Embedded Files
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/real-confirmation-too-late-and-too.html
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
Kevin R. Henke:
Hans Georg Lundahl:
Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3
Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True
Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer
Cuneiform A:
McDaniel, 2019
For instance, the Alexander Chronicle, is a Babylonian account inscribed on clay tablets and dated to 330 BC recording Alexander the Great’s victory over Darius III in the Battle of Gaugamela in late September or early October 331 BC and his pursuit of the Persian traitor Bessos, who had murdered Darius III in July 330 BC. Here is a photograph of the tablet itself:
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
The contents of the Alexander Chronicle are more definitive. The Alexander Chronicle, also identified as ABC 8, BCHP 1 and BM 36304, clearly refers to Alexander and his troops and king Darius ...
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/
My reply
Let's cite it. I'll cite each toggled note after the line. Note how much is in square brackets, as unsure reconstructions of text missing.
[3] [Month IVnote (July): Darius the king, from] his throne they removed him. Be[ssus]
[Month IV, Du'ûzu, suits the date given by Arrian of Nicomedia for the death of Darius, Hecatambaeon.]
[4] [sat on the throne and Artaxerxes] as his name they named him,note and Alexander and his troops
[Bessus is immediately called Artaxerxes, and not after several weeks, as Arrian says.]
[5] [pursued Bessus the rebel king. Alexander with] his few troops with the troops [of Bessus made battle.]
[6] [Bessus] killed [Darius the king]. The Hanaean troops, his troops, which [...]
[7] [... from Babylon (???) to (?) ] Darius, the king, had gone, [were released.]
[8] [Month V, d]ay 15] Kidinnu was killed by the sword. In the month VI (September), on the [nth] day [X happened]
[9] [Month VII (October): The king was in] the land of Ú-zu-ia-a-nu, a city of the land of Gutium.note
[Ú-zu-ia-a-nu may or may not be identical to Susia, modern Tus, north of Mashad.]
[10] [.....]
[11] [Month VIII (November): From] the palace of Babylon they brought out their goods
[12] [.......... for] the making of the xx [............]
[13] [................] for the performance of the festival of Bêl to the [Babylon]ians they gave.
[14] [Month IX (25 Nov - 24 Dec): ........]-Bêl, his son, to the office of satrap
[15] [he appointed .............] evil to the king thet plotted.note
[This may refer to the official version of the execution of Philotas and Parmenion.]
For most of the time when we considered ourselves as knowing Alexander became first King of Macedon and soon de facto ruler of all Greece, then victor against great odds and finally conqueror of the Achaemenid empire, we did not know of this parchment. Did we back then not know this of Alexander?
Moreoever, while it confirms or is interpreted as confirming some givens from Arrian, it doesn't tell us, Alexander conquered the Persian Empire from the outside.
Cuneiform B:
McDaniel, 2019
There is also another surviving Babylonian cuneiform tablet contemporary to Alexander that talks about him. Known as the Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia, it describes some of the events of the last few years of Alexander’s reign. Here is a photograph of it:
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
However, the contents of the two tablets are not very well preserved and the conclusions are not as definitive as McDaniel (2019) claims. The content of the Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia, also called BCHP 2 and BM 41080, is especially not very well preserved.
BCHP 2 (Alexander and Arabia Chronicle)
My reply
Let's cite it:
[1'] [......] he pitched his [cam]p [......]
[2'] [......] they? crossed [the river Tigris] to this side and the king [......]note
[The crossing of the Tigris may refer to Alexander’s crossing, when he came from the east early in 323 BCE. Apparently he pitched his camp there. He was met there by Babylonian astrologers.]
[3'] [... on the river Ti]gris opposite each other [......]
[4'] [... Han]ean [troops] to the land of Arabia [......]note
[Interesting to note is the reference to the preparations for the war against Arabia, preparations which were made at Babylon already before Alexander arrived there. A harbor was being built and boats were coming from Phoenicia (Arrian of Nicomedia, Anabasis. 7.19.3-20.10; cf. Strabo of Amasia, Geography 16.1.11). If we may believe Strabo 16.4.27 Alexander even intended "to make it his royal abode after his return from India." If this intention was known in Babylon, it must have displeased the Babylonian priesthood, who would have remembered Nabonidus, who made Tema (Teima) in Arabia his royal abode and who neglected the cult of Marduk, even tried to promote the cult of Sin there (Beaulieu 1989: 43-65). ]
[5'] [......] ... numerous gifts of the people of the land [......]note
[Alternative translation: "the people of the land [gave] numerous gifts". The phrase may reflect Diodorus' remark about Alexander's entry into Babylon (Library, 17.112.6): "As on the previous occasion, the population received the troops hospitably, and all turned their attention to relaxation and pleasure, since everything necessary was available in profusion."]
[6'] [... Babyl]on? and the troops of the king from Ba[bylon .....]
[7'] [... Ale]xand[er, the ki]ng [......]
[8'] [...... ] x he pitched?. The citizens [of Babylon .....]
[9'] [......] ... in the Great Gate ..[ ......]
[10'] [......] Bêl and Nabû [......]
Note that while it may confirm a scene from Diodorus and one of Arrian, as well as a comment by Strabo, we would know very much less from this tablet than from these Greek authors.
Again, did we not know of Alexander before finding this one? Cuneiform (thank you, wiki!) was not read by human readers between the démise of ...
· Hittite (1200 BC = Trojan War / "Bronze Age collapse" or just before)
· Hurrian (1000 BC)
· Old Persian Cuneiform alphabet (in the time of Alexander!)
· Elamite (a bit later)
· Sumerian (1st C. BC)
· Akkadian (1st C. AD)
And once again, doesn't tell us that Alexander was a Westerner who had conquered the East.
Egyptian:
McDaniel, 2019
We also have mentions of Alexander in Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions. Here is an Egyptian inscription dating to c. 332 BC with Alexander the Great’s name written in Egyptian hieroglyphics: ... Here is an Egyptian carving depicting Alexander addressing the god Min from the Luxor Temple in Luxor, Egypt. His name is inscribed over his head in Egyptian hieroglyphics, clearly indicating that this is supposed to be him:
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
omits
My reply
No discussion indicating the Egyptians considered Alexander as having conquered from a position of inferiority the empire of Darius III.
The name is in a cartouche, so presumably "A LKS I NDRS" was a royalty, presumably with Egyptian pharaonic status.
The temple of Min has more to do with fertility than with conquest.
Bactrian Aramaic:
McDaniel, 2019
Omits.
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
Image in link: A Long List of Supplies Disbursed
Discussion by Henke: This is a link that shows an administrative document, identified as sample C4, which states that it was written starting on 15 Sivan in the 7th year of “Alexandros” and then extending over the next three months. This date, which is June 8, 324 BC, is based on when Alexander ascended the throne in Babylon and not Macedonia (Naveh and Shaked 2006, pp. 199, 206). The document deals with the distribution of supplies. It is one of 30 administrative documents all written in Official Aramaic from the province of Bactria in central Asia. Some of the other documents in the collection mention Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes V, Bessus, and Darius III. Naveh and Shaked (2006, pp. 15-19) discuss the paleography of this and the 29 related documents and the cities in Bactria where they might have been written. Naveh and Shaked (2006, p. 15) indicate that the Official Aramaic script is from the late Achaemenian period and into the time of Alexander the Great. Of the 30 documents, 29 are confirmed to be from the 4th century BC. The 30th document is fragmentary, but the writing suggests that it may be from the first half of the 5th century BC (Naveh and Shaked 2006, p. 16).
Document C4 by itself indicates that it was written in Bactria during the 7th year of the reign of “Alexandros” – a king with a Greek name. The paleography of C4 and associated documents confirms that they were written in the 4th century BC. This is an excellent example of a contemporary document.
My reply
For most of the time when we considered ourselves as knowing Alexander became first King of Macedon and soon de facto ruler of all Greece, then victor against great odds and finally conqueror of the Achaemenid empire, we did not know of this parchment. Did we back then not know this of Alexander?
This document according to the discussion is mentioning only Alexander's carreer as King of Babylon. It doesn't prove he came to Babylon as a conqueror from the outside. Perhaps this part was somewhat downplayed in the Bactrian administration? At least this document doesn't show it.
We do get real information that Alexander existed, campaigned, was accepted as king of Babylon - but not really that he was a Greek. Here is one more item:
McDaniel, 2019
We even have written sources about Alexander written by authors who are neither Greek nor Roman. For instance, we have an extremely negative account of Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire from the medieval Persian Book of Ardā Wīrāz. It is hardly contemporary, but it is still neither Greek nor Roman.
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
omits
My reply
Here Alexander is in fact described as a Westerner - but as a Roman:
They say that, once upon a time, the pious Zartosht made the religion, which he had received, current in the world; and till the completion of 300 years, the religion was in purity, and men were without doubts. But afterward, the accursed evil spirit, the wicked one, in order to make men doubtful of this religion, instigated the accursed Alexander, the Rûman,[10] who was dwelling in Egypt, so that he came to the country of Iran with severe cruelty and war and devastation; he also slew the ruler of Iran, and destroyed the metropolis and empire, and made them desolate.[11]
10 Alexander the Great was called "the Roman" in Zoroastrian tradition because he came from Greek provinces which later were a part of the Byzantine Empire - The archeology of world religions By Jack Finegan Page 80 ISBN 0-415-22155-2
The overall context is a religious text, and it is written something like 1300 years after the events. No wonder Henke is unwilling to take this up.
Are there any non-Hebrew parallels to Genesis 3? Actually, you have Zoroastrians claiming there was a fall into sin, and you have even people who claim that Genesis 3 actually came from Zoroastrian inspiration - during the Babylonian captivity. If so, why would the Cohanim include a very unsophisticated talking snake that the Zoroastrians simply gloss over? You also have Gilgamesh epic claiming (that presumably Gilgamesh claimed to have had) a herb which could have given eternal life getting stolen and eaten by a snake. Both include motifs from the Genesis 3 event, if real, but they are so disparate it is unlikely someone would have tried to combine them into a narrative, which speaks against Genesis 3 being a derivative invention.
So, this kind of proof is not the most decisive, and not lacking for the "talking snake" of Genesis 3.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Frances of Rome
9.III.2022
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 04:39
Libellés : Kevin R. Henke, McDaniel
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse