Alex in Old Testament & Koran

[Crater]

R.L. Fox mentions "Two thousand years after his death, Alex's fame was known in more than twenty languages... It was detected in two sacred books, the Old Testament and the Koran".
Can someone provide me with proof of this?
Thank you!!

[nick]

Hi Companions -No, there is no proof for the fact that the persons mentioned in the Bible and the Koran are in fact referring to Alexander. Mind you, there is even no scientific, historical proof that Jesus ever existed. However, the interpretation that certain figures mentioned in both holy books refer to Alexander, are aknowledged by most scholars - though some room for reasonable doubt always remains.For the Bible the Book of Daniel is the place to look at. Check http://www.livius.org for a nice quote from Daniel. For the Koran - it is here on pothos.org - just go to:http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=52For more food for thought about Alexander's (?) struggle against Gog and Magog, check:http://admin.muslimsonline.com/~babri/yajujmajuj.htmThe Daniel-interpretation is quite common. The Koran-interpretation has been disputed. Some Muslims deny the identification of the Lord with the Horns with Alexander - pointing towards Persian king Cyrus the Great or the Babylonian legendary ruler Gilgamesh.Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

I'm pretty sure that there is historical proof of Jesus, Nick - isn't there something in Josephus? And it's fairly unlikely that, considering when the Gospels were written, they would have been written about someone who didn't exist.Matching his historical existence with the 'supernatural' aspects, of course, is a different matter, which I for one am not qualified to do... (and it's nothing to do with Alexander, anyway).All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Hi Marcus -You are quick to reply. But no - from all religeous studies I ever read I remember that all of them claim that except for the gospels there is no other source that ever mentioned Jesus as a historical figure. Ah, well, the Koran does. If someone can prove me wrong, please do.I remember a recent study by an Italian who even claims that Jesus Christ is just the legend of Julius Caesar - translated into an oriental context. Hm.This doesn't mean that I don't believe in Jesus; existance. I do. I was just pointing out that he appears in none of the other written Classical documents that have survived the ages.Bye -Nick

[davej]

Hi Nick,That arguement about JC and JC is a great arguement, the dates are very close Caeser dying just 44 years before Jesus was born. I only hear the arguement 2 hand . Do you recall the authors name?PS. I had the Jahovah Witnesses trying to sell me that old book of Daniel reference last year. After creful consideration I believe its a croc.

[Thalestris-Alexandros]

Ah, but it is an enticing detail in the Book of Daniel, referring to the "shaggy goat of the west(ATG) charging the two-horned ram of the east(DariusIII)..." and the details go on and on. Thalestris finds it intriguing to read and mesmerizing to visualize (Daniel 8:5-9, 21-22, 11:3-4).

[marcus]

Hi Nick,I concede that I might well be wrong about Josephus - that was dredging something up from the depths of my memory.But why should the Gospels (and Acts etc., not to mention things such as the Pauline epistles) not be as historical a document of Jesus' existence as anything else? I suppose that's my point, really. In fact, the very fact that four people wrote largely complementary 'histories' within 70 years of the chap's death is pretty convincing.All the bestMarcus

[alejandro]

Actually, there's an amusing idea of how it could have happened that four different people wrote(very similar) story(ies) of one guy (there is an easy one: Mark's and Luke's Gospels are mainly reproductions and translations of Mathew's -that was in Aramaic- but still there is a clear similarity between Mathew's and John's). I heard it from a Jewish friend of mine, when we were talking exactly about that: whether Jesus was a historical character or not. He said that the Gospel could be nothing but the result of "12 guys (supposedly the "apostles") meeting up and deciding to write the same story, based on a sketch describing the main facts (in this case: birth in a stable, visit by the Kings, scape to Egypt, etc). It is certainly not an unlikely situation (think about Mary Shelley, Lord Byron et al deciding to write each one a terror book that inspired Shelley's Frankenstein; the only difference is that the writers-apostles imposed more structure to the "game"), and there were some documents found in Qumran (near the Dead Sea) that are supposed to be other versions (the other apostles' versions?) of the Gospel (actually, there was a group of Jews -called "esenios", though this is a Spanish word, I am sorry but I don't know the English one- living in Qumran and some scholars think that Jesus could have been a member of this group).
There are, however, weak points in this theory. As mentioned, the Gospels were written within 70 years of the supposed death of the protagonist, and the apostles travelled all over the (then) known world transmitting them. It is rather unlikely that such a "sect" became so spreaded (and so quickly) if based on a lie (at least the Jews would have known whether what the apostles said was true or not). Of course, this also relies on our believing in the apostles actually travelling and writing letters. But unless these apostles-writers were "extremely obsessed" to the point of actually embarking in travelling and spreading their work (very unlikely, since there were no copyrights to claim! , I would rather believe they were true apostles. This would also explain the fast transmission of the Christian faith (that is, another option was to assume that the writers also invented their travels and letters, but it is unlikely that people in, say, Corinth, become Christian simply because they read a letter from someone called Paul; I would rather believe that Paul was actually there at least once, and wrote back years after).
Summarizing

[abdul qadir]

well yes as a muslim i can assure u hes in the quran
he comes as dhul qarnain meaning lord of the 2 horns
he appears in sura 18
god says he made him mighty and gave him the ways and means to all ends
well its about a page or so three different ways he went is described including building a wall to keep out outlaws and i think he also appears in the book of daniel in the bible

[George Crater]

How is Alexander viewed by Muslims in general?
Thanks!

[nick]

Hi George -Another question that is impossible to answer. I mean: How is Alexander viewed by Christians in general? Please bear in mind that regional cultures, history and and traditions have a lot more to do with the perception of Alexander than religion.The majority of modern Iranians are Muslims. However, due to the national tradition of viewing "Eskendar" as a devilish King of Evil who demolished the Achaemenid empire, Alexander's image in Iran is not something he would be proud of.In Pakistan - another country with a huge Muslim majority - he is still remembered as Sikander e-Azam, the Great, and I would say Pakistani are indifferent or mildly positive. Some of the people I met in Pakistan still told stories that represented Alexander as a magnificent figure, although they always mentioned him as someone who had overestimated himself as a human being.To make things short: there is not something like a general "Muslim" view on Alexander. The Muslim world has too many variations culturally and historically to warrant such a generalization.Regards -
Nick

[George]

Nick,Thanks for your reply.
It makes perfect sense.Best,George