hobbit-humanist

Tôi Kratistôi

The thing I notice when I debate with Evangelicals or Jehovah’s Witnesses is their lack of historical knowledge or rather their ignorance of it. Outside of the Bible nothing is really relevant, even when the facts presented are insurmountable. On the other hand of course if there is the vaguest of references to something historical within the Bible then it must be fact because…. you guessed it, the Bible said so!

Take for instance Alexander the Great, undoubtedly one of the greatest figures in antiquity who was widely wrote about and documented. There’s just no denying Alexander, in fact he founded some twenty cities that bore his name. I could of course go on extolling his virtues and story but I’d encourage you to go and read about him instead.

Alexander is alleged in some sources entered Jerusalem on his way down to conquer Egypt its said the locals opened the gates and presented him with the book of Daniel’s Prophecy which allegedly said a mighty Greek king would come and conquer the Persian empire.

There’s also again alleged mention of him in various other religious sources such as this one here quoting Zechariah and Josephus’s writings. Also of not are mention in the apocryphal book of Maccabees excluded from the Bible.

So lets examine some evidence and try and make some assumptions, bearing in mind this is still research in progress and I welcome input.

Firstly we have to bear in mind Alexander was on his way to conquer Egypt taking a coastal route, ports being of vital importance for his campaign. Tyre and Gaza fell to sieges of varying length before he entered Egypt in 332 BC and was proclaimed liberator and Pharaoh without any serious trouble. He stayed in Egypt a while before again crossing swords with his sworn foe Darius in modern day northern Iraq.

Jerusalem in the Persian Achaemenid (or second temple period) was merely a provincial town on no great importance, an estimated population of 1,500 some putting it as low as 500. So compared to some of the coastal cities Alexander was capturing Jerusalem was just a mere dot on the map. Whilst locals may have worshipped local gods I’m guessing there would be external influences too, from Egypt and Persia who had their own deities and controlled the area before Alexander. From a military aspect Jerusalem would logistically have no interest, god wise there was nothing there of note, especially compared to Egypt next door and the fact Alexander wanted to visit the oracle of the Siwa oasis.

Moving to religious evidence. Zechariah contains no names and is cryptic, Daniel is pure prophecy nonsense with no facts, I wouldn’t even call it ambiguous. Maccabees as mentioned is apocryphal and not in the Bible and Josephus the pro Roman historian mentions him allegedly. Lets forgive him a little and put this down to his writing style, even then its vague, after all this was hundreds of years after the alleged event, Alexander’s story was still popular but much would have been lost or embellished, we know Ptolomy I wrote about his adventures with Alexander and possibly there were other books in the great library at Alexandria but this was now destroyed possibly 48 BC according to some historians. Josephus would have been writing about Alexander some hundred or so years after this. I guess concluding we have to look at the fact Josephus was pro Roman having fully defected after his rebel days, Romans liked the myth of Alexander, several prominent Romans such as Pompey, Caesar and Augustus having visited his tomb in Alexandria. So in my view, it would make sense for Josephus to mention him and intertwine him with local folklore in order to increase its importance or was he even added to Josephus’s writings later? If we look at the period, though the Hellenistic period was long gone its history and tales were more recent and available, and very popular among the Romans.

If we look more into Daniel book 11 then nothing really is gained, vague references at best, kings of the north and south in conflict, visions and prophecy. Evangelical interpretations of events in Daniel 11 are bizarre to say the least. In any case the historical predications and historicity of Daniel are wrong.

What I find ironic about the Bible is that usually it seems very keen to name people through its pages yet when it could verify itself more by historical events it falls down badly. Christians will often argue that Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus but references are vague. Josephus chronicles many uprisings in the area during the time before and after Jesus in detail yet not much is said of Jesus at all, if he has been so great then the pages he wrote would have been surely overflowing with his deeds? As for Tacitus, we have the briefest of mentions of Jesus and not by name, again this is much after and we have to take into account Tacitus wrote more about things such the invasion of Britain than a mere speck of information he offers about an alleged Christ. Other historians of the day give Jesus no mention.

Back to the main thread, did Alexander enter Jerusalem? Though I cannot write it off completely I would say there’s very little evidence for it, there’s plenty of evidence for Alexander being in other places but not there. Logistically it was of no importance, there was nothing of great value there and in the big picture of deities at the time it was of no interest. If he had have gone there and it was an interesting episode then I’m sure it would have been mentioned more especially how important he was. What we have is desperate references from Christian scholars trying to validate their faith. As the Bible was written over hundreds of years there would have been chances aplenty to mention Alexander, and not just him but other events, instead we get very little of historical veracity and when we do stumble across something vague we  get a solid Christian backing of a crumb of something that can be potentially used. I’ve combed my own books on Alexander, the local library and the internet yet there’s little tangible evidence at all Alexander entered Jerusalem.

You can argue all day though with hardcore Christians, Evangelicals and JW’s and they will have their own take on history, which is just the Bible or their version of it, however I’d like to point out that the Bible isn’t found in any History section in a library, ever wondered why?

Alexander was an historical behemoth, covered by Biographer Plutarch, tutored by Aristotle, an unparalleled personality and General and conqueror of much of the then known world, why doesn’t the Bible reference him clearly?

On his deathbed Alexander was asked whom his kingdom should pass? He replied rather laconically “Tôi kratistôi” which means “To the strongest” before passing away yet the successors who carved his empire up with war were never able to rival Alexander for he remains one of the strongest historical figures ever.