Book: From Alexander to Jesus ...

[amyntoros]

A review of: Ory Amitay, From Alexander to Jesus. Hellenistic culture and society, 52. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Pp. xii, 246. ISBN 9780520266360. $49.95 which can be found in full on the BMCR site.

Ummm, the first paragraph runs thus:

Great historical figures invariably attract both mythographers and biographers—none more than the two subjects of this study. Here Ory Amitay, employing meme theory, explores the mythological links between them: “…the thesis of this book is that the Jesus memeplex replicated a great many memes adopted and developed first by Alexander the living person, and after his death by the mythical memeplex which he had created” (5) In order to validate the claim, Amitay devotes the bulk of his book to an exploration of the memes and memeplex between Alexander and Herakles, the object of Alexander’s worship, emulation, and rivalry. In the process of matching and surpassing him, Alexander broke the barrier between history and myth and provided a justification for his own claim to divinity; this self- divinization then set the stage for acceptance, in a monotheistic milieu no less, of the incarnate god Jesus. Unlike Herakles, whom some have suggested as a model for Christian ‘mythography,’ Amitay believes that the flesh and blood Alexander is the better, indeed, “unique forerunner of Christ.”

Figured I'd post this because I know how Pothosians love to discuss theories which are, shall we say, a little "outre". I'll save any comments for later.

Best regards,

[marcus]

A review of: Ory Amitay, From Alexander to Jesus. Hellenistic culture and society, 52. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Pp. xii, 246. ISBN 9780520266360. $49.95 which can be found in full on the BMCR site.

Ummm, the first paragraph runs thus:

Great historical figures invariably attract both mythographers and biographers—none more than the two subjects of this study. Here Ory Amitay, employing meme theory, explores the mythological links between them: “…the thesis of this book is that the Jesus memeplex replicated a great many memes adopted and developed first by Alexander the living person, and after his death by the mythical memeplex which he had created” (5) In order to validate the claim, Amitay devotes the bulk of his book to an exploration of the memes and memeplex between Alexander and Herakles, the object of Alexander’s worship, emulation, and rivalry. In the process of matching and surpassing him, Alexander broke the barrier between history and myth and provided a justification for his own claim to divinity; this self- divinization then set the stage for acceptance, in a monotheistic milieu no less, of the incarnate god Jesus. Unlike Herakles, whom some have suggested as a model for Christian ‘mythography,’ Amitay believes that the flesh and blood Alexander is the better, indeed, “unique forerunner of Christ.”

Figured I'd post this because I know how Pothosians love to discuss theories which are, shall we say, a little "outre". I'll save any comments for later.

As I've not read the book, I wish to be careful about how much I say in response; but I'm not sure the idea is quite as "outre" as some might think. Certainly, one of my lecturers at university was a great one for pointing out the relationship between concepts of Hellenistic kingship and ruler-divinity and the themes of Christianity. Without reading the book, however, I'm not entirely sure what exactly is meant by Christian "mythography" in this context - the danger is that he might go a bit too far with his reading of the context.

Don't know about Heracles being a model for Christian 'mythography', though ...

ATB

[agesilaos]

Presumably because Herakles was the human son of a God who obtained full divinity by sacrificing himself; of course, as soon as you get beyond the broadest sweep this sort of analogy collapses. The Twelve Labours of Jesus? Putting up with the Disciples maybe (and Dan Brown!)

[marcus]

Presumably because Herakles was the human son of a God who obtained full divinity by sacrificing himself; of course, as soon as you get beyond the broadest sweep this sort of analogy collapses.

Well, exactly - as you say, once beyond the son of God business - which, after all, holds for an awful lot of Greek heroes! - it rather withers.

The Twelve Labours of Jesus? Putting up with the Disciples maybe (and Dan Brown!)

I can only at that!

ATB

[Alexias]

As I've not read the book, I wish to be careful about how much I say in response; but I'm not sure the idea is quite as "outre" as some might think.

John Romer's television series in the nineties suggested that the portraits of Christ in the Byzantine Empire were derived from images of Alexander - youthful, beardless, upraised eyes. This was due to the prevalence of Alexander's image in art to depict divinity, and in particular the identification of Alexander's image with the sun god Helios. Romer believed the colossus of Rhodes, depicting Helios, had Alexander's face. Helios was shown with sun rays around his head, which became the Christian halo, and which may also have had echoes of the gold wreaths of Greece.

The initial chapters explore Alexander’s meme-making, the first taking Alexander from the Danube to Siwah. Throughout Amitay suggests that Alexander missed no opportunity to honor or identify with Herakles. This inter alia explains Alexander’s anger at Tyre when his request to sacrifice to Herakles was refused; his determination, as Curtius reports and Amitay agrees, was born of an oracle given him before Issus. (Curtius’ credibility generally ranks quite high; indeed Amitay rejects few sources in constructing his memes.) The subsequent siege is likewise justified by divine intervention: Alexander dreamt that Herakles beckoned him onto the island, a dream which Amitay believes “fully historical” (19), rejecting any notion that Alexander was so cynical in his relations with the gods as to invent.

Surely Amitay realises that Alexander's request to sacrifice to Heracles/Melkart at Tyre was a political, not a religious, manouevre? Alexander probably hoped that once in the city, he could persuade the Tyrians to negotiate. He had presumably tried and failed to bring them to terms already and hoped that his personal intervention, and charms, might sway them. It's unlikely, I think, that he would have used the occasion to take the city by force, but the Tyrians obviously suspected he might.

And his anger at Tyre was a result, not a cause, of the protracted seige. To suggest otherwise is surely a retrospective interpretation of events, which may not originate with Amitay but with the sources. If he was ever to neutralise the Persian navy and make Greece safe from counter-invasion, preserve his own lines of communication, and protect his rear from counter-attack, he could not leave the city untouched. It was imperative that such an important city either submitted or was subdued, and it had very little to do with Alexander being annoyed at being denied entrance to a temple. Imposing patterns where none may have originally existed or been intented can place too much emphasis on something that was at the time, incidental, or a later justification.

[marcus]

It's unlikely, I think, that he would have used the occasion to take the city by force, but the Tyrians obviously suspected he might.

Hi Alexias,

Considering the other Phoenician cities had submitted peacefully to Alexander, I would agree with you that, had the Tyrians allowed him to enter the city, he would have attempted to tempt control through negotiation first. I have always read Alexander's desire to visit the Heracles temple as a ploy to gain access, thereafter to control the city, presumably without having to use too much force - and that the Tyrians saw through this ploy, hence their rejection of his request. Perhaps I am *too* cynical? (Although that isn't to question Alexander's real devotion to the gods - but one has to admit that he was cynical in his approach on a number of occasions.)

But I'm not sure that we should rule out anger as a cause of the siege, as well - after all, it was the Tyrians unwillingness to deny the Persians equal access to the city, as much as their refusal to allow him to enter, that led him to besiege the city. We could hardly expect him to have undertaken the siege without being just a tiny bit miffed with the Tyrians. However, if you are talking about the retribution he visited on the Tyrians once the siege was over, then I would totally agree with you - I'm just not sure we can totally divorce the cause of the siege from its consequences.

The bit you quote about Amitay's use of the sources is troubling. There's nothing wrong with respecting Curtius, of course; but, as with all ancient sources, one has to approach them with care - it sounds as if Amitay might have been a little too cavalier in his use of the sources.*

* I've come back and edited this post, as I've just read the full review, and some of the preview of the book itself. The reviewer at BMCR does indeed say that Amitay is insufficiently source-critical. In addition, having read the section of the book on the siege of Tyre, I have a few problems with Amitay's discussion and conclusions - but it's really late now and I'm going to bed; so I shall leave you all with a cliff-hanger and return to it tomorrow, if I have time ...

ATB

[Alexias]

We could hardly expect him to have undertaken the siege without being just a tiny bit miffed with the Tyrians.

Oh, I agree - sufficiently miffed that once started, he wasn't going to give up the siege. If he had given it up, his whole future strategy would have had to change. And Alexander probably did want to visit the temple (were there two?, and did he exempt the temple from the destruction of Tyre?), but he wasn't IMO above giving an 'official' gloss to his actions to justify them to the unconvinced and preserve his reputation.

[marcus]

And Alexander probably did want to visit the temple (were there two?, and did he exempt the temple from the destruction of Tyre?),

There was an old temple on the mainland, which was where the Tyrians said he was welcome to worship, as well as the "newer" temple on the island. Undoubtedly it was the fact that the island was the strategic hub of Tyre that led them to deny him entry.

And yes, once Tyre was taken, Alexander spared those of the defenders who had taken sanctuary in the temple - well, because of his "official" reasons for starting the siege in the first place, and his worship of Heracles, he could hardly do otherwise. Without checking, didn't he dedicate the prows of the Tyrian ships at the temple, as well?

but he wasn't IMO above giving an 'official' gloss to his actions to justify them to the unconvinced and preserve his reputation.

Absolutely.

And I really don't see why cynically manipulating ones relationship with the gods should be incompatible with honestly worshiping them, either. There are certainly enough stories of him doing so, for example:

Arrian 2.3.6-8
Over and above this there was a legend about the waggon, that anyone who untied the knot of the yoke would rule Asia. [7] The knot was of cornel bark, and you could not see where it began or ended. Alexander was unable to find how to untie the knot but unwilling to leave it tied, in case this caused a disturbance among the masses; some say that he struck it with his sword, cut the knot, and said it was now untied – but Aristobulus says that he took out the pole-pin, a bolt driven right through the pole, holding the knot together, and so removed the yoke from the pole. [8] I cannot say with confidence what Alexander actually did about this knot, but he and his suite certainly left the wagon with the impression that the oracle about the undoing of the knot had been fulfilled, and in fact that night there was thunder and lightning, a further sign from heaven; so Alexander in thanksgiving offered sacrifice next day to whatever gods had shown the signs and the way to undo the knot.

Frontinus 1.11.14
Alexander of Macedon on one occasion, when about to make sacrifice, used a preparation to inscribe certain letters on the hand which the priest was about to place beneath the vitals. These letters indicated that victory was vouchsafed to Alexander. When the steaming liver had received the impress of these characters and had been displayed by the king to the soldiers, the circumstances raised their spirits, since they thought that the god gave them assurance of victory.

Even this one:

Valerius Maximus 3.3.1
By the ancient custom of Macedonia boys of the highest birth attended king Alexander when he offered sacrifice. One of these stood in front of him with a censer in his hands, and a hot coal dropped onto his arm. It so burned him that the smell of his scorched body reached the nostrils of the bystanders, but he suppressed his pain in silence and held his arm still lest he should either disturb Alexander’s sacrifice by shaking the censer or put a religious scruple upon it by uttering a groan. The more pleased the king was by the boy’s fortitude, the more he wanted to make a surer trial of his constancy, for he deliberately took longer over the sacrifice; but by so doing he did not drive him from his resolution. If Darius had set eyes upon this marvel, he would have known that there was no vanquishing soldiers of a race whose tender age he had seen to be made of stuff so stout.

ATB

[Efstathios]

I wanted to share my view on this subject.

It seems to me that the author was just looking for a more unique theme, since there are thousands of books about Alexander, and had to make his book stand out somehow. This of course is what we all would have done, finding a more unique theme for our book. But the essence of the book is somehow flawed. There are already ancient figures considered as forerunners for Jesus, who are a lot more plaussible than Alexander. For example Socrates, Hermes Trismegistos, and others. A lot of people consider Socrates' teachings about ethics and love, as more in par with Jesus teachings thus paving the ground in Greece for Christianity to be more easily accepted. And then we have Hermes Trismegistos who although is more of a mythical figure, has a symbolism for the triadic God, which could have been also a post Christianity era invention, but we of course do not know that.

Therefore, considering Alexander as a forerunner for Jesus because he considered himself the son of Zeus, and being a conqueror and all, is just fundamentally wrong. Plus as others have pointed out, there were other heroes and figures in the ancient era being considered as sons of gods. I am not ditching the book at it's entirety, as i have not read it and maybe it has some nice points, but it's essence is as i have said, somewhat flawed. There are people who consider Alexander to be a forerunner for Christianity, but an Alexander figure in it's most romantic form, and with the main reasoning being that he spread the hellenistic culture and proper education in the world and elevated people to more civilized ways. And as we all know Alexander may have been a unique figure, that did good things too, but still a conqueror. A more civilized one, but a conqueror.