorder and narrative consistency of their sacred texts. And like Alice, whowas unaware that these expectations would not be fully met since hertrial took place in a dream, the late ancient readers were unaware that atleast some of their expectations could not be fully met, since the worksthey read were composite texts, woven together from distinct documentsstemming from different historical periods.

As long as the modern, source-critical approach had not yet beenentertained as a viable solution to the problem, three different positionspresented themselves. One approach was to take note of the disorderedstate of the text and, rather than trying to justify it, use it as the premisefor further destabilizing the text�s given order. A second approach,which stood in opposition to the first approach, was to “sanctify” thegiven order of the text and derive specific lessons from the apparentdisorder. The third approach, first attested in Amoraic sources, alsopreserved the given order of the text, but viewed the disordered stateof the text as a testament to its special status.

The Homeric commentary tradition of the Hellenistic and Romanperiods preserves three similar approaches to textual disorder in Homer:pointing disorder out without attempting to explain it; explaining it bymeans of ad hoc solutions; and offering sweeping, meta-interpretive jus-tifications. The fact that the rabbinic approaches are virtually identicalwith the Homeric ones should be explained as the result of the sharedscholastic culture of close reading and commentary that these two exe-getical communities had in common, rather than as the result of theinfluence of one group on the other.

The identification of these three approaches as logically distinct solu-tions to the same problem allows us to determine that the position of themin in b. Ber. 10a is not essentially different from the position advocatedby Judah Ha-Nasi in the Sifrei.


Why would an initially inner-rabbinic position have been cast as aposition external to rabbinic culture? I suggest that the anonymousauthors of the b. Bab. 10a passage intentionally projected this positiononto a min due to the threat it posed to the integrity of the biblical text:such a “text-isolationist” approach might have been deemed problematicbecause it allows for potentially any rearrangement of the biblical text.Anxiety about this approach might have been intensified by the fact thatthe midrashic method as a whole, and especially specific exegetical tech-niques like miqra mesuras and eiruv parshiyot, contribute to this radicallynon-contextual hermeneutical stance.

A parallel to this process of projecting ambivalences about one�s ownexegetical practices onto one�s opponents is found in early Christianliterature. Irenaeus and Tertullian both accuse the Valentinians of tam-pering with the proper order of scripture, but, in fact, Valentiniansengaged in the same allegorical approach to scripture embraced by Ire-naeus and Tertullian. The allegorical approach, like the midrashicapproach practiced by the rabbis, involved no small degree of non-con-textual exegesis.

Due to the non-contextual nature of the allegorical and the midrashicmethods practiced by late ancient interpreters, it may be said that theseinterpreters sensed that they were not only responding to the problem ofbiblical disorder, but that they, or certain elements within their cultures,might also be held responsible for perpetuating this problem. The chal-lenge was to isolate non-contextual exegesis from the destabilizing rami-fications it had on the integrity of the biblical text. How could onecontinue to interpret non-contextually and at the same time deny thatthis method of interpretation contributes to the destabilization of thebiblical text? I have attempted to show that one way to avoid this prob-lem was to pass the responsibility for textual destabilization onto one�sopponent – whether he be min or Valentinian.


"Disorder in the Bible: Rabbinic Responses and Responsibilities," Jewish Studies Quarterly 19...

Documents

Transcript of "Disorder in the Bible: Rabbinic Responses and Responsibilities," Jewish Studies Quarterly 19...