New Light on the Nebiim from Alexandria: A Chronography to Replace the Deuteronomistic History

If the periodization of Israel’s past was worked out by
 the composer of the Deuteronomistic History already in the sixth century BCE, is
 it not strange that we have to wait until Ben Sira to find the earliest mention
 of the Joshua—Kings succession? The four-century gap between the work of DtrH
 and Ben Sira begs for an explanation. In the wake of the present trend of
 challenging the validity of the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, this article
 reviews the evidence offered by Ben Sira. Identifying the scope of the gloss at
 the end of Sira 49 leads to understand the Praise of the fathers (Sira 44—49) as
 a theological commentary of the books of the Nebiim, a collection recently put
 together when Sira wrote his Wisdom. The Nebiim constituted a rival collection
 to the first ever Jewish Chronography crafted barely a century earlier for the
 Alexandria library to provide Hellenistic historians with sources pertaining to
 Jewish past. On the basis of Nina Collins’ ground-breaking study of the Letter
 of Aristeas, the opposition between the Chronography and the Nebiim is
 understood as a reflection of the tensions between the Library and the Jews at
 the time of the translation of the Torah. The point is that the initiative for
 translation and canonization Hebrew literature always originated from
 Hellenistic scholars, and that the Jews were reacting to it. The Alexandrian
 Canon hypothesis thus needs to be revived, albeit in a modified form, despite
 the conclusions reached 40 years ago by Albert Sundberg. Even Josephus, who had
 a low opinion of the LXX, based his list of thirteen prophetic books on the
 Alexandrian Chronography, transmitted by the LXX’s Historica (Joshua—Esther). In
 reaction to the Chronography, Alexandrian Judaism created the Nebiim, retaining
 the first part of the Alexandrian Chronography (minus Ruth) while adding the
 Prophetic books proper. Whereas Demetrius the Chronographer or the school to
 which he belonged is likely to have produced the Chronography, Ben Sira, who
 migrated to Egypt with the Ptolemaic elite of Jerusalem after the battle of
 Panion could have been involved in the formation of the Nebiim. His grandson
 translated his grandfather’s Wisdom once the Nebiim were officially canonized by
 the Hasmonaeans. A three-century shift is therefore required for the
 organization of the Joshua—Kings succession, which means that the periodization
 of Israel’s past belongs to the last stage of the formation of the books of
 Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, and not to the onset of their growth.
 Alexandria is restored in its position as the leading centre for canonizing ANE
 literature.


Introduction
The gradual demise of the traditional date for the formation of the Deuteronomistic History (ca. 562 BCE) leads to ask afresh the question of the origin of the chronological arrangement of the Biblical books from Joshua to Kings 1 . The Copenhagen school is pressing the case for a Hellenistic origin of most of the Bible 2 and for the recognition of the influence of Greek historiography on the Biblical presentation of Israel's past 3 . Niels Peter Lemche considers that 'From a chronological point of view, it is likely that the Septuagintal order of books should be considered older than the one found in the Hebrew Bible'. He adds that the 'original order in both Greek and Hebrew traditions was the Law followed by the Prophets, while they differed when it came to the incorporation of other writings' 4 . In fact, the two traditions already differ widely on the Prophets, since the Greek Law is followed by Historical books whose content does not quite match that of the Former Prophets. These differences go beyond a simple matter of title; they reflect different canonization procedures and circumstances.
The books of Joshua to Kings will be designated here as the Biblical Chronography 5 .
Their canonization as part of the Prophets is generally dated ca. 200 BCE  After considering afresh the date of the Wisdom of Ben Sira and its bearing on the formation of the Nebiim, the discussion will focus on the precursor of the Nebiim, namely the Alexandrian canon. The case for a revised Alexandrian canon hypothesis is put forward to deal with the chicken-and-egg debate over the primacy of Biblical "history" or "prophecy".

