Need help with Diodorus' geography

[bob]

Can anyone who owns Diodorus go to book 17, chapter 62, and see verses 1-8, particularly verse 7. I do not want to paste the text here, becuase I AM NOT trying to restart controversy. I am trying to understand Diodorus' comment on "Northern Greeks." in verse 7, and would like a knowledgable person's opinion on who this is (or who these are). If anyone doesn't have Diodous, they can go to this link and view this passage: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... 17.62.1ALL I NEED an answer to is "who is Diodorus refering to as "Northern Greeks" in verse 7?" I do not need any other info. A one or two sentence answer will suffice, and no need to go on further. Thanks all.
Bob S

[marcus]

Hi Bob,The northern Greeks in this instance are those north of the Peloponnese/Isthmus. We know that Athens didn't join the Spartan 'insurgency', and obviously the Thebans didn't, 'cos Thebes didn't exist any more; but there were presumably smaller states who decided to join in.So in this case 'northern' means those who were north of the Isthmus.ATBMarcus

[Efstathios]

Bob,in your group you say that the purpose is to discuss about the macedonian origins e.t.c but not having anything to do with the modern skopjan claims,and that these kind of posts will be deleted.And a little bit under you say :"1. How did the ancient people define their ethnicity?
2. How did the ancient people's neighbors define their ethnicity?
While we do not have much historical texts and archaeological evidence as of yet about how the ancient Macedonians defined themselves, we have much about how the southern and central Greeks, and southern Eurpeans, defined the Macedonians ethnicity. Please join in! All these lead to the modern skopjan-greek debate.And i didnt think that you may had anything to do with that debate(and maybe you dont) but this group only tries to distinquish the ethnicity of the macedonians versus the other greeks. Marcus already replied here to your first question about Diodorus.I dont understand why you are so interested in the "was Macedonia a separate nation or not" issue.Almost every post that you have made the last month is about this issue.Once again i will assume that you dont have agendas about this,(what agenda could a hebrew have about the Balcans anyway?) and i will tell you this: Start reading greek history.Everything that you can from greek mythology up to the hellenistic period.And especially about the persian wars,and the peloponesean war.Then if you want to, proceed to the hellenistic period and the roman period,byzantium up to the modern period. Many people try to understand some things about history only by reading selections.That cant be done.

[kokino kolo]

Jewish Virtual Library. You gonna debate this as well?http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... reeks.html

[bob]

I respect what you had to say. I am not sure why that issue is important, but on that post I am trying to figure out who those northern Greeks are. You are right, I should keep these questions for the other forum. But since the subject was wrongfully brought up by me, I must state that I do not agree with the modern Macedonian states claims. That being said, my new post on Arrian is important to me as well. Especially since all I am doing now is reading Arrian, and the other big 3. Justin is a part of the big five for me, but not the big four. Why is Arrian considered most accurate? That I would like to know.

[bob]

LOL, good response. I am not at all one to shy away from debate, but on the other forum, I get enough debate on the subject there.
First, Hesiod like the book of Genesis, are books of myth, and writen long after the periods they claimed to be written and are less valuable to us then Diodorus or Herodotus. Genesis was not in final form until at least the Babylonian exile, and if you were to research Homer and Hesiod, most say 7th-8th century in authorship, yet Troy happened much earlier, centuries earlier. As per this article, I thought I already made a post on Daniel Chapter 8 that stated that the Words in the Hebrew (Daniel 8 is in Hebrew, wheras Dan. chs 2-7 are in Aramaic) the word used was {"yavan") and in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew text done by Jews in the first century CE) was the Greek word "Helladros". WHile this word "Heladros" is NOT "Hellas" it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the roots are the same with both words.
However, in Biblical history the revisionists are winning. It wasn't until the mid 1800s when Biblical scholarship became good and challenged the divine authorship of the Bible for instance. Only synagogue and church goers ignore scholarship. Biblical revisionists won. I am not so sure the revisionist crowds will win their point that ancient macedonians assimilated into Greek culture and were originally non Greek. But they have convinced me that Philip's tomb that was uncovered has been excavated poorly (i.e. Tomb 2 is not Philips tomb, but Alexander Arrideas' tomb, and tomb 1 is actually Philips tomb. ALso, Cassander constructed that whole tombulus. I am certainly convinced that 200 years after alexander, the world viewed that empire Greek, but just after his lifetime, I am not a beleiver. Since I can admit you are correct with the words of the Hebrew Bible, you should admit the big four are clear in what they say as well. Efistanos is right, I should debate any thing related to that question on another forum, but Marcus gave me the answer I was looking for. Thanks

[bob]

Thebes did not exist anymore, but when was it started to be rebuilt. Even after Thebes destruction, 3 of the big 4 state that Parmenion found ambassadors from Thebes in Darius' Issus baggage train. THus, they still existed, and we know the city was rebuilt. When did it become a functioning city again?

