Hephaistion's pyre question

[Taphoi]

...derisive and sarcastic comments made against individual members here, mostly caught by alert moderators.

I am not aware that the moderators have edited or deleted any of my posts in this thread. I can only recall one case where a post of mine was deleted or edited by a moderator (one with a photo and no words in it last October). Which of my posts are you suggesting has been edited/deleted without my noticing, please? Please could the moderators indicate which of my posts they have edited/deleted?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

...derisive and sarcastic comments made against individual members here, mostly caught by alert moderators.

I am not aware that the moderators have edited or deleted any of my posts in this thread. I can only recall one case where a post of mine was deleted or edited by a moderator (one with a photo and no words in it last October). Which of my posts are you suggesting has been edited/deleted without my noticing, please? Please could the moderators indicate which of my posts they have edited/deleted?

Best wishes,

Andrew

I can't speak for the other mods but I not made any other recent deletions (except for a short period on another thread) although I have pointed out on more than one occasion, seemingly to no avail, that derisive comments are not the way of the forum. In all cases except for the one directed at me I have left it up to those posting to realize that their remarks are innapropriate. Am beginning to think that I've made a mistake to assume that the intelligence level of our members allows for this. Now, please, everyone, DROP THIS! We are a public forum and people come here to read discussions about Alexander. Alexander!!! Take anything else to a PM. No exceptions. If this doesn't end I WILL delete anything further and probably all posts that began this chain of discussion - in their entirety.

[marcus]

I can't speak for the other mods ...

I certainly haven't. I haven't had much time to look at the forum recently, let alone delete anything ...

However, I do agree with Amyntoros. By all means criticise each other's arguments, logic, process of historical enquiry, etc.; but there are times when the language does get too close to personal attack and flaming, and everyone needs to think a bit more carefully before posting.

ATB

[amyntoros]

That reading by Taphoi is, I'm afraid, a reading of hope. Agesilaos is correct: topos is qualified (above) by "common'' (koinos)... ...

Did not want to quote your whole post which I found quite interesting. When Greek terminology is at issue such explanations definitely help those of us who did not study the language to better understand the argument. Which brings me to this: What exactly is the agument? Why is the usage or meaning of the word topos so relevant or important to this debate on the pyre? I know the answer is somewhere back in this thread, but a revisiting of the "meat and potatoes" would be very helpful at this point.

And Taphoi:

When a phrase is given in a dictionary/lexicon it means that the word may be translated in the given way only in that phrase not that the header word can take that meaning when it stands alone, then it has a sole entry and the phrase is used as an illustration.

No. The phrases are examples of usage and they indicate that other similar usages are possible.

As Paralus has not found any similar uses in Diodorus it would help the debate if you would provide academically accepted examples of other uses of the word which support your own argument.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

And Taphoi:

When a phrase is given in a dictionary/lexicon it means that the word may be translated in the given way only in that phrase not that the header word can take that meaning when it stands alone, then it has a sole entry and the phrase is used as an illustration.

No. The phrases are examples of usage and they indicate that other similar usages are possible.

As Paralus has not found any similar uses in Diodorus it would help the debate if you would provide academically accepted examples of other uses of the word which support your own argument.

Happy to oblige. Below is Thayer's Lexicon on topos. It says that topos agios (literally the "holy place") in Matthew 24.15 means a temple - thus again a topos is a building. It also says that topos means a house in Acts 4.31.

Thayer's Lexicon

ToposThayersLexicon.jpg (64.96 KiB) Viewed 4606 times

[Paralus]

Happy to oblige. Below is Thayer's Lexicon on topos. It says that topos agios (literally the "holy place") in Matthew 24.15 means a temple - thus again a topos is a building. It also says that topos means a house in Acts 4.31.

And, so, into the valley of obfuscation rode the lone light horseman. Once again you singularly skirt the point to an argument's convenience. Topos is qualified by agios and so is rendered as "holy place" (here temple). That does not mean that topos can be used as Temple as Agesilaos has pointed out and I have shown. This is the "translation of literary equivalence" and, on that evidence, Diodorus 115.2 could be rendered "He divided up the temple into thirty compartments...". As topos is often qualified by stenois (see above post) it could just as easily, on Taphoi's method of literary equivalence, become "divided up the defile / pass" because topos can be used as pass or defile. One might just as well translate topon as "skull based on John 19.17 (kraniou topon).