Earliest Evidence of the Prophetic Collection
The evidence for the existence of the prophetic collection is too well known to require a detailed account 8 . From the first century CE, the following texts mention the Prophets as a collection of books: In the second and first centuries BCE four witnesses already concur to establish the presence of a prophetic collection or canon: In 2 Maccabees 15:9, Judas encourages his men before the battle against Nicanor by reading 'from the Law and the Prophets'.
The Law and the Prophets are mentioned in several Dead Sea scrolls (1QS 1.3; 1QS8. [15][16]. The 'books of the Prophets' occur in CD 7.17-18. 2 Maccabees 2:13-14 belongs to the second of two letters (2 Macc. 1:1-9 and 1:10-2: 18) appended as cover letters to the Epitome of Jason of Cyrene's lost history. It mentions books collected by Judas after a recent war and cannot therefore have been written before 164 but was most likely written in  in connection with a conflict between Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX 10 . These books correspond to the collection established by Nehemiah comprising 'books about the kings, those about the prophets and the books of David and the letters of the Persian kings on dedicatory gifts to the temple'.
4QMMT, the so-called Halakhic letter is addressed to a national leader in Jerusalem, possibly a Maccabaean or Hasmonaean ruler 11 , which in any case places 4QMMT after 164 BCE. It states: 'We have written to you so that you may study the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and David…' 12 .
Ben Sira's grandson translated into Greek his grandfather's Wisdom after 135 BCE. In the prologue, he explains: 'My grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself for a long time to the study of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our ancestors…' Some time earlier, Ben Sira himself describes the subjects to be studied by scribes and he seems to refer to a specific prophetic collection: 'How different it is with the person who devotes himself to reflecting on the Law of the most High: he studies the wisdom of all ancients and he occupies himself with the prophecies; the stories of the famous men he preserves and he penetrates the intricacies of proverbs; he studies the hidden meanings of sayings and he knows his way among riddles of proverbs' (Ben Sira 39:1-3) 13 .
Admittedly, the reference to a separate prophetic collection is far from clear here, as various types of writings are mentioned. However, the so-called Praise of the fathers (Ben Sira [44][45][46][47][48][49] names in the correct order the title of each book of the Nebiim.
Before considering these chapters, it is crucial to check its date since Ben Sira is widely considered as the earliest witness of the prophetic canon.

The Date of Ben Sira
The sole chronological anchor to date Ben Sira's Wisdom is provided by the foreword to the Greek translation where Ben Sira's grandson states that he arrived in Egypt in the 38 th year of the reign of King Euergetes. This corresponds to Ptolemy VII Physkon Euergetes II  because the other Euergetes (Ptolemy III Euergetes I 246-221 BCE) only reigned 25 years. Euergetes II began his rule in 170 conjointly with his brother Ptolemy VI . Calculating from 170, Ptolemy VII's official accession year, Ben Sira's grandson arrived in Egypt in 132 BCE 14 .
Since the grandson made the translation after his arrival in Egypt, Ben Sira wrote the last parts of his Wisdom 15 between 322 16 and 130 BCE 17 . These extreme points embrace both high priests named Simon, Simon I who officiated during the reign of Ptolemy I in the earliest years of the third century BCE (Antiquities 11.8.7 §347; 12.2.5 §43-44) and Simon II a century later (219   18 . This wide bracket is slightly narrowed down to 300-130 BCE to allow time for Simon I to die during the reign of the first Ptolemy because the panegyric for the high priest seems to presuppose the death of Simon: 'Simon the High Priest, the son of Onias, who in his life repaired the House...' (50:1) 19 . Ben Sira offers no firm indication for the identification of Simon, although his building activities (Sira 50:1-4) fit the transitional period between Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule (Simon II) better than the little we know about the military activities of Ptolemy I against Jerusalem (Simon I) 20 .
David Williams claims that 175 BCE is more likely than the commonly accepted date of 195 BCE, although the 60 years intergenerational gap he is working with is a very rough estimate 21 and could be considerably reduced. Differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of the prayer at the end of Simon's encomium 22 provide additional weight in favour of Williams' proposal. The benediction (50:22-24) may have formed the original end of the whole work 23 . In the last verse, the Greek version's rather general blessing 'May he entrust to us his mercy, and may he deliver us in our day' stands for the more specific Hebrew 'May he entrust to Simon his mercy and may he maintain for him Phinehas' covenant which will neither be broken for him or for his offspring as long as will the heavens last'. This verse makes more sense if it has been written while Onias, Simon's son and immediate successor, was facing difficulties but before his situation became hopeless 24 . Collins cautiously warns that 'we cannot know whether Ben Sira had an inkling of impeding problems when he prayed for the preservation of the line' 25 , but the Hebrew text can hardly refer to a period other than the sojourn of Onias in Antioch  or to the ten years leading up to it.
However, such a late date for the Praise at the time of Onias has been rejected because Ben Sira ends his description with Simon and fails to mention Onias. David deSilva claims that 'the lack of any comment on the subversion of the high priesthood by Jason, the younger son of Simon II… indicates that Ben Sira's work, and probably his life, were finished before those dark times 26 . I insist that Ben Sira's anxious prayer in the Hebrew text reflects Onias or his brother Jason's perilous position, but certainly one of them was still holding on to Simon's office. Therefore, Ben Sira should have penned the original conclusion of his Wisdom between Jason's deposition of his brother Onias (175 BCE) and Menelaus' deposition of Jason (ca. 172 BCE) 27 . By mentioning the father only, Ben Sira carefully avoided taking sides in the sons' bitter rivalry.
By the time the grandson arrived in Egypt (132 BCE), Jerusalem had been torn by worse fights, and with hindsight the end of Simon's line only appeared as the first episode of a long and bloody conflict over the control of Jerusalem. The high priesthood was now firmly in the hands of the Hasmonaean rulers. Ben Sira's grandson thus altered the prayer and broadened its application in order to avoid having a 50 chapter-long work centred around God's covenant faithfulness close on a prayer that was not answered. Like unfulfilled prophecies, unanswered prayers are an excellent token of authenticity. Ben Sira supported the Oniad side, the sons of his previous patron, and he had good reasons to fear for Simon's line and for his own future and career.
So, although the last part of Ben Sira is closer to 175 than to 190 BCE, Ben Sira remains the earliest witness of a prophetic collection, at least one decade before the Maccabaean insurrection. Now, the location of the author is another important factor to clarify.

Ben Sira in Egypt
Are there any clues to locate Ben Sira? Until recently, the following elements were considered as ample proof for the Palestinian origin of both Ben Sira and of his grandson: • The Wisdom of Ben Sira was known in Palestine: Hebrew manuscripts were found at Qumran, Massada and in the Cairo Geniza (B) 28 . This does not imply that Ben Sira wrote in Palestine.

•
The elaborate description of a liturgy performed at Jerusalem by Simon (Sira 50:5-21) is taken as indicating that Ben Sira personally witnessed Simon's performance.
At most, this only implies that Ben Sira happened to be in Jerusalem once.

Ben Sira's Prophets
The first question to be answered is whether or not Ben Sira  Although the importance of Ben Sira for the formation of the canon has long been recognized 52 , Goshen-Gottstein follows Gerald Sheppard in insisting that Ben Sira is not merely providing information on the canon en passant, but he is 'actively and consciously describing the canon' 53 . It is therefore all the more important to check the content of Ben Sira's prophetic list.
Besides minute irregularities concerning his presentation of Torah material 54

