Alexander the Great: Beyond the Divideby Charles N. PopeCopyright © 2014
Full-Length Book is Available Here:https://play.google.com/store/books/author?id=Charles%20N.%20Pope&hl=enhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O4LJP2APress Release and Abridged eBook:http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=126.0Executive SummaryAlexander as Archetypal JesusVirtually everything about Alexander the Great is repurposed in the New Testament accounts of Jesus and should sound eerily familiar to us. Alexander the Great’s birth had been “immaculately conceived” and then “celestially announced.” Alexander was a precocious youth that confounded his elders. He railed against conventional thinking (orthodoxy) and was revered everywhere, except by his own family and home town. His campaign began with a wedding. He traveled incessantly. He cast out demons and was accused of having a demon. He fed the multitudes and spoke in parables. He was particularly fond of the mustard seed. He prayed for those that spitefully used him. He showed concern for runaway slaves. He walked on water and calmed the tempest. He was warned against entering his capital, but approached his prophesized demise with flint-like resolve. He was lifted up into the “heavens” and also descended to the “underworld.” His higher calling was to attain a faraway kingdom, and one that could only be gained through a symbolic death and ascension. He comforted and later appeared to his followers. He was said to have moved mountains and walled off those who believed in him from the onslaught of the godless.
Jesus of the Gospels plainly alludes to Alexander when he says, “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life.” (Mark 8:36) This statement sums up Alexander’s obsession with global conquest perfectly, and it also reflects the need to temper the perceived excesses of Alexander in the time and place of Jesus (1st Century Jewish Palestine under Roman rule). It was considered appropriate for a substitute of Jesus (as the redeemed Alexander) to be crucified between two robbers, because Alexander had himself crucified those who attempted to rob him of his claim to divinity, i.e., to be called the “Son of God,” the very phrase placed above the head of Jesus on the cross. Curtius, a Roman historian writing during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty said, “You [Alexander] who boasted of your coming to eradicate robbers are yourself the greatest robber upon earth.” Curtius also has Alexander say, “I am abandoned, forsaken, delivered up to the enemy. But even alone, I shall press on.” Similarly, Jesus is made to cry out on the cross in a symbolic protest. Signs of sun and moon were associated with the deaths of both Alexander and of Jesus. It was said that Alexander’s body did not decay in the days following his death. Likewise, the body of Jesus is miraculously preserved.
Image: A graffiti from the temple at Deir el-Haggar (Dakhla Oasis in Egypt) in which Alexander is depicted as a pre-Christian Messianic figure.
Click below.https://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4566140472/http://andrew-vk.narod.ru/public/Sarapis/Serapis-18.jpgAlexander did not want his death to be mourned, and especially not by the royal women. He even made light of it by requesting that one of his hands be allowed to dangle outside the coffin. Alexander did not actually die at this time, and this is clearly mirrored in the New Testament accounts of Jesus. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, Mary is asked not once but twice (verses 13 & 15), “Woman, why are you weeping?” She is told that the person believed to have died is very much alive. Alexander had also appeared “posthumously” to encourage and promise victory to his followers, whose “vacated” throne was even used on occasion as a prop during negotiations between fellow princes. This peculiar tradition related to Alexander is echoed in the Gospel pronouncement of Jesus, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20) The implication is that Alexander remained a living, acting, dynastic force.
Jesus is endowed with all of the good qualities of Alexander and none of the bad. In other words, Jesus is depicted as a rehabilitated Alexander, and therefore in a sense, an even greater “god-king” than Alexander had been. Likewise, the leading figures of Alexander’s life are also “reincarnated” in the Gospels. Olympias (Mura), the “virgin mother goddess” of Alexander became a pattern for Mary mother of Jesus. Roxane, the bride that Alexander claimed by storming a high fortress, prefigured the much-maligned Mary Magdalene, “Lady of the Tower.” All of Christ’s disciples (later Apostles) were also typecast after the companions (later “Successors”) of Alexander and other leading figures of the time. Hephaestion became the archetype of John the Beloved; Perdiccas the “first leader” after Alexander’s “Passion” provided inspiration for James the Just (the first head of the Church); the role model for Peter was supplied by Seleucus, who denied Alexander in his hour of need, but later built his empire and his cult following; Diogenes of Sinope, who mocked the resurrection of Alexander, was unquestionably the inspiration for “Doubting Thomas;” and the role of Ptolemy the tireless evangelist of Alexander was played by the zealous Paul. And the list goes on.
The Gospel figures are supposed to have been uneducated provincials with little or no knowledge of events outside the narrow confines of Palestine. They should not have been capable of emulating much earlier Greek aristocrats, and especially drawing a slick parallel between Israel in the time of the Julio-Claudian emperors and Greece in the time of the Persian kings. However, they absolutely did, and it is past time that we got some answers!{As was done for the earlier period of Persia's invasion of Greece: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=120.0 }
The above associations between Alexander and Jesus can be better appreciated through study of a sizable corpus of information about Alexander’s life (and “afterlife”) that is excluded from modern (“rational/ proper”) histories.
The Life of Alexander of Macedon is now considered an apocryphal work, and referred to condescendingly as the “Alexander Romance.” However, it was first composed as early as one generation after Alexander’s “Passion Play” in Babylon. This original history of Alexander steadily increased in popularity in the following centuries and did not reach its zenith until well into the Middle Ages. Even more shocking to a modern Christian, a condensed version of this work was for a time actually included in authorized “History Bibles” of both Germany and the Netherlands during the Middle Ages,[1] at which time Alexander was clearly identified by clerics as a type of Christ from the Intertestamental Period.[2] In these Bibles,
The Life of Alexander of Macedon was followed immediately by the Book of I Maccabees (still included in Catholic Bibles), which itself begins with an unequivocal proclamation that Alexander had reached the furthest extent of the earth and became ruler over all the world.
[1] Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend, p 213. (New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2008) (a) (b)
[2] Ibid, p 214.
Image: Alexander as Kosmokrator, "Ruler of the Universe" (note the star and crescent on the headdress).
http://www.livius.org/a/1/alexander/alexander_kosmokrator_amisus_kmkg.JPGIn the Alexander Romance, Alexander accepts mortality only after achieving complete satisfaction in his conquests. This is definitely NOT the same Alexander we know from today’s text books and popular histories, who was planning ever greater campaigns and construction projects up until the time of his sudden illness and death. However, in the so-called apocryphal accounts Alexander sails up the mighty Ganges River and actually reaches a kind of Paradise after the conquest of all India is complete. He is not literally granted eternal life there, but nevertheless fulfills his goal of reaching this remote and privileged locale. In contrast, the Alexander we know today was completely frustrated in his attempt to conquer India and only reached the Indus River, well short of the Upper Ganges and nowhere near the mouth of the Ganges on the Eastern coast of India. In the Romance, Alexander also lives to play a part in the lives of the next generation of princes, who have grown to maturity and are even married when he visits them in the south of Egypt.
The conqueror of the Indian sub-continent is known by a different name, Chandra-Gupta, one of the most celebrated kings of all of Indian history. Curiously, almost nothing is known about his early life until after the death of Alexander the Great. No sooner did the attempted conquest of Alexander end than that of Chandragupta began. The name Chandra Gupta can be interpreted as “Alexander the Copt/ Upper Egyptian” as Gupta has been linguistically associated with Coptos (a Greek word for a critical locale in Upper Egypt), and Chandra is a transliteration of Sander (a hypocorism of Alexander/ Iksander). There is a claim by ancient rulers of Bukhara/ Bochara on the Silk Road (in Sogdiana) that they were descended from Alexander – a claim which becomes far more credible (and even inevitable) when one realizes that Alexander’s life did not end in Babylon and his dynastic line did not actually die out.
According to an important Indian source, the
Mudrarakshasa, Chandragupta made extensive use of a Persian army, at least in the initial phase of the conquest. Chandragupta is also known for employing Macedonian military training and tactics. This is consistent with Alexander’s recruitment of Persian troops prior to his "death" in Babylon. He also attracted many mercenary troops, who are called “outlaws” by one biographer. The many provinces of the vast land of India, which were formerly fragmented as a means of external (“foreign”) domination, were quickly united under Chandragupta and his chief minister Chanakya. In 305 BC, Chandra-Gupta also defeated Seleucus (the leading “Successor” of Alexander the Great in the West) and imposed terms upon him. Alexander under the name Chandra-Gupta received some of the former satrapies of Persia and the daughter of Seleucus in marriage. Seleucus remained infertile and even received a sardonic gift of aphrodisiacs from Chandra-Gupta! A powerful new dynasty, the first of its kind in Indian history, had been founded by Chandra-Gupta. Further consolidation of the Indian subcontinent was made by his son Bindusara and grandson Ashoka.
Image: An elaborate Medieval mosaic of the Otranto Cathedral (Italy), restored in the 1990’s, depicting the Tree of Life (supported by two Indian elephants) and scenes from biblical and extra-biblical history, including Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, The Life Alexander the Great, King Arthur and the Round Table, Knights of Charlemagne’s Dynasty, and even the Zodiac.
http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Sicily%20&%20S%20Italy/Puglia/Otranto/Cattedrale/Images_Mosaics/800/Mosaic_Floor-Nov06-DC9997sAR800.jpg Princely Birth OrderWestern scholarship has rejected the explicit memory of Alexander in the Persian
Book of Kings as a bonafide prince of Persia, and by virtue of being the son of Artaxerxes II Memnon (“Kai Bahman”) and half-brother of Darius III (“Darab”). No one today is taught that such a relationship was even remotely possible in ancient times, much less taken as gospel in certain parts of the world. Nevertheless, the case can readily be made that the little kingdom of Macedon had been part of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius the Great. In fact, the very first Persian-appointed overseer of Macedon had the Persian name Bubares son of Megabyzus, and subsequent kings of Macedon are said to have descended from him. It is certainly no mystery that Egypt had become a Persian province. Alexander’s rapid and even enthusiastic acceptance in Babylon, Egypt and Persia demonstrates that his legitimacy was not questioned anywhere within the Empire and its so-called “tributary states.”
It is known that the Persian debutante Barsine (who has been correctly equated by some scholars with Princess Statiera of Persia) already had two children when she became the consort of Alexander. These would have been Ochus III and a daughter. After marrying Alexander she assumed the name of Roxane and had two more sons, Heracles and Alexander IV. Unexpectedly, all of the higher-ranking Greco-Persian princes - Darius III, Philip III (Arrhidaeus), Seleucus son of Antiochus of Orestis, Ptolemy (Neoptolemus II of Epirus), Ochus III and Heracles - proved infertile with eligible royal women, whereas the lower-ranking but equally inbred Alexander III and his son Alexander IV were able to produce heirs. This is the most significant element of the “miracle” that was Alexander’s ascendency. Seleucus was obliged to adopt Barsine's sons Heracles (Ptolemy Keraunos) and Ochus III (Antiochus) as his own sons. Ptolemy, the close ally of Alexander, adopted Barsine's youngest son (by Alexander) as his own heir and successor to the throne of Egypt under the name of Ptolemy II. As the consort of Ptolemy in Egypt, the former Barsine was called by the close variant, Berenice, “Bringer of Victory.”
The two oldest princes had priority, at least until such time as they proved infertile. The eldest had been born before the fall of Persia and was given the Persian name Ochus III after his biological father Artaxerxes III (Ochus II). He was eventually designated as the successor of Seleucus under the quasi-Greek name Antiochus ("After/Like Ochus). Barsine (cum Roxane) was pregnant with Heracles at the time of her marriage to Alexander (more on this below). And like the name Ochus (III), that of Heracles would also be superseded. Heracles was not literally murdered in Greece just prior to turning 18 years of age. He would later be called Ptolemy Ceraunos/Keraunus (“Thunderbolt”) and like Ochus III/Antiochus he was passed off as a son of Seleucus. Nor was Alexander's son Alexander IV literally murdered in Greece, but merely gave up his primary Greek identity. In the princely pecking order, both Alexander IV and Heracles were below Ochus III/Antiochus (and likely also to Philip III/Arrhidaeus) in their early careers and were required to forfeit their royal Macedonian identities as a precaution. However, upon the death of Ochus III/Antiochus, Ptolemy II ultimately succeeded him as Antiochus II Theos (“the God”). Ptolemy II, called "Thoas" in the Alexander Romance, became the next Great King. What’s more, he also succeeded Alexander the Great (Chandra-Gupta) directly in India under the Indian king-name of Bindusara.
Birth Order of the Last Persian Royal Generation:1) Alcetas of Epirus (Oxyarthes/Arta-Sata/Darius III)
2) Amyntas IV of Macedon/Aecides of Epirus/Seleucus (Arses/Artaxerxes IV)
3) Neoptolemus of Epirus/Ptolemy (Arbupales)
4) Arrhidaeus/ Philip III of Macedon (an invalid)
5) Alexander III of Macedon (Bupares)
Birth Order in the First Greek Royal Generation:1) Ochus III/Antiochus I, considered a son of Darius III (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
2) Heracles/Ptolemy Karaunus, considered a son of Alexander (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
3) Alexander IV/Thoas/Ptolemy II /Antiochus II Theos (true son and heir of Alexander the Great)
A Date in BabylonThe Greek writers claimed to know so much about the order of the battle of Alexander and Darius III at Issus, because the plans were supposedly left behind by the fleeing Darius. In reality, there was ever only one plan for both armies. The success of Alexander depended more upon simple faith rather than “military genius.” His royal enablers parted a sea of soldiers, and Alexander (ala Moses) needed only to blindly pass through. After Alexander’s first triumph at Issus, he did not pursue Darius toward the east. Military analysts have criticized him for this, however at this time Alexander was still following the script. And that script required him to lead his Greek conglomerate army southward toward Palestine and Egypt, even as the hodge-podge Sea Peoples overran Asia Minor and advanced southward in earlier times after the “Fall of Troy.”
As Helen of Troy was “stolen away” from mighty Menelaus and paired with Paris for a season, so had Barsine been “taken” by Darius III from Memnon of Rhodes, the first husband of Barsine. However, this second match proved infertile, and it was therefore necessary for Barsine (as a new “Briseis”) to become the reward of Alexander the Great (in the role Achilles). One by one, the great cities of the Empire were formally surrendered to Alexander. The Greek victory was predetermined. The only thing yet to be settled was which former Persian prince would be ruling the Empire when the Greek conquest concluded. And that was not to be decided on the battlefield, but in the royal boudoir.
The “ancient historians” that wrote about Alexander and his conquest had very specific knowledge about the Persians, the royal family, its administration and leadership and even their private council meetings - what we would call “insider information.” They also knew Alexander’s place within the Persian hierarchy, however they were not at liberty to disclose it directly. They however did quite clearly spell it out for all who “had eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” The Persian name that maps to Alexander is Bupares. Bupares/Bubares is an odd and uncommon name, but it just so happens to have been that of an earlier Persian magnate, the very first Persian appointee as overseer in Macedon (and also the governor/viceroy of Babylon of that earlier time), who dates back to the reign of the first Persian king named Darius (“The Great”). The latter Bupares (Alexander the Great) was likewise made king of Macedon by Persian decree, as well as being the contemporary Persian-appointed military commander and governor of Babylon at the beginning of Darius III’s reign. Both titles were worthy of a Persian prince.
Alexander was in no particular hurry to leave his beloved Babylon. Neither was there any urgent need for Alexander to rush into Persia in order to capitalize on his victories over Darius III. This was not a real invasion, but a scripted transition from a Persian to Hellenistic Empire. Although it was only October, there was no point in pushing it. Alexander stalled by ordering a prolonged siege of Tyre along the Phoenician coast that was supposedly holding out against him, and as the Phoenician island of Arwad was singled out in the previous “Coming of the Sea Peoples.” He also took time to drag the body of Batis of Gaza behind his chariot as Achilles had done to his enemy Hector in the Iliad. A third minor skirmish was required to deal with the turncoat "Amyntas son of Antiochus" in Egypt, but this did not even require the direct involvement of Alexander. Alexander (like Jesus of the Gospels) needed only to speak the word and the situation was resolved. Thus was completed the second phase of the “Conquest.”
Click on the following link for the complete work: www.domainofman.com/donate.html