Thayer's Lexicon can be found here for those interested. Acts 4.31 can indicate that the apostles were in a house. It does not say that though. What it says is that the place (topos) they were gathered at was shaken. See here for the breakdown.. One would note that all translations I've checked (including Thayer's) render this as "place" just as at Diodorus 115.1. One should compare Acts 2.1 where, at Pentecost, the apostles had come together in one place (here pantes homou). This place is then stated to be a house (2.2) when a "mighty wind filled the house". House here is oikon.

I would be pleased if those opening words on Acts 4.31t are not misrepresented as agreeing with Thayer's including "of'a house" or your view that topos can be read as "house" as in the below, typical, example.

It is nice that everyone now agrees that pyra is used of the monument on the site of a funeral pyre. <edited by moderator>

As "everyone' did not and do not now for topos.

[Paralus]

Which brings me to this: What exactly is the agument? Why is the usage or meaning of the word topos so relevant or important to this debate on the pyre? I know the answer is somewhere back in this thread, but a revisiting of the "meat and potatoes" would be very helpful at this point.

That goes back to the supposed construction of this pyre. In explaining away McKecnie's points Taphoi wrote the following:

However, he (McKechnie) makes many mistakes:

F) He thinks that the “30 chambers” from which the pyre was constructed were arranged in a grid of 5 by 6 rows on the base level.

This is because, to make it feasible, Taphoi must somehow reduce the engineering and structural support demands of the pyre as described by Diodorus as he claims here:

Hence we are looking at thirty chambers of base 100 cubits square and a height of thirty cubits. 16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all. In this arrangement the most loaded chambers on the first stage only supported the weight of less than one additional chamber each (16 base chambers supported 14 upper level chambers). So the structural demands were not all that great.

Now, this is a reading not supported by the text which indicates a ground floor divided into 30 chambers, something I raised in this post. The only response to this, so far, has been the following:

Firstly, Diodorus claims that the area (τόπον - 17.115.1) for the pyre was levelled. He then states that the same cleared area (τόπον - 115.2) was divided into thirty compartments.

Topos is more accurately translated as “place” and just as a place can mean a building in English so topos can mean a building in Greek (see LSJ). Diodorus states that Alexander levelled off the place (meaning the site) for the pyre and then that the pyre was square, each side a being a stade in length, and then that the place (meaning the building) was divided into thirty chambers. There is no reason why successive uses of topos need refer to exactly the same thing. If I write, “his place was at his place” in English, it is gibberish unless the two uses of place are interpreted differently. There is no authority in Diodorus’s second use of topos to assume that the ground plan is meant. Since he describes the whole pyre in the preceding sentence, that is the “place” that he meant.

The ambit claim, with absolutely no supporting argument, that the pyre was constructed of five levels ("stages") with two "bands of decoration" 15 cubits high for three levels and a final one, 30 cubits high, thus depends upon Taphoi's reading of topon. No other evidence or argument has been produced. If Diodorus' use of topon at 115.2 ("He divided up the area/topon") does not mean "structure" (or "building), then Taphoi's pyre falls. And that is exactly what it does.

Diodorus clearly describes the topon being leveled and then, in anticipatory summary, the square pyre to go on the levelled topon (kataskeuasas ōkodomēse tetrapleuron puran). Diodorus then goes on (115.2) to provide construction details he's not summarised out saying that he divided up the area into 30 compartments with the attendant details of palm logs and roofing. This is the base level of the pyre which he then immediately refers to as kataskeuasma (structure). Throughout Diodorus refers to the pyre as puran or kataskeuasma ("structure"). He does not refer to the pyre as a topon and therefore his first use of that word in line two is correctly rendered as "area".

As Paralus has not found any similar uses in Diodorus it would help the debate if you would provide academically accepted examples of other uses of the word which support your own argument.

No other similar uses in book 17 that is. I have not yet bothered to check the other books (beyond a few instances in 16 which show exactly the same useage). Not even I have the time for that!

[Xenophon]

Amyntoros wrote:

As Paralus has not found any similar uses in Diodorus it would help the debate if you would provide academically accepted examples of other uses of the word which support your own argument.

(my emphasis)

Taphoi wrote:

Happy to oblige. Below is Thayer's Lexicon on topos. It says that topos agios (literally the "holy place") in Matthew 24.15 means a temple - thus again a topos is a building. It also says that topos means a house in Acts 4.31.

Regrettably, this does not answer Amyntoros' point in the slightest.Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), was a fundamentalist christian pastor and later a professor of divinity first at Andover Seminary, then at Harvard Divinity school, and was a professed Unitarian. His New Testament lexicon was a translation of Grimm's ( a German scholar) 1879 Graeco-Latin lexicon, with many revisions to accommodate his own beliefs, and came out in the 1890's.

Rather unfortunately, Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete quickly as Gustav Adolf Deissmann's work with Egyptian papyri was soon to revolutionize New Testament and Koine Greek Lexicography in 1901, and also his "Light from the Ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World" London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. These books and similar ones that followed helped confirm and sometimes correct inadequate definitions of many words in the Greek New Testament. With this new and valuable information for studying the Greek of the New Testament, Thayer's Lexicon became completely obsolete within less than a decade.

One obscure christian fundamentalist bible scholar, whose work was made completely obsolete over 100 years ago hardly equates to academically accepted examples. But of course such works e.g. the LSJ do NOT support your contention.

In this particular instance, Thayer was quite wrong to consider that 'aghios topos' could mean temple. In fact, it is to be taken literally as 'holy place' and is derived from the Jewish term 'dwelling place of Yahweh'. This was originally the Holy Tabernacle which accompanied the Jews in their wanderings and later Solomon decided that Yahweh should have a permanent 'dwelling place' on the Temple Mount, and had a temple erected over it ( the holy place - Temple mount) which in turn permanently housed the Tabernacle. It was the only place where ritual sacrifice was allowed to take place. Over time, the Temple came to be known as the "House of Yahweh" [Beit YHWH] which is how confusion has arisen over the meaning, and led to mistranslation of the Greek.

Incidently, there is an Alexander connection with the Temple. According to Jewish tradition, the second Temple narrowly avoided being destroyed in 332 BCE when the Jews refused to acknowledge the deification of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. Alexander was allegedly “turned from his anger” at the last minute by astute diplomacy and flattery.


Taphoi wrote:

Xenophon wrote:...derisive and sarcastic comments made against individual members here, mostly caught by alert moderators.

I am not aware that the moderators have edited or deleted any of my posts in this thread. I can only recall one case where a post of mine was deleted or edited by a moderator (one with a photo and no words in it last October). Which of my posts are you suggesting has been edited/deleted without my noticing, please? Please could the moderators indicate which of my posts they have edited/deleted?

Best wishes,

Andrew

To answer Andrew's question, by "here" I meant here on this forum, which he has chosen to misquote as "here on this thread", thus narrowing the scope of what I was actually referring to. Even then, on this thread, on Mon 1 April, P.2 there are no less than two edits/deletions in a single post of his.

[Taphoi]

So, as I have shown, two widely used Greek dictionaries (LSJ and Thayer) attest that sometimes when topos is used, meaning a place, that place is a building. They both cite different Greek works where the word is so used. They both attest that topos refers to an enclosed or defined space (and not an area or two-dimensional surface). They give further examples where the topos is a room. Nevertheless Agesilaos, Xenophon and Paralus insist that the dictionaries are wrong or that somehow the usages they attest cannot apply in Diodorus. They insist that topos in Diodorus 17.115 must mean the ground plan of the building rather than the building itself. They argue this in order to avoid believing that the 30 chambers were arranged in a pyramid, despite the tremendous coincidence that 30 is a pyramidal number (the next is 55) and that the square base of the pyre cannot be divided symmetrically into 30 chambers (that would require a square number of chambers, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36...). If they dispute attestations in LSJ, there is unlikely to be any evidence that they will not dispute.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

NO I and I presume we, merely contest your ability to use a dictionary even you 'example' is of topos qualified by hagios! topos alone cannot mean 'building' and neither lexicon says that it can.

[Paralus]

So, as I have shown, two widely used Greek dictionaries (LSJ and Thayer)...

You have shown nothing other than your ignorance. The LSJ did not support you and so you went to a thoroughly out of date lexicon for help. Just how far might you go to support your "theories"?

They insist that topos in Diodorus 17.115 must mean the ground plan of the building rather than the building itself.

Clearly you cannot read. Please, do yourself a favour and read what I've written above (rather than what you want).

They argue this in order to avoid believing that the 30 chambers were arranged in a pyramid, despite the tremendous coincidence that 30 is a pyramidal number (the next is 55) and that the square base of the pyre cannot be divided symmetrically into 30 chambers (that would require a square number of chambers, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36...).

Your flat assertions are now just becoming boring. A "scholar" has a rationale for his theories; you do not .

I realise that these questions might be uncomfortable (clearly they are: you've ignored them to date) but you might see your way clear to actually addressing them?? I will ask again though...

What is your evidence for only five levels?
What is your evidence for "two bands of decoration"?
What is your evidence that each of these "bands of decoration" were 15 cubits high?

[amyntoros]

It seems the crux of this debate is the feasibility of construction of the building as a pyre. My thoughts as follows:

On Taphoi's pyramidal numbers:

The construction from thirty identical rectangular chambers makes perfect sense. Thirty is the sum of 4-squared plus 3-squared plus 2-squared plus 1. Hence we are looking at thirty chambers of base 100 cubits square and a height of thirty cubits. 16 were arrayed in a 4x4 configuration in the first stage, 9 in the second, 4 in the third and one at the summit. The body and its support probably gave the last 10 cubits and there may have been banners. Each stage was split into two bands of decoration, so these were 15 cubits high (as stated by Diodorus), but the last band (the sirens) was probably 30 cubits high giving seven bands in all. In this arrangement the most loaded chambers on the first stage only supported the weight of less than one additional chamber each (16 base chambers supported 14 upper level chambers). So the structural demands were not all that great.

Please excuse the reiteration of what has already been said by others. The above claims that there were four levels - the only thing possible on a pyramidal structure using 30 chambers in total – with each stage split into two bands except for the top level. Usually I prefer not to make assertions, but unless one tries to argue that Diodorus was wrong it just isn't possible. His description is quite clear. "Upon the foundation course … Above these, on the second level … On the third level … The fourth level carried … while the fifth showed … The next higher level … On top of all stood …" That makes seven levels and to try and interpret Diodorus otherwise requires denial.

The pyramidal numbers may be coincidental and may work with the "thirty chambers" if one mistakenly allows only four floors, however I don't see them as being anything but coincidental. The description is roughly that of a ziggurat as has already been discussed. The designers/architects involved were Greek and the building was to be erected in Babylon. Although Alexander was obviously familiar with pyramids and his last orders contain instructions for a pyramid to be built over his father's tomb, there's nothing in the Diodorus description to suggest he was thinking "pyramid" for Hephaistion. Plus there's a significant difference between something being descriptively pyramidal (as with the Roman pyres) and having a strict pyramidal structure.

If you still believe that 30 chambers on the ground floor level make no sense because they needed to be arrayed six chambers along one side and five on the other, then consider that the building had to have an entrance. A six by five arrangement would allow for the entrance to be placed in the center chamber of the "five" side, thus leaving two chambers width on either side and keeping the symmetry of which the Greeks were so fond.

Best Regards,

[Taphoi]

Another way to argue the logic of a buiding being referred to as a place (topos) is to note that the lexicons agree that a room may be referred to as a place (topos). They also agree that a village or city may be a place (topos) - e.g. LSJ says Jerusalem was an example of a topos and Thayer gives it as part of his actual definition (not just an example usage). A room is a part of a building and a village/city is a group of buildings. It would therefore be supremely illogical if a single building could not be called a place (topos), but a group of buildings could be a place (topos) and part of a building could be a place (topos).

