The Order of the Books in Tanach

The Talmud discusses the order of books of Tanakh in TB Baba Batra 14b: “The Sages taught: The order of (the books of the) Prophets: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets.” The explanation given is that although “Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel . . . since Kings ends with the destruction (of the Temple), and Jeremiah deals entirely with the destruction, and Ezekiel begins with the destruction but ends with consolation, and Isaiah deals entirely with consolation, we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation.” The Talmud continues, “The order of (the books of the) Writings: Ruth and the Book of Psalms, and Job and Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations; Daniel and the Scroll of Esther; and Ezra and Chronicles.”

This is the only order mentioned in classical rabbinic literature. It differs from the standard order found in the contemporary printed Tanakh in a number of respects: in the standard Tanakh Isaiah is before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in the Talmud it is after; in the standard Tanakh the five megillot are all grouped together, in the Talmud they are not; the order of the megillot in the standard version is Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, while in the Talmud it is Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, and Esther; and in the standard version Proverbs comes before Job, while in the Talmud Job is before Proverbs.

The Talmud’s order is codified by the Rambam in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Tefillin u’Mezuzah v’Sefer Torah 7:15), and in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 283:5): “The order of the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets. And the order of the Writings: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, Chronicles.”

In this article we will investigate why the order presented in the Talmud and mandated by the Shulchan Aruch is not what is found in the Tanakh today. It should be noted that a number of variations of the order of the books of Tanakh have been found in different early editions, but here we will focus on the order as presented in the Talmud compared to the order popularly in use today.¹

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel

The earliest manuscripts that we have of the Tanakh already deviate from the order in the Talmud. The Petersburg Codex of the Prophets, dated 916 CE, although containing only the text of the Latter Prophets, has a list of the entire section of Prophets. That list has the order of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. This same order is found in the Aleppo Codex (ca. 920 CE) and the Leningrad Codex, dated 1009 CE.²

R. David Kimhi (Radak, 1160-1235), in his brief introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, writes that “in all the good books that we have seen written in Spain for many years,” the books are organized chronologically, Isaiah before Jeremiah. In his introduction to his commentary on Isaiah, Abarbanel (1437-1508) gives five reasons why the early scholars (kadmoneinu bnei hagolah) changed this order from the one in the Talmud. The simplest reason is the first: that Isaiah precedes the other prophets chronologically. Abarbanel does not find the reasoning presented in the Talmud convincing, that “we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation.” Firstly, there is no reason per se that similar themes need to be juxtaposed, as these themes are often mixed in the prophecies themselves, and secondly, Jeremiah doesn’t really deal “entirely with destruction,” nor does Isaiah deal “entirely with consolation.” While Abarbanel gives additional, more conceptual, reasons for Isaiah to be first, the chronological one is the most fundamental and convincing. The Masoretic scholar Elia Levita (Eliyahu haBahur, 1469-1549) similarly writes, “The Masoretes . . . put Isaiah before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, because he lived before them. The same order is found in all the correct Spanish codices; while the German and French codices adopt the order of the rabbis of blessed memory.”³

These explanations reflect the understanding that the order of the books of Tanakh as presented in the Talmud was not seen as binding, and it was considered entirely valid and not at all controversial to set that order aside in favor of a more logical one, based on the order of historical events.

Megillot as a Unit and the Order of the Megillot

The Talmud never refers to the five megillot as a unit as it does with the Twelve Prophets, although the reasoning given in the Talmud for the Twelve Prophets to be collected — “since it is small it would be lost” — would apply to the megillot as well. Ibn Ezra (to Zephaniah 3:20) explains that while the Twelve Prophets all have a similar theme of visions concerning the future, the megillot do not have a common theme, so they weren’t organized by the rabbis into one unit. R. Asher (Rosh) explains in his Tosafot to Baba Batra 14b that “although the five megillot are (also) small, it is different (with the Twelve Prophets) since they are composed by the Men of the Great Assembly.” The reasoning is that the rabbis would not put together something as an official grouping or collection if it had different themes or authors, as is the case with the megillot.

Despite this approach, the megillot are arranged in a unit in the earliest codices, the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex. However, there the order is chronological: Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther.⁴ This follows the approach found in Song of Songs Rabbah (1:1:10) regarding the order in which the books attributed to King Solomon were written. This chronological order appears reasonable, and follows the approach of the Masoretic scholars in placing Isaiah before the other prophets. However, early editions from the German and Franco-German schools have the standard order found today, which follows the annual cycle of reading the megillot, starting with Song of Songs on the Shabbat of Passover.⁵ While the chronological order trumps the conceptual one found in the Talmud, the liturgical order trumps chronological order. As stated by Elia Levita, “It is the custom to put the five megillot in the order in which they are read in the synagogue.”⁶

Psalms, Proverbs, and Job

Rashi explains that the order of Psalms, Job, and Proverbs is chronological. David wrote Psalms; Job is next, based on the opinion of R. Natan in TB Baba Batra 15b that Job lived in the time of the kingdom of Sheba, after which the books written by Solomon are positioned, starting with Proverbs. This order, Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, is also found in many early manuscripts.