The case of Chronicles (Sira 47:9)
Burton Mack found four common elements in Chronicles and Ben Sira: (1) the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable kings; (2) David's links with the cult; (3) both tell a story that runs up into their own time; (4) both tell a story legitimizing second temple cult 55 . Ska evaluates these elements and concludes that since elements (1) and (3) are also characteristic of the books of Kings only (2) and (4) may be of interest 56 .
However, David's placement of singers before the altar (Sira 47:9) is beyond doubt a reference to 1 Chronicles 6:32 (Heb. 6:17) because the books of Kings do not attribute such a move to David. The reference to Chronicles is confirmed by the use of the word ψαλτῳδὸς often found in Paralipomenon 57 . If this reference to Chronicles is clear in the Greek, it is the work of the translator, but it may not correspond to Ben Sira's intent.
The Greek is sufficiently close to the Hebrew text to get an idea of the Hebrew text of verse 9 58 . The word ‫נגנה‬ is never found in Chronicles but in Isa. 38:20; Hab. 3:19 and in the Psalms. In the second colon, the word μέλος corresponds to root ‫הגה‬ 59 providing various technical terms in the Psalms, among them ‫נגנה‬ at the beginning of the verse.
One thing is clear, apart from the word ψαλτῳδὸς, the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary of verse 9 is never used in Kings or Chronicles, while several connections with David are found in the Psalms, in particular Psalm 61 that uses the word ‫נגנה‬ in the Davidic title and the link of Ps. 51:1 with David's sin, the only text, besides 2 Sam. 12:13, to sustain David's forgiveness in Sira 47:11aα 60 .
The reference to Chronicles is thus elusive, and the common claim that Ben Sira uses the books of Chronicles must be seriously curtailed: it is limited to one word in the Greek version and cannot be used to prove that Ben Sira himself explicitly refers to Chronicles and even less that he considers Chronicles as part of the Prophets 61 . Once this point is made, the possible references to Chronicles in the Gospels can be examined.

The case of Job (Sira 49:9)
Since Ben Sira is quoting Job in the first part of his work 67

The case of the temple builders (Sira 49:11-13)
The perfect agreement of the order and content of the Prophets in the Praise of the fathers with the Nebiim seems to be ruined by the mention of Zerubbabel, Jeshua ben Jozadak and Nehemiah (49:11-13). These three figures are all credited with building activities, and thus introduce Simon, whose building endeavours are mentioned in the first four verses of the Praise of Simon (50:1-4).
Although the mention of Nehemiah is problematic for a canon-conscious reading of the Praise, he need not be understood as belonging to Ben Sira's prophetic list, any more than But this solution seems too good to be accepted so quickly, it smacks of circular reasoning, since it removes the parts of the text that do not fit the theory that it is supposed to prove. So another possibility is to claim that from Nehemiah onwards, the description engages a reverse movement back to Adam (Sira 49:16) in order to signify clearly the end of the canon 71 . The result is almost the same; both Jeshua and Adam provide a clear mark of the end of the canon, except that in the second case doubts remain over the status of the book of Nehemiah. Carr uses this to claim that Ben Sira did not have a prophetic collection in front of him 72

The case of the concluding Patriarchs (Sira 49:14-16)
After Nehemiah, the Praise of the fathers closes with Genesis figures. The common explanation for the belated mention of Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, Enosh and Adam (49:14-16) is that it constitutes an echoing technique that rounds off the Praise of the fathers by returning to the starting point of the Biblical story with Adam, and that these Genesis figures are placed at the end because they are not associated to any covenant 75 .
One may wonder why they are mentioned here since they do not fit any pattern of characterization in the book 76 . The only answer, if they do not belong to a secondary addition, is that they delimitate the end of the canon. So Mack's claim that 49:14-16 are secondary textual additions should be considered 77 .
The figures of Joseph and Enoch 78 have certainly caused problems to translators and copyists. Joseph may be alluded to in 44:23: 'From his [Jacob's] descendants, he brought forth a godly man who found favour in the sight of all and was beloved by God and people', but the allusion is more likely to apply to Moses who is mentioned immediately after this phrase.
Joseph is named at 49:15 'Nor was anyone ever born like Joseph' (Mss H and S). The Greek adds 'the leader of his brothers, the support of the people'; while in H and S these words are found at the beginning of 50  It is now necessary to delve into the aim of Ben Sira's Praise.

