JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
of the Ketuvim” as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (Ber. 57b), a variant
possibly conditioned by the view that Job was among those
who returned from the Babylonian exile (BB 15a).
The most unstable books in respect of their order in the
Ketuvim are the five Scrolls (Megillot). Their position varies
in the manuscripts and printed editions both as part of
the corpus of Ketuvim and as separately attached to the Pentateuch
(see Table: Order of the Megillot). Nowhere in rabbinic
sources are all five listed in immediate succession, nor
is the term “Five Megillot” used. The chronological sequence,
according to reputed author, that underlies the tannaitic listing
is essentially reflected in another talmudic source which
identifies “the three smaller books of the Ketuvim” as the Song
of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, in that order (Ber.
57b). In fact, six of eight main variations basically preserve this
chronological principle (see Table: Order of the Hagiographa,
cols. 1–5, 7). The practice of grouping all five Megillot together
has its origin in the custom of reading these books on festival
days: the Song of Songs on Passover, Ruth on Pentecost,
Lamentations on the Ninth of Av, Ecclesiastes on Sukkot, and
Esther on Purim (cf. Soferim 14:1, ed. Higger, p. 251–2). This is
the order as it crystallized in the early printed Hebrew Bibles
and in some manuscripts and early printed editions of the Pentateuch,
to which all five Megillot have been attached.
The Order of the Megillot after the Pentateuch
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
mss. mss. mss. mss. Early
Nos. 1,2,3 Nos. 4,5,6 Nos. 7, 8 No. 9 Editions
Song of Songs Esther Ruth Ruth Song of Songs
Ruth Song of Songs Song of Songs Song of Songs Ruth
Lamentations Ruth Ecclesiastes Lamentations Lamentations
Ecclesiastes Lamentations Lamentations Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes
Esther Ecclesiastes Esther Esther Esther
The nine mss. collated for this Table are the following in the British Museum: (1)
Add. 9400; (2) Add. 9403; (3) Add. 19776; (4) Harley 5706; (5) Add. 9404; (6) Orient.
2786; (7) Harley 5773; (8) Harley 15283; (9) Add. 15282.
The fifth column represents the order adopted in the first, second and third editions
of the Hebrew Bible, as well as that of the second and third editions of Bomberg’s
Quarto Bible (Venice 1521, 1525), in all of which the five Megillot follow immediately
after the Pentateuch
The final position of Chronicles is most remarkable since
Ezra-Nehemiah follows naturally in continuation of the narrative.
The anomaly is emphasized by the widespread support
it received in the manuscripts and early printed editions.
It would appear that the New Testament, too, reflects
this arrangement (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51). As an explanation,
it might be suggested that the position of Chronicles represents
the chronology of canonization, though there is no
evidence to support this. More likely, it resulted from a conscious
attempt to place the biblical books within a narrative
framework. Genesis and Chronicles both begin with the origin
and development of the human race and both end with
the promise of redemption and return to the Land of Israel.
The two books actually employ the same key verbs in this con-
nection (Gen. 50:24–25; II Chron. 36:23; דקפ, הלע; pkd (pqd),
ʿlh). Indeed, the messianic theme of the return to Zion as an
appropriate conclusion to the Scriptures was probably the
paramount consideration in the positioning of Chronicles.
Further evidence that the arrangement of the Scriptures was
intended to express certain leading ideas in Judaism may be
sought in the extraordinary fact that the initial chapter of the
Former Prophets (Josh. 1:8) and of the Latter Prophets (Isa.
1:10) and the closing chapter of the prophetical corpus (Mal.
3:22), as well as the opening chapter of the Ketuvim (Ps. 1:2),
all contain a reference to Torah, a conscious assertion of the
theological priority of the Torah.
The Languages of Scripture
The books of the Bible have come down in the Hebrew language
with the exception of two words in Genesis (31:47), a single
verse in Jeremiah (10:11), and sections of Daniel (2:4b–7:28)
and Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26), all of which are in Aramaic. The
problem of the language of Scripture is, however, more complicated
than would appear on the surface and it constitutes
part of the larger issue of the history of the growth and formation
of the canon. Some scholars, for instance, regard Job,
Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles, as well as the Hebrew sections
of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah as translations, in whole or
part, from Aramaic. This implies that the original is lost, and
at once raises the possibility of error in the course of rendition
from language to language. It should be noted, though,
that in dealing with the problem of translation care must be
taken to distinguish between Aramaisms and Aramaic influence
on Hebrew style on the one hand, and a translation that
may betray its Aramaic substratum on the other.
Even works unquestionably composed in Hebrew are
not without their linguistic history. In dealing with biblical
Hebrew it must be remembered that the language of Scripture
represents a period of creativity covering several hundred
years during which internal development inevitably
took place. In general, it may be said that the poetic texts in
the historical books have preserved the earliest strata of the
language (Gen. 49; Ex. 15; Num. 23–24; Deut. 32; 33; Judg. 5),
while the Hebrew of those works deriving from the postexilic
period – like Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ecclesiastes,
Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Daniel – exhibits features
that distinguish the known characteristics of postbiblical Hebrew.
In between there are several linguistic layers, the isolation
of which is complicated by the relatively small amount
of material available for comparison, the difficulties in dating
the different documents, and the problem of distinguishing
between the age of the material and the period of the final
stage of its redaction. Much scholarly effort in recent years
has been directed to identifying the specific linguistic features
of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Also, it is not known to what
extent the editors “modernized” the language of the material
they worked with. Comparative Semitic phonology and morphology
make it certain that the present system of vocalization
of the Hebrew consonants reflects the stage of Hebrew
582 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3