Although there was a desire to have these three books in chronological order, since the Talmud in TB Baba Batra 15b gives a number of options for when Job may have lived, the position of the Book of Job varies in different editions.⁷ The one thing agreed upon in all editions is that Job doesn’t come before Psalms, since TB Baba Batra 14b explicitly states that we don’t start the Writings with Job as “we do not begin with suffering.” This despite the approaches found in TB Baba Batra 15a that Moses wrote the Book of Job, or that Job lived in the time of Moses.

The order of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, known by the acronym emet (the first letter of each title written in reverse order), is found in what Ginsburg calls “the five Early Editions,” the first edition of the Soncino Bible (1488), as well as the second (1491-1493) and third editions (1494), the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix Pratensis (1517), and the first edition of the Bible edited by Jacob ben Chaim (1524).⁸ This order would reflect the approach of R. Yohanan and R. Elazar in TB Baba Batra 15a that “Job was among those who ascended from the exile” and lived at the start of the Second Temple period, or the opinion of R. Yehoshua b. Korkha in TB Baba Batra 15b that Job lived in the time of Ahasuerus. It is also possible that since it is not clear when Job lived, or even if it is a parable, the book was relegated to the last of the three.⁹

Tosafot (sv b’puranuta, TB Baba Batra 14b) explains that while Job may have been chronologically later than David and Solomon, the reason the Talmud does not put Job after Proverbs is because the sages wanted to have all the books written by Solomon next to each other. Based on this, once the other works of Solomon were collected as part of the megillot, there was no reason not to position Job after Proverbs anymore.

Chronicles

In light of the fact that chronological order was a main concern in establishing the order of the books, it is unusual that Chronicles appears last in both the Talmud’s list and in the current standard Tanakh. Ezra begins with the last verses of Chronicles, and so logically should be placed after Chronicles. Yet, in all the early manuscripts and editions, there are only two positions found for Chronicles and Ezra: either Chronicles is the very first of the Writings, with Ezra-Nehemiah at the end and all the other books in between, as in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices, or Chronicles is placed at the end of the Writings, preceded by Ezra-Nehemiah, as found in the Talmud and in “the five Early Editions.”¹⁰ Neither of these represents the chronological order. The Septuagint and Vulgate do place Ezra after Chronicles, but this isn’t the case in Jewish texts.¹¹ Note that although Rashi to Baba Batra 14b explains the chronological order of the Writings, he leaves out any explanation for the position of Chronicles. Even modern biblical scholarship does not have a definitive reason for the position of Chronicles: “The precise reason for the position of Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Canon . . . remains unexplained.”¹²

A simple way to view the position of Chronicles is that placement at either the beginning or the end of the Writings makes sense, since it can function either as an overview of the Tanakh or as a conclusion, providing a recapitulation of Tanakh and some kind of closure.¹³ But either way, it should have been placed right before Ezra-Nehemiah, which it never is in any Jewish edition.

For this reason, the position of Chronicles after Ezra-Nehemiah in the Talmud and in the standard Tanakh would seem to represent a deliberate adjustment to the expected chronological sequence. One possibility for this change is that ending Tanakh with Ezra-Nehemiah would conclude the Tanakh with the failure of the people to keep the covenant as described in the last chapter of Nehemiah, while ending with Chronicles provides a hopeful finale with the end of the Babylonian exile and permission to rebuild the Temple.¹⁴ However, this deviation from chronological order would seem to have warranted some discussion, as seen in the Talmud when it explained why Isaiah and Jeremiah aren’t in chronological order. The fact that there is no discussion of the reason behind the placement of Chronicles at the end of Tanakh in the Talmud or its commentaries would seem to indicate that the reason was thought to be self-evident, with no elaboration necessary.

The Septuagint’s title for Chronicles was originally “The things omitted concerning the kings of Judah,” shortened to Paraleipomenon, “The things omitted.” This view of the book understands Chronicles as a kind of supplement or appendix to the narratives that preceded it in Tanakh; thus in the Septuagint it is placed after Kings.¹⁵ This way of viewing Chronicles may also be seen in statements made by the sages that indicate it is not to be viewed as part of the strict narrative. In this view of the book, it may well be positioned at the beginning of the Writings, as a supplement to Samuel and Kings in the preceding section, or it can come at the very end of Tanakh, as an addition to the entire Tanakh. In this understanding, Ezra-Nehemiah is the true continuation of the narrative from the end of Kings, and Chronicles is a supplemental volume for Samuel and Kings, so there is no reason to have Ezra come after Chronicles.¹⁶

Conclusion

The order of books in Tanakh that we have today is based on an understanding of what the chronological order of these books should be. This guiding principle caused the order found in the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch to be set aside. The only factor that overrides the chronological order is the liturgical order used for the five megillot, and the placement of Chronicles at the very end, as a supplement to the entire Tanakh.