Ben Sira's Purpose: Prophetic Chronography
Ben Sira is not merely describing the Nebiim, he is reflecting upon their meaning 94 . The list of figures in the second part of the Praise of the fathers is so similar to the Nebiim that it is beyond doubt that the Torah and the Prophets had 'not only come together but had become authoritative by 200 BCE' 95 . Ben Sira was working with a pre-existing list whose content was known to the audience although its authority was not yet fully recognized.
By linking the Prophets to the Torah, Ben Sira demonstrates that this secondary collection deserves the same status than the Torah, but if nine chapters are required to demonstrate the theological value of the collection, it is obvious that in Ben Sira's time, the Nebiim are a recent collection that has not yet gained wide acceptance.
How does Ben Sira proceed to shore up the authority of the Nebiim? Rather than fusing the Prophets into the Torah, Ben Sira upholds the Torah as the sum of Wisdom (Sira 24:23) while affirming that the Torah is not self-sufficient but should be studied in light of wisdom and prophets (Sira 39:1-3) 96 .

Rival Collections
Are there any clues of "canonical rivalry" 113 that would explain the formation of the Nebiim in reaction to an Alexandrian Chronography? The answer is positive; it is found in the Letter of Aristeas, whose historical value is increasingly recognized after two centuries of downgrading, thanks to Humphrey Hody 114 . Nina Collins claims that in spite of the fantastic and inaccurate elements it contains, the main story of the Letter of Aristeas is correct, and confirms that the Torah was translated in 280 BCE at the initiative of Ptolemy II, despite Jewish opposition 115 . Contrary to common opinion, the translation was not commissioned for synagogue use by Jews who needed a translation because they no longer understood Hebrew, but by Demetrius of Phalerum, who kept the original translation and supplied a copy to Jews who asked for it. The Library was part of the Temple of the Muses, a religious institution 116 which the Jewish leaders opposed. They considered the translation unnatural, although they reluctantly conceded to the royal desire (LetAris. 44-45), but not before having secured the emancipation of a huge number of Jewish slaves who had been carried away by Ptolemy I from Judah (LetAris. 12). The number of slaves, or even whether the deal was ever struck, is irrelevant. After presenting a number of convincing arguments, Collins concludes that the translation was not a Jewish initiative 117 . It is important for the discussion below to note that Albert Sundberg flatly rejects this idea 118 .
In spite of initial Jewish resistance, the LXX gradually gained acceptance and was used in the liturgy, which caused the addition of several interpolations into the text of the

The Chronographers of Alexandria
An Alexandrian Chronography has been mentioned several times in the above discussion, and what is meant by it must now be clarified.
The first step is to ask why the Former Prophets follow the same order as the first Historical books of the Septuagint, except for the book of Ruth that the Hebrew canon places within the Writings. This question is brushed aside by rejecting the Alexandrian canon (see Sundberg below), but this does not explain why the four books that have been painstakingly arranged chronologically although they obviously were not meant to be read in sequence (consider the Joshua/Judges transition 136  Gottwald identified the Ptolemaic period as the moment when the historical books came to the fore, but the pervasive Deuteronomistic History supposedly composed shortly after 586 BCE forced him to postulate a three-century gap between the formation of the history and its recognition. Is it not more convincing to consider that its formation is roughly contemporaneous its first mention, during the Ptolemaic period between Hecateus (ca. Claiming that the paradigms for the Nebiim as well as for the Ketubim come from Alexandria comes close to the so-called 'Alexandrian canon' hypothesis rejected 40 years ago by Albert Sundberg which now needs to be discussed.

