Itinerarium Alexandri

[agesilaos]

You are being a bit kind to the Romans, Marcus, denial of burial was part of the punishment involved in crucifixion; nor were these ordinary felons but enemies of Rome, especially true of the Christians during the Neronian Persecution who were seen as responsible for the fire of 64 implicitly if not explicitly, even the critical Tacitus declares them to be 'hateful to mankind' though probably innocent of the charge.

This post-mortem humiliation is probably why we have only ever found the body of one crucified man despite a production rate of thousands in every province each year.

[bessusww]

AgesiliI quite agree...As stated the Christians must have been like Al Quida to the Americans ..

The Christians were blamed for the fire of Rome and as stated the Romans were pretty deep with punishment against those who upset Rome.

Carthage was reduced to Rubble ans Spartacus men were Crucified along the road to Rome...I doubt the Christians and or Peter were awarded any kind of burial in the City of Rome...maybe amongst others there may be Atila the Hun,Hannibal,Spartacus etc among other may be burried in Rome.

I know this is off Alexander but I hope this site can be out of the box as its all relative.

For myself The Roman Empire basically took a shift from Army Empire to bible bashing Empire...Id say its easier to maintain an Empire by way of Religious books and con tricks than to manpower it all withe Legions and armys. And its just about this time in Roman History that Constantine realises this and switchees horses.

Then we get all the Bibles books and stuff turning up...And any boubt that its not the same Roman empire...Count the followers today Soldiers...The Cardinals= Senetors and the Pope = Caesar...Smoke and mirrors

[marcus]

You are being a bit kind to the Romans, Marcus, denial of burial was part of the punishment involved in crucifixion; nor were these ordinary felons but enemies of Rome, especially true of the Christians during the Neronian Persecution who were seen as responsible for the fire of 64 implicitly if not explicitly, even the critical Tacitus declares them to be 'hateful to mankind' though probably innocent of the charge.

This post-mortem humiliation is probably why we have only ever found the body of one crucified man despite a production rate of thousands in every province each year.

Fair enough.

But that doesn't mean that Peter's followers didn't get hold of the body, and that they didn't actually bury him under St Peter's ... or, rather, that they didn't build St Peter's over his grave.

The point being that there is no reason to doubt that it actually is St Peter's body there, and there certainly isn't enough contra evidence to dismiss the Church's claim as being a con, or phoney.

ATB

[bessusww]

sorry marcus

but theres no evidence hes burried there...only what the vatican has said...till we get proof then its just a guy in a wooly suite proving theres a yeti in the wilds

[agesilaos]

Without wishing to side track the forum or upset anyone's beliefs; would you not say that the fact that the Nazarene sect could not recover the body of their leader and keep it safe with an allegedly sympathetic pro-consul weigh the odds heavily against them being able to rescue the body of a criminal executed in the arena?

Of course probability is just that and it certainly cannot rule out anything; but if Ms Stavrokapoulos fancies doing a follow up on the New Testament, Hellenistic History or even Transhumant pastoralism in fifteenth century Ethiopia can i bags a spot right now? Still prefer Bettany, though (I know that's a case of name your seconds).

[marcus]

sorry marcus

but theres no evidence hes burried there...only what the vatican has said...till we get proof then its just a guy in a wooly suite proving theres a yeti in the wilds

Yes, but that argument will just go round in circles - there's no evidence he is buried there, but there's no evidence he isn't. And it wasn't the Vatican who first said he was buried there ... that claim was made loooooong before the advent of the machinations of the Vatican ...

Someone is ... so that increases the probability of it being Saint Peter, statistically speaking.

So let's not keep on this line of argument, or our brains will explode!

ATB

[Fingy]

I would also like to read the English translation please.

[marcus]

I would also like to read the English translation please.

I'm quite happy to send it to you - but you'll have to send me your email address in a Private Message.

ATB

[Fingy]

My thanks to Marcus for sending me the translation. I had not even heard about this until sometime last year. Its a very interesting read. So what do we know about the author? When was it written? When the author says Lord Constantius, more than excellent Emperor is he referring to Constantius II (r.337-361) who campaigned against the Sassanid Persians in the late 4th century?

[marcus]

My thanks to Marcus for sending me the translation. I had not even heard about this until sometime last year. Its a very interesting read. So what do we know about the author? When was it written? When the author says Lord Constantius, more than excellent Emperor is he referring to Constantius II (r.337-361) who campaigned against the Sassanid Persians in the late 4th century?

Well, the note at the end of the translation says:

Waldemar Heckel:

The Itinerarium Alexandri is the work of an anonymous author of the fourth century A.D. As we learn from the Prologue, it was written in the time of, and dedicated to, the Emperor Constantius II, who was then undertaking a campaign against the Sassanian Persians. The words “now that you have made a successful start” have been taken to refer to the placing of a Roman nominee on the Armenian throne in 338, and other arguments suggest a date of 340 for the composition of the Itinerarium (see T.D. Barnes, ’Constantine and the Christians of Persia’, JHS 75 (1985) 126-36 at 135). Inspired, as the author says, by Terentius Varro’s work for young Pompey, when he set out for his war in Spain, the Itinerarium (though this is apparently not what it was called at the time of its publication) contained a summary of both Alexander’s exploits against the Achaemenid empire and those of the Emperor Trajan in his Parthian expedition. Now Constantius II was to challenge a third Persian Empire, that of the Sassanians. Only the portion dealing with Alexander has survived, and that in a single MS., which contained also the Res Gestae Alexandri Magni of Julius Valerius, a Latin version of the Greek Alexander Romance. Recently, R. J. Lane Fox (‘The Itinerary of Alexander: Constantius to Julian’, CQ 47 (1997) 239-52) has marshalled arguments in favour of the view that Flavius Polemius (that is, Flavius Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius), consul in 338, was both the translator of the Greek Alexander Romance and author of the Itinerarium. Certainty is impossible, but the theory has its attractions. Like other summaries and collections of stratagems, the Itinerarium is idiosyncratic, sketchy and riddled with error. The bulk of the work, however, deals with Alexander’s campaigns from his accession to the invasion of India and corresponds, in places, closely with the material in the first four books of Arrian’s History of Alexander. But the work can hardly be treated as an epitome of Arrian’s history; for it contains numerous insertions inspired by other sources or attributable to author’s ignorance or imagination.

ATB

[Demosthenes]

There was a translation that was published in the Ancient History Bulletin a few years back. I'll send it to you![/quote]

Could you please send me a copy, too?