doctorzb

I am a lurker following this thread with interest, because it does seem to me that rejecting Jesus as a historical character also might imply the rejection of other supposed historical characters.

The issue of the coins is becoming pretty frustrating--you blocked yngquirer so you have not answered much of anything he wrote on the subject, and Gamera is staunch in his refusal to just restate it and save everyone lots of silly back and forths.

So...
You say that the coins minted at the time of Alexander's purported reign are proof of him not being mythical.

yngquirer said (summarizing) that 1) There are lots of Greek coins with gods on them, so being on a coin doesn't ensure that someone is real 2) Alexander looks like Hercules and 3) sticking real people's heads on coins wasn't popular until after Alexander.

I am not sure of #3 because I don't quite follow the logic. I can think of reasons that make yngquirer's points irrelevent, but since I know about as much about ancient coins as I know about what you ate for dinner last night, and I would like a response from someone who actually knows something, which is to say, you.

Thank ye kindly.

spin

I didn't ask him to restate it. I asked him to get off his hindparts and learn something about it rather than lean on a position that is inept.

Coins don't exist in a vacuum. They are a part of a system. You don't just get the sudden gratuitous production of coins by someone and then coin production suddenly stops. Someone else produced coins before, someone afterwards. To reject the implications of the Alexander coinage means to reject the whole numismatic system, otherwise one is simply presenting an ad hoc approach which has in itself no justification.

Alexander coins were produced after those of Philip II (Alexander's father) and before Philip III Arrhidaeus (his half-brother). Were these political entities really gods? Why did Philip's coins evince a mainly Greek distribution, whereas Alexander's were spread throughout what became the hellenistic world? Why are there Alexander coins suddenly produced in Babylon, which was until then in the hands of the Persians, who emitted their own coinage -- the bible even talks about Darics. Before Alexander the Egyptians didn't use coins but weighed silver (though some earlier Greek coins were found in the trading centre of Naucratis), but Alexander coins also began to be minted in Egypt with a few identifiable Egyptian iconic elements.

The coins claim through specific inscription that the power responsible for the coinage was King Alexander, just as his father's coins have the name Philip on them and frequently a horse (Philip means horse lover) and his half-brother's also have the name Philip, but feature iconography from the Alexander coins.

The early Alexander coins adhere to a non-Attic standard of weight used by his father, but then the next coins adhered to the Attic standard, so we can see a change in policy with regard to coins that move from the previous Philip coins to the later Alexander coins. The coins therefore belong to a time and a political situation, both of which are independently explained by later literary accounts of Alexander's life.

The issue of Alexander's coins is quite complicated, but as a body of evidence, it is very hard to disagree with them indicating a political entity identifying itself as King Alexander (notwithstanding the fact that the coin was copied and issued long after Alexander's death -- these only pay homage to Alexander's impact).

The coins are only one aspect of the physical evidence for the existence of Alexander. (And as such they must be considered in respect to all the evidence.)


spin

Roger Pearse

It is difficult to regard this question as honest, tho, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Could you please explain the thought (with its apparent sleight) behind this question?


spin

doctorzb

I thought I replied to this, but apparently I did not. I shall try again. I felt you did not fully address (until now) the points yngquirer made. But in this post you do. It's clear that coins with assorted gods on them are irrelevent due to the fact that these Alexander coins show up when and where you expect them to, and surrounded by the appropriate lineage context. yngquirer missed the point entirely.


This would hurt the case if it was not for the particular contexts of the earlier coins.

I think it's important to point out that I don't think the Alexander issue is that significant. If he did not lead the battles and write the writings, then someone else did, or maybe a few people. The events remain the same. I find the events more compelling than the person.

-Zac

spin

As I have said several times the coins are only a part of the evidence for the existence of Alexander, though I find it hard to understand why, when the coins specifically state that the authority behind the coins is King Alexander, you unexplainably find the person somehow less compelling than the events that the strongly coins imply. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to think that these Alexander coins somehow don't fit into the same logic as all the other coins of the era?

Now, having said that there is other evidence here is a token of that evidence available on the net. Note the reverse side, which specifically mentions Alexander and his entry into Babylon. This is just one epigraphic indication of Alexander. Can you find any more?


spin

doctorzb

I am scratching my head here. I agreed that the coin evidence is pretty much definitive.

The reference to "compelling" was trying to say that even if the evidence were not definitive, even if someone could prove Alexander was a mythical agglomoration of multiple people, few would care, because the empire itself certainly existed--the events, as history, are more compelling than the identities of particular people.

-Zac

Gamera

I got bored with your irrelevant responses, as many people do.

I think ynquirer has pretty much debunked your coin evidence, and you haven't responded, so there's nothing more I can add to that.

As to the mss evidence, I don't believe you have even attempted to provide the dates and history of the mss, so we're at a standstill. When you get back with us on the mss attesting to the historicity of Alexander, we'll be in a position to talk.

Gamera

Provide the mss history of these alleged text written by Alexander. You're going to find they go "Poof" once you deconstruct them using the Jesus standard.

Jesus has a "tomb" too. The issue is how do you know the tomb is Jesus' or Alexander's

As to a royal line, oh please, Malachi. Every too bit king of Europe and Asia traced their ancestry to some god or goddess. That's how you legitamize a royal line. If anything, the tracing of a royal line to Alexander would suggest his mythic status, not the opposite.

Gamera

How do we know that the tomb is Philip's and how would the existence of Philip confirm the existence of Alexander?