Spiropoulos' "Chap Book"

[ancientlibrary]

Mr. Spiropoulos, I insist you stop pestering this
board with your Greek "chap book." You have a
printed copy of the Alexander Romance; versio
phi. The text is accessible to anyone with the
TLG. It is not a new or even rare work. It
*certainly* is not what you take it to be--a unique,
unpublished and factually accurate work..You sent me photocopies of it some time ago
when I was at Michigan. I found the source
quickly in the TLG. I held off saying anything
because you seemed so invested in it. When I
suggested you look into it a bit, you refused to
consider it. Later on I told you what you had, and
you denied it. Your interest in the text is
commendable and, if you translate it into
English, useful. But I cannot take you, having
been warned and, in fact, helped, continuing to
disseminate this falsehood..
Please, be reasonable. What proof do you
want?

[marcus]

Aw, Tim, let him do so if he wants to.Nobody's really taking any notice, anyway.All the best, in peaceful harmony :-)Marcus

[a spiropoulos]

i dont hear anyone but you complaining, i am not
asking anything but to let the reader deceide.
dont you trust peoples judgements.as

[ancientlibrary]

Ever wonder why scholars don't visit here?

[a spiropoulos]

my answer is no.
perhaps its because intellectuals are not open minded.as

[xxx]

Point well taken, but Tim is correct about the book, but not correct about scholars (some with papers, some without) visiting the Forum, as he is one himself, and a rather good one at that However the Forum is welcome to all, be they landlubbers or pirates! Regards,Tre

[ancientlibrary]

Mostly scholars don't visit. Lendering is the
major exception; the web bug's really bitten him.
Chugg is an infrequent exception. There are a
few on here who might be--I don't know
everyone, and I'm *not* trying to diss anyone for
not being a scholar. (And I'm not a scholar; I
was once a scholar-in-training.) Anyone seen
Jeanne around recently? .As I've argued before, non-scholars can
contribute a lot. Being smart and critical is half
the way to being Ernst Badian. But you need
rules of evidence and argument..
Incidentally, I didn't know or had forgotten "xxx"
was Tre. Hello Tre

[a spiropoulos]

thank you "tre".but i ask you if it is true about this book, why does the library of congress not have it, the british museum,private librabries,including havard, not even the library in alexanderia, until i gave them the full photo copy in greek, they said they will copy it emboss it in gold and add egyptain edits to suite their culture.
so the only one is mine, and i have the documention to prove it.
they all state they have the same introduction and preface and thats it, the indexs do not match.re the portion on atlantis and tell me you heard it before.re the portion on rome and troy, you heard it before,or his meeting jeremiah in jerusalem.tim calls them false, but i ask you your knowledge,does it not come from books, were not manuscripts lost in the alexanderian lib.
the first paperbacks or chap books from venice carried actual tranlations from greek and latin manuscripts. who is to say, what is correct or not, the undetermained fire in ruins of ancient athens this book explains,the rams horns on the statue of apollo,
this book explains, the ancient names of ste of hesy, aand ste of severivis it explains as location othe
pillars of herakles, not the mts. of gil.,but actual gold sele of king herakles and queen severis of macedonia. the field of bones found by alexander as the bones of king sonsohoxos of babylon, found by ach. king army of unknown orgin destroyed. the statue of alexander on slopes of sinai mentioned in this book,pointing to the island of sethites, history says it it an egyptain king leading his army found.the fortress of one heart built on his reunion with his generals, found called wide heart.i could go on and on, so i just deceided to post pages and let the readere deceide.as

[xxx]

Exactly. You should let the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe, even if it is not what you do. We all do that every day for those of us lucky enough to live in societies that permit it.You can never know too much, but you can always know too little.

[xxx]

Hello Eumenes :-)Scholars don't have to have PhD's Tim. And if you're not a scholar, than damn, as far as I'm concerned, than no one is. And that's all I'm going to say :-)Regards,Tre who finally decided it's easier just to put xxx in all the slots.

[a spiropoulos]

Thank you, words well put and full of meaning, let he who will believe believe, and those who do not are entitled to their opinions, but not to knock someones else beliefs.as

[ancientlibrary]

Well, I think we're debating words not
meanings. I do mean scholar in a restricted
sense. As I see it, a scholar in Greek history (1)
can read Greek and Latin, (2) has published, or
could publish in a peer-reviewed journal, (3)
understands how to construct and defend an
argument. .Again, non-scholars can do a lot. At the extreme
end you have Fuller, Stark, Wood, Renault. None
of them were/are scholars in the traditional
sense. But they all contributed something. It
helps to work with scholars, and to work on
something that non-scholars can help with. A
non-scholar with a lot of time and a willingness
to travel can follow Alexander's route and
perhaps add insight. By contrast, textual
analysis of variant versions of the Alexander
Romance is not a layman's game.