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Another way to argue the logic of a buiding being referred to as a place (topos) is to note that the lexicons agree that a room may be referred to as a place (topos). They also agree that a village or city may be a place (topos) - e.g. LSJ says Jerusalem was an example of a topos and Thayer gives it as part of his actual definition (not just an example usage). A room is a part of a building and a village/city is a group of buildings. It would therefore be supremely illogical if a single building could not be called a place (topos), but a group of buildings could be a place (topos) and part of a building could be a place (topos).

On this thread you have described yourself as a "scientist" and "engineer". I will then presume to proceed from the premise that you are neither illiterate nor lacking in intelligence. It thus surprises that you continually fail to grasp a very, very simple point colourfully put by Agesilaos:

NO I and I presume we, merely contest your ability to use a dictionary even you 'example' is of topos qualified by hagios! topos alone cannot mean 'building' and neither lexicon says that it can.

In each of the examples you give above topos is qualified. I do not wish to fill the thread full of examples (I've already adduced enough) but Maccabees ("LSJ says Jerusalem was an example of a topos") use of tops is qualified by agios as in your "temple" above. On your claim above you should be claiming that it means "temple" should you not? Again, the word is not used standing alone - just as it isn't with room. It is supremely illogical to argue otherwise. Bearing in mind the presumption in the first paragraph above, I can only conclude that your obstinacy on this is deliberate. Either that or the presumption is incorrect and you are incapable of understanding.

Amyntoros has pointed out your fallacious reading of Diodorus above. This again raises the questions (put twice) that, seemingly, dare not be answered. To which I would now add another:

What qualifies topon in Diod. 115.1&2 as "structure" or "building".
What is your evidence for only five levels?
What is your evidence for "two bands of decoration"?
What is your evidence that each of these "bands of decoration" were 15 cubits high?

It is you who have made the assertions relating to the pyre. To date you have provided not a scintilla of evidence to back up those assertions. It is academically incumbent upon you to do so. If you cannot those reading the thread should simply dismiss you as the Eric Von Daniken of Alexander historiography for your "method" is exactly that: ambit claim and demand others disprove it. "Pyres of the Gods".

Perhaps aliens did build the pyre along with the pyramids...

[Xenophon]

This thread has now got so long, I went back and read it all again, just to remind myself of it all. The question of whether Diodorus' pyre was real or fiction was answered as early as the sixth post on page 1 back on March 29th ! Since then every single one of Diodorus' postulations has been demonstrated to be impossible, and repeatedly, because of Taphoi's unevidenced, unsupported, imaginary assertions, and red herrings as to the meaning of various Greek words.

From the levelling of the site, 16 times the ground plan size in area than the Etemenanki ziggurat site, which took the Army 2 months to clear [ implying the Army would have taken 32 months to clear a site for the pyre]; right through the impossible size - a city block in area and over 20 stories high, to the decoration of the ground layer, 240 Quinqueremes 'beaks' [of which in reality there were precisely TWO at Babylon at that time] right through to the alleged sacrifice of 10,000 animals [ which alone would have involved huge stockyards and many WEEKS of slaughtering and cooking alone], the quantity of materials, the time involved etc...not one of Diodorus' assertions is even plausible, despite Taphoi's unevidenced assertions. He simply does not respond or engage with points and questions put to him by others. He just goes on making unfounded assertions, repeatedly and rather than debate, simply makes contradictory remarks. ( see above for example;

So, as I have shown, two widely used Greek dictionaries (LSJ and Thayer) attest that sometimes when topos is used, meaning a place, that place is a building.

when detailed consideration of the LSJ and Thayer immediately beforehand demonstrates quite the contrary.

To quote Monty Python once more:
( a customer wants an argument and purchases "a five minute argument" )

customer: ...Oh look, this isn't an argument.
'Arguer': Yes it is.
customer: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
'Arguer': No it isn't.
customer: It is!
'Arguer': It is not......etc

....and sadly that is the level this debate has reached. Since the same assertions have now been made and refuted repeatedly, my serious suggestion to the Moderators is that it is high time to close the matter by locking the thread..... for I don't see anything new emerging, and it is quite apparent that Taphoi can't or won't answer questions put to him on more than one occasion.....

THIS PARROT IS DEAD !!