pothos.org

Okay. I have a topic I want to get reactions to. My
apologies for being long-winded here. I think I
discussed some of this years ago. Warning:
this is a very long message, and parts of it are
about other branches of ancient history.
.
To my mind, the great fun of Alexander studies
is the exquisite problems of source-criticism. If
you do the last years of the Roman Republic
your material, at least on some topics (eg.,
Cicero), you have an almost modern level of
documentation. When you do the
Peloponnesian War you basically have one
good source, which you *supplement* with
others. For much of Hellenistic history, you'd
give your right arm for "one good source." By
contrast, the sources for Alexander are "just
right." Complex, but finite. There's another
ancient-history topic I find similar.
.
Among my other interests are source-criticism
of the New Testament, and the efforts scholars
make to get at the "historical" Jesus. (By putting
historical in quotes, I indicate this is a special
term of art that needs definition, not that Jesus
didn't exist in history.) I had great fun teaching
an Adult Ed course in Boston, reading the
Gospels in a parallel edition, and
supplementing it with material from Meiers "A
Marginal Jew," the Gospel of Thomas, etc.
.
Well, I want to ask if the methods used by NT
scholars can be employed in the case of
Alexander?
.
First, let me note some obvious similarities
between the sources for Alexander and Jesus:
.
(1) Four or five meaty sources. For Alexander, A,
C, P, J, D. For Jesus the four Gospels, maybe
Thomas.
.
(2) Some lesser sources. Alexander has a lot,
Jesus less. There's almost nothing in the letters
(some scholars wonder whether Saint Paul
even cared about the *historical* Jesus, as
opposed to the Risen Christ). A scrap in
Josephus. Maybe some data in other gospels,
some very dubious stuff in other pagan and
Jewish sources, etc.
.
(3) A source-tradition. Behind the main sources,
there are other sources, imperfectly perceived
but still palpable. This underlying tradition can
be, in part, reconstructed. For Alexander I mean
Ptolemy, Cleitarchus, etc. For Jesus, certainly Q,
and you can posit M's and L's, and two+ strands
under John.
.
(3) Sources present different *conceptions* of
the subject. For Alexander, you have "good" and
"bad" Alexanders, and differences on various
topics, eg., Was he a god, did he think himself

I will try to give my view.First of all we think that we have enough informations for reconstruction
and we write a book,make documentary or even movie about suposed past events or important peoples.Even we get some how to know the people from the past,even all nations.What and how much we know is realy big question.What we have from the past is mostly story telling and archeological artefacts.From the first -story tellers- we get already cooked truth ,but in the same moment we get that cooked story with our mind of 21 century and we think that we know what have happened.So Mr Stone and his adviser get to know-how and make movie for events back 2350 back.We know that same director have done same with people who have lived
before 40 years and still his story telling is contraversal and untruthfull-simple lie for enterteintment.Because of this blatant use of history Director Manchevski have made movie"Dust".
In that movie is explained art of storytelling and distorsion of thruth in the proces of reteling the story.Whoever think to write the book or to acept primary sources for reliable truth I am recomending this movie first.
Second part-archeological artefacts.Who ever of you have been on the side,and have knowledge of proces
he must know how end proces is subjected on the so called comparative systematology.And what is that?It is throug the eye of the archeologist made comparison with the previous knowledge of the similar artefacts.That is how have been made dating and cultural relationship of one artefact with others.If you find one fibula you start to look for similar from the catalogs and you make asumption on the data what have been colected up to that moment.
This is crap job!It is subjective on the person and on the past mistakes or presumptions of other authority in that field.Here I will give one simple example with ancient Macedonians.So we all know them?Than how we have missed them in Trebenishta for one houndred years,and how we find who they are in 2002?We have artefacts from houndreds of graves,rich and poor,we have antropological expertise of the remains,we have comparative sistematisation and dating,so how?How historians and archeologist from every corner of this globe have all the time said that 9 golden masks and rich graves are Ilirian,Brigian,Paeonian and what else i dont know-and who knows for poor graves without gold.So that how we miss Macedonians,that how when we use historical story tellers we have asumed that that city

2 part
...that city or this city is illirian or Tracian,or is on north or south.We newer doubt them?
That is way,way and a way from the truth.So you ask for Jesus and Alexander?What to mocking around that we are all known-when we can say that we know something and that is so little that maybe we can give true answer that we DONT! know.

I have only one thing to say on this matter: Since Jesus ascended into the Heavens, he left no bones behind!

Yeah but thats only assuming the story is true, which a heck of a lot of people DONT. This whole thing seems to assume the Jesus storyline is true, the questions are asked from the frame of that assumptionFollowing this logic, if people can believe Jesus is the son of a god, then by golly Alexander can be the son of a god too- which a heck of a lot of us DONT believe - by the way a LOT of people left no bones behind cuz of weather, animals, natural destruction under environmental conditions..

Hail It is my belief that Alexander The Great is as much as a son of god as Jesus christ.In my opinion there is more actual Historical evidence to prove Alexander did superhuman thangs than Jesus did.The Alexander story in my opinion is far mor believable also.regardskenny

Hail It is my belief that Alexander The Great is as much as a son of god as Jesus christ.In my opinion there is more actual Historical evidence to prove Alexander did superhuman thangs than Jesus did.The Alexander story in my opinion is far mor believable also.regardskenny

Thanks for responding to this long topic. Again,
the full post is at http://mothboard.com/
board.php?board=alexander . Here, there and in
emails I've received, the response has been
unexpected. First, I should have known not to
mention Jesus. For me, Jesus is, in part, an
interesting historical problem. (I also have
religious opinions about Jesus, but I keep the
two separate.) For many others, Jesus has
other meanings. Like "fire," you probably
shouldn't discuss Jesus in a crowded theatre.
.At Pothos only a broken, unformatted portion of
my message went up. I looked particularly
insane, and the comments were therefore
somewhat unexpected too. Some posts are
interested in the similarities between Jesus and
Alexander. A list of these could certainly be
made. I was sticking to a comparison of the
source tradition and the methods used on it.
And here, I'm not asserting anything strongly.
This is not scholarship--and it certainly isn't
God-talk-- it's over-beer talk. Mostly I used these
similarities to note a contrast: the way the two
similar fields of inquiry have developed different
methods for testing truth. .There are certainly some important differences
between the source traditions for Jesus and
Alexander, which go a long way to explaining the
different methodologies used. .For starters, we know a great deal more about
Alexander than we do about Jesus. Jesus'
public life is almost without chronology. For
Alexander, we have a very good idea of where
he was and when. Jesus' associates are mostly
names and legends. By the second century, the
church itself didn't know what happened to most
of the apostles. By contrast, we know a lot about
Alexander's associates. Not a few of them exist
outside of the Alexander sources and outside of
Alexander's reign..It's really the issue of Alexander's *character*
that bears the most resemblance to the source
problems around Jesus. We have a lot of data
about Alexander's beliefs, intentions and
general moral and psychological makeup, but
it's a heap of junk without critical analysis. And,
of course, there are major limits to what we can
know. And while there may be a "Jesus of Faith"
which we can, perhaps, approach through faith
whatever the historical uncertainties, there is no
"Alexander of Faith." Some Greek and other
Nationalists seem to me to have an "Alexander
of Faith" of sorts. Damn the evidenc

... Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to
me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts.
Damn the evidence, he's whatever we want him
to be!.Another interesting contrast between the two
fields is that, because Jesus public life is
without chronology (his final trip to Jerusalem
partly excepted), analyses can't follow one.
Instead, they start with the most certain facts,
and build upon these to reach a more complete
picture. Most analyses of Alexander, by contrast,
are chronological. All analyses "snowball"
conclusions. If you move chronologically, you
"snowball" differently than if you proceed from
best-established to least.

> We have a lot of data about Alexander's beliefs, >intentions and general moral and psychological >makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. We have a lot of data about Alexander's beliefs, >intentions and general moral and psychological >makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. We have a lot of data about Alexander's beliefs, >intentions and general moral and psychological >makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. intentions and general moral and psychological >makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. intentions and general moral and psychological >makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. makeup, but it's a heap of junk without critical ?
>analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. analysis. And, of course, there are major limits to >what we can know. what we can know. what we can know. Seems to me its a heap of junk when modern people refuse to see Alexander through his own time, too- but a heck of a lot of people do that. They put their OWN religious values, their own feelings and beliefs,their own views on him & THEN try to interpret him. like, yeah, THAT works >And while there may be a "Jesus of Faith" which we >can, perhaps, approach through faith whatever the >historical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceAnd while there may be a "Jesus of Faith" which we >can, perhaps, approach through faith whatever the >historical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceAnd while there may be a "Jesus of Faith" which we >can, perhaps, approach through faith whatever the >historical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidencecan, perhaps, approach through faith whatever the >historical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidencecan, perhaps, approach through faith whatever the >historical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidencehistorical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidencehistorical uncertainties, there is no "Alexander of >Faith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceFaith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceFaith." Some Greek and other Nationalists seem to >me to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceme to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidenceme to have an "Alexander of Faith" of sorts. Damn >the evidencethe evidencethe evidenceUh- that's what the Jesus people do,too. And even more amusing, they each make Jesus in THEIR own image, too! Someone here once mentioned that,both about Alexander & God- it made sense then & now

Myself, I have no problem in understanding the relationship between souls and fish eggs. Using the salmon as an example, there are many eggs which are all the same within the womb of the salmon (caviar) and all are probably clones of the mother salmon, and as God is often likened to a fish (in Christian circles) all souls are just like God anyway, same as the fish eggs will all become fish if let to live. Since life is reproductive, and continuous, the original will bear a resemblance to those which are in existence today; thus, Jesus is correct in his assertion that all are sons of Gods. We all came from some original mother source! Just a bunch of caviar to a conoisseur of human beings: and I am only half kidding, teasing, and chuckling about this. That is probably why so many people reason alike, think alike, and behave alike, all are from the same mother soul and will behave as such. (Now I am only thinking half aloud on this but it makes a certain amount of sense.) And as English allegories always present a case of some poor soul having to achieve perfection through a myriad of tests, it is quite likely that these "stories or tales" are based upon some truth of some human being doing such a thing: Alexander, case in point!

Oh, and Tim, I got back to Pothos because of your academic section in which I was checking on extant sources, and lo and behold, I found myself here. Thanks for a great website of your making.