Sundberg and the Alexandrian Canon of the Bible
All studies dealing with the canon of the Old Testament quote Albert Sundberg who is credited with the final refutation of the Alexandrian canon hypothesis 152 . Sundberg's thesis is that the LXX does not reflect an ancient Alexandrian canon, there was only one canon in Judaism before 70 CE, the Torah and the Nebiim, and a wide literature circulated both in Palestine and in the Diaspora besides it. This canon was later enlarged at Jamnia in 90 CE to define the content of the Writings and to exclude all other works from the Hebrew Scriptures. According to Sundberg, Christians separated themselves from the Jews before the formation of the Writings (around 70 CE), so Christians were not affected by the Jewish Writings and thus the church carried on using a wide Jewish literature for several centuries after Jamnia until the differences became so wide that the church was led to organise the Bible along its own lines. According to Sundberg, the LXX is therefore a purely Christian arrangement, clearly secondary to the Jewish order. The theory of a specific Alexandrian canon is thus redundant. This passage is quoted approvingly by J. Schaper who claims that the Alexandrian canon hypothesis 'assumes that Diaspora Judaism had become sufficiently independent from the motherland to create and use a canon of its own. The theory is built on the assumption that the importance of Jerusalem and its temple had diminished significantly' 164 .
This objection to the Alexandrian canon is based on the false assumption that the first Jewish canons were the work of Diaspora Jews, while we now know that the Torah, its first Greek translation and the Chronography were more or less imposed on the Jews by After this detailed presentation of the origins of the theory, Sundberg presents his own critique. The "Mecca" objection mentioned above is first in the list and continues thus: • Church usage: if the church adopted a more-or-less fixed canon from Diaspora Judaism, we should expect to find a rather exact correlation between the supposed contents of that canon and Christian usage. The evidence points out to the opposite.
The New Testament, Church fathers and even Rabbis quote a large array of Jewish books extending even beyond the LXX's Hagiographa. I reply that this argument certainly proves that the Writings and the Hagiographa were not canonized before the second century CE, and that the supposed Alexandrian canon did not contain the LXX's Hagiographa, but it has no bearing on the canonization of the Nebiim.
• Linguistic division and apocalypticism: Sundberg easily disproves earlier theories claiming that most of the Apocrypha were composed in Greek at Alexandria 170 and that apocalyptic writings were more popular in the Diaspora than in Palestine 171 , thus rejecting the relevance of too sharp a distinction between Palestine and Diaspora.
Again, this point has no relevance for the Nebiim. Sundberg concludes that the Alexandrian canon hypothesis lacks primary evidence and cannot be proved 176 . His analysis definitely proves that a pre-Ben Sira Alexandrian canon could not be identical to the LXX because the distinction Hagiographa / Apocrypha belongs to the 2 nd century CE at the earliest, but Sundberg was not able to draw this conclusion because he held to the canonization of the writings at Jamnia in 90 CE. He was then forced to postulate a very early and radical separation of Christians from Jews in order to explain why the Church used the Apocrypha after the canonization of the Writings. Ironically, the very year Sundberg published his thesis, Jack Lewis released an article that laid the basis for the rejection of the canonizing role of the Jamnia assembly (90 CE) 177 . This new understanding of the canonization of the Writings renders the rest of Sundberg's thesis obsolete 178 . This is not to say that the old Alexandrian canon hypothesis should be revived wholesale, it is enough to note that Sundberg's rejection of the Alexandrian canon has no bearings on the canonization of the Nebiim. Davies thus considers that 'Sundberg's rejection of an "Alexandrian canon" is correct only in terms of a narrow definition of canon. That Jews in Alexandria recognized a canon or canons of Jewish scriptures seems clear enough' 179 . It is time to render to Alexandria what belongs to Alexandria and to accept that Alexandria is the cradle of Jewish historiography.
It is also time to turn to Josephus who provides important data for the situation of the Old Testament canon at the end of the 1st century CE.

Josephus and the Thirteen Prophets
Josephus stands on the other side of the canonization process of the Nebiim. Whereas Ben Sira is its first witness, Josephus offers a posteriori reflection that has the advantage of The trouble with Josephus is that he presents too many prophetic books to match with the Nebiim. To make things worse, Josephus does not name the individual books, so various suggestions have been made (see table below).
Josephus is consciously mixing two collections for his own purpose. He has no qualms doing this since he does not consider the LXX as inspired (see above) and since his aim is to defend the authenticity of Jewish records rather than to give an account of Jewish canons but 181 . His concern being historiographic, Josephus follows the LXX's historical books until Artaxerxes, insisting that these books were written by prophets, which is a token of accuracy because they were inspired by God. Applying the canonical razor on the LXX's Historica severs the period after Artaxerxes from Josephus' Prophets. Since  (Fig. 1).

Conclusion
Alexandria is the most likely place of origin of the Biblical Chronography. Soon after the