[bob]

I should clear one thing up on my last post. The Septuagint was originally only the first five books of the bible, done about 250 BCE. The later books were done in the first and second centuries BCE by Jews in Egypt who spoke Greek and lost their Hebrew. (These "Greek Jews" we still Jews.) Thus, since Daniel was written circa 165 BCE (The prophecies of the book of Daniel are accurate only until King ANtiochus, then the book misses the mark 100% in its predictions, but it is 100% correct before 165 BCE in "anachronizing" the "future". Not to mention, Daniel 2:44-45 clearly shows that After Babylon, Persia- GREECE came a fourth unnamed kingdom (Not rome, but the maccabees) and the 5th kingdom the maccabees were to bring about. You see the Maccabees were priests, not from the Tribe of Judah, so themselves claiming the throne of Judah was not biblical, and they knew it, the priests are from LEvi not Judah. Thus the Maccabees wrote Daniel to propagandize and theologize their revolt, which many of the Jews for theological reasons left that revolt ONLY WHEN the Maccabees made themselves kings of Israel. Thus, the maccabean propaganda book "Daniel." (Daniel 2:1 (if I remember correctly) totally conflicts with Jeremiah. Not to mention, the 70 year exile predicted by Jeremiah 29 and Daniel 9 were false prophecies. (See Ezra 1:1). Israel went into exile in 587 BCE. But cyrus' first year was 539 BCE. The exil was not even 40 years, showing quite late authorship for both Jeremiah and Daniel. Thus, Daniel is too late and a mythical source, like Genesis, for both books are not at all in anyway historical and proven such archaeologically and by the errors within...

[marcus]

I have to both agree and disagree with you, Efstathios. There is no reason why a discussion about the ancient Macedonians *should* inevitably lead to FYROM/Greek debate ... the sad fact is that inevitably it *does*, because some people cannot stop themselves from taking an emotive, personal view of things.Pothos, of course, does not 'ban' any discussion of the *ancient* question ... but, as the modern question invariably raises its head and totally dominates rational, objective discussion on the ancient situation, it is best left alone!All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Bob,Well, off the top of my head I have to confess that I'm not sure, but I have a feeling it was Cassander who began the rebuilding process (others will correct or confirm, I'm sure).But, of course, there were still 'Thebans', who were understandably not very happy with Alexander and who found themselves courting the Persians.ATBMarcus

[bob]

Marcus, I must agree, and thus, I will stop asking questions with anything to do with the origin of the ancients. One, I have made my conclusion, and two, my arrian string is quite interesting to me. I really like Plutarch and Diodorus, and I do not think they are "second rate sources" at all. Thanks
Bob

[marcus]

If you can, Bob, get hold of "Quintus Curtius Rufus" by Elizabeth Baynham. It was re-issued after the film came out, and I believe it's available in paperback. It's a fascinating discussion about Curtius, and what "made him tick" (as it were). I think you'll probably find him even more interesting to read after a perusal of Baynham.Don't have any tips on Diodorus, but he is a good read; and certainly he isn't considered "second rate" any more.ATBMarcus

[bob]

And who else wrote on Philip II? Thus, I find Diodorus particularly useful! Philip does deserve credit, as someone else recently posted. Thanks again.
Bob

[bob]

I guess I should make one more reply here. That page makes many assumptions, one of which that the Macedonians brought a city state mentality to Israel. For one, a person from athens was called "an Athenian." I am not so sure if I have seen many examples in any ancient source of an ancient macedonian from Pella referring to himself as a Pellian or something along those lines. Pella was not really a city state, and neither was Macedonia. Aegei for example did not make war with Pella (though lower and upper Macedonians did not always get along and fought for the throne of Macedon). Alexander certainly was not trying to spread a city state mentality accross the known world. He was concerned about his empire and his ambitions. I am doubtful someone with Alexander's personality had any interest in democracy, nor would I see him laying down his power in favor of a democracy, or dealing with a senate like the Romans did. Not in his character. At times, I think my people should stick to writing their own history (not that they are any good at it, that article for one beleives Noah's ark to be a litteral historical event.) Troy is less mythical than Noah! Nonetheless, most Jews allow others to write their histories and just happily accept their findings about themselves. But the way I see it, the first line in the movie Braveheart is very true "History is writen by the victors..." Virtual Jewish library is not an ancient Jewish text either. Not to mention, Jewish texts are not as ancient as my people claim...and Josephus is less accurate at times than Herodotus...

[marcus]

Well, exactly! If you use that Perseus link that I gave you for Diodorus, by the way, you can also get to all of Demosthenes' speeches, all (I think) of Isocrates, and a lot (if not all) of Aeschines, too. All very valuable for Philip.ATBmarcus