Loved your Swiss Cheese Comparison here, lol. I wish original Alexander Histories, the ones written by his soldiers and such had survived. Or the historical works by Marsyas of Pella. So many information forever lost to us:(
Eastern sourcesapollinarisMarch 8 2010, 01:30:48 UTC
Thanks! I'd had that cheese image in my head for a while - and not just for a fondue. If we did find such texts, would we recognise them for what they are? An example: 4Q396(MMT c). Eisenman identifies it thusly: 'MMT as Jamesian Letter to "The Great King of the Peoples Beyond the Euphrates" '. I suggest that this Essene letter is represented in Christian tradition as the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar V of Edessa - not the same thing at all and therefore generally unrecognised. As regards Alexander, there are Eastern sources for his march eastwards and the resultant battles. But are they recognised properly? That they may offer accounts different to those of the West makes this difficult (because of our preconceptions, built on the Romance). Which brings us back to the point I was making: the Alexander of history is probably very different to the character of mythology, which is now held in the minds of the general public as 'history'. After all, which Alexander attracted your strong interest?
I think I now understand part of what you are trying to say, although I am still not clear what you mean by a 'divine man'. The usual terminology is that he was awarded divine honours, and if you mean something different from this I think you need to define your meaning
( ... )
You may have identified my difficulty in defining the 'divine men' of Antiquity, with "a historically attestable person..."
As you say, "archaeology alone cannot prove Alexander’s existence", though that is the opposite of the question I posed: "What reliable archaeology is there for his existence?" There is supposed to be something, I understand from mainstream histories, so a list should be easy to present.
I am intrigued that one characteristic common to all 'divine men' is the paucity of archaeological evidence for them. Actually, it is more difficult than that, for they all lack, in my opinion, reliable evidence of any type.
Not that I disregard the possibility that these figures of our cultural heritage have no historicity whatsoever. A couple or so seem to me to be based on historical characters, but of a different time and or place. As you see, I am not offering certainties - but a mass of uncertainties, though I am sure that learning the historicity of Alexander, if such exists to be found, is not easy.
Comments 10
Reply
If we did find such texts, would we recognise them for what they are?
An example: 4Q396(MMT c). Eisenman identifies it thusly: 'MMT as Jamesian Letter to "The Great King of the Peoples Beyond the Euphrates" '. I suggest that this Essene letter is represented in Christian tradition as the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar V of Edessa - not the same thing at all and therefore generally unrecognised.
As regards Alexander, there are Eastern sources for his march eastwards and the resultant battles. But are they recognised properly? That they may offer accounts different to those of the West makes this difficult (because of our preconceptions, built on the Romance).
Which brings us back to the point I was making: the Alexander of history is probably very different to the character of mythology, which is now held in the minds of the general public as 'history'.
After all, which Alexander attracted your strong interest?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As you say, "archaeology alone cannot prove Alexander’s existence", though that is the opposite of the question I posed: "What reliable archaeology is there for his existence?" There is supposed to be something, I understand from mainstream histories, so a list should be easy to present.
I am intrigued that one characteristic common to all 'divine men' is the paucity of archaeological evidence for them. Actually, it is more difficult than that, for they all lack, in my opinion, reliable evidence of any type.
Not that I disregard the possibility that these figures of our cultural heritage have no historicity whatsoever. A couple or so seem to me to be based on historical characters, but of a different time and or place. As you see, I am not offering certainties - but a mass of uncertainties, though I am sure that learning the historicity of Alexander, if such exists to be found, is not easy.
Reply
Leave a comment