In practically all printed editions of Tanach that I have come across, as well as the ordering given in Bava Batra 14b, Ezra( - Nechemiah) comes before Divrei HaYamim.

Why is this the case?

Chronologically, Ezra - Nechemiah follows Divrei HaYamim. In fact, the last two pesukim of Divrei HaYamim are virtually identical to the first two and a half pesukim of Ezra, indicating that Ezra picks up where Divrei HaYamim left off. So why is the order reversed?

(I am aware that the Aleppo Codex (and also Mechon-Mamre) have Divrei HaYamim at the beginning of Ketuvim and Ezra-Nechemiah at the end, which would negate the question. My question is about the Talmud Bavli's order, and also the order of current printed editions, which seem to follow the Bavli regarding this aspect of the ordering, when they are willing to ignore it in other aspects (e.g. nevi'im acharonim), presumably for the sake of following a more chronological order.)

  • It would make sense to guess that DH was written after E-N (and thus borrows from E-N in its ending) even though the events described in it happened later. But I'm not sure what definite proofs there are to the order of the writing of the two books (apart from the apparent borrowing). – b a Oct 31 '17 at 15:38
  • Couldn't you also ask this about Yechezkel coming before Yeshaya in the Babylonian order? Clearly the Babylonians weren't that into chronology. They must have had some other reason of course, but it's just not too surprising that it's not chronological. Given the Gemara's answer to the Yeshaya problem, one could expect a similar answer here about putting Ezra next to Esther and Daniyel. (I see no reason to expect to find any significance in the commonly printed order.) – Double AA Oct 31 '17 at 16:51
  • @DoubleAA. True, but the Bavli gives a reason on the daf there for why it puts neviim acharonim non-chronologically, which it doesn’t do for E-N and DH (AFAIR). Second, there is still a question on the conventional order which does seem to give more weight to the chronology, and is willing to sometimes ignore the Bavli’s order, but not here. – Joel K Oct 31 '17 at 17:01
  • @JoelK What do you mean sometimes? It entirely ignores the Bavli's order. Our Tanakh text is based on the Israeli/Tiberian Mesorah (ie. Ben Asher and the Maaravai) not the Babylonian Mesorah (ie. Ben Naftali and the Medinachai). The fact that the conventional order differs from the Israeli order a bit is worth investigating, and could just be based on Christian printers or something. We make no claim to follow the Bavli. – Double AA Oct 31 '17 at 17:04
  • Is it relevant that both were authored by the Anshei Kenesses HaGedolah? (Not to say that they were the only such Kesuvim - Esther and Daniel were as well.) – DonielF Oct 31 '17 at 17:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .