andrewcriddle

I've been thinking about Neil's post.

On the general point I agree that independent attestation doesn't necessarily establish historicity; we must also consider the quality of the attestation.

However, I do think that Neil's claim that material like the Alexander Romance cannot establish historicity may be oversimplifying things.

There are basically two strikes against the Alexander Romance as a historical source.
a/ the internal evidence of its legendary nature.
b/ the lack of solid external evidence for this work until over 500 years from the death of Alexander.
Together this makes it historically worthless.
If, however, we could solidly demonstrate the existence and contents of an early version of the Romance dating from before 150 BCCE, then, despite its largely legendary nature, it would still have a part to play in the Quest for the Historical Alexander.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

The very same circularity needs to be perceived in the christian historical argument that there were necessarily christians on the planet (historically speaking) before the rise of Constantine. The prevailing nieve "belief" is that the history of Eusebius and the new testament together -- published by Constantine -- is the actual Truth of History. Just because it says so!

That is not good enough for some of us.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

By "nieve" do you mean "naive" ?

Helpmabob

Of course I see what you say. A reply such as yours pointing out what you see as circular reasoning was to be expected.

I am confident that this may yet be good enough for some of you despite your protestations.

My point was not that the ‘Bible is the actual Word of God just because it says it is’ to quote yourself, which would indeed be an unsatisfactory showing. But rather that the ‘Bible is not the word of God because independent attestation says it is’.

On the contrary, acting on the premise that the Bible is genuinely an inspired document whose modus operandi include giving glory to God and leading men to faith, then:

it would be right for the bible to clearly state such a fact;
it would be right for it not to rely on external sources;
it would be expected that some independent attestation should be available.

Just because in the generation of faith (a central aim of the bible) the independent attestation plays no part in the renewing of spirit, does in no way suggest that I think that independent sources should be disregarded.

Keith&Co.

That certainly does seem circular, if it only confirms the premise that you already accept.
But what does drive one to accept the premise that the Books has divine inspiration?

Roger Pearse

Are we sure about b? Because isn't Arrian open to the same objection?

Did you mean to say that the Alexander Romance appears in the 2nd century AD? I don't know a lot about it, but I always thought of it as rather later.

Incidentally Arrian is known to us from medieval mss no older than the 12th century; see here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu

Gerard Stafleu

andrewcriddle

Arrian bases his work on specific named sources (Ptolemy Aristoboulos etc) and seems to be using them faithfully.
The succesive composers of the Alexander Romance were freely rewriting to tell what they thought to be a better story. This process goes on in the various recensions of the Romance. We are dealing with a literary tradition in which being faithful to your sources is low priority.
Our earliest solid date for the Alexander Romance comes from it being translated into Latin by Julius Valerius who was consul in 338 CE.

It is possible that it was a very recent Greek work when Julius Valerius translated it which would put it over 600 years after Alexander, but a somewhat earlier date seems more likely.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Thanks Gerard. Many thanks in fact. And YES toto. Then why did Momigliano think that this was whimsical of Schwartz? Anyone hazzard a guess at this one?

Best wishes,


Pete

Helpmabob

I didn’t finish with ‘QED the premise is proved’. That would indeed have been deplorably unsatisfactory. I merely highlight consistency between what is observable in the realm of external attestation and what we would expect if the premise were true. Furthermore, if the premise were false, then other observations would be expected. But at the end of the day, it is up to you to decide for yourself what you consider to be circular and what is not.Faith, overwhelming need and conviction. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for [Hebrews 11:1,2] Perhaps you spot a case of circular testimony now – I’ll leave that up to you. But I say that as by way of testimony, not argument.

If you had formed the question in the way that more naturally follows from my previous post i.e.: why should one consider the premise that the Books has divine inspiration? A reasonably open-minded person, in view of the evidence, must consider it at least a possibility. There are umpteen reasons given by people on this forum why the premise should be dismissed in polite company without consideration. Meanwhile the truly satisfying solutions generally lie outside the narrow bounds of the internet.