2,885
edits
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance: Difference between revisions
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance (view source)
Revision as of 23:23, 7 June 2025
, Saturday at 23:23no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
====Tommaso Tesei's revised analysis==== | ====Tommaso Tesei's revised analysis==== | ||
In 2023, Tommaso Tesei revised his earlier opinions (see above) in a detailed and well received book ''The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran''.<ref | In 2023, Tommaso Tesei revised his earlier opinions (see above) in a detailed and well received book ''The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran''.<ref>Tommaso Tesei, ''The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran'', Oxford University Press, 2024<BR />See the [https://academic.oup.com/book/51697 individual chapter summaries] on the Oxford University Press webpage for Tesei's book.</ref> His analysis finds that the ''Neṣḥānā '' (i.e. the Syriac Legend) was composed in the mid 6th century during the reign of Justinian, with a later redactor interpolating a short prophecy under the reign of Heraclius. He presents a detailed case which has pursuaded a number of prominent academic scholars including Sean Anthony who accepts Tesei's redating of the text<ref>After being asked on x.com on 22 Dec 2023 "Do you find Tesei's dating of the Neshana compelling?" [https://x.com/IanCook321/status/1738002406947029450 (see here)], [https://x.com/ShahanSean/status/1738009790163664896 Sean Anthony replied] "Yes, but it's the whole package, not merely the redating." An account on x.com is needed to view the full thread.</ref> and Stephen Shoemaker, who describes it as "the most definitive study of the Syriac Alexander Legend to date".<ref>See the back cover editorial reviews [https://www.academia.edu/108962156 here]</ref> Van Bladel states that "Tesei forces us to reconsider the meaning of the whole work as well as its relationship to the apocalyptic genre and to the Qur'an".<ref>Ibid.</ref> | ||
Firstly, the author of the Neṣḥānā has detailed geographical knowledge of the regions of Roman Armenia and its political matters in the 6th century, including the raiding of the area by the Sabir Huns at that time (Alexander's first prophecy, about the year 826 AG / 515 CE).<ref>Ibid. pp. 17-20</ref> Tesei argues that the 2nd prophecy about the year 940 AG / 629 CE must be missing some words, as grammatically, it doesn't make sense, and in any plausible reconstruction cannot be about glorifying Heraclius (it was, after all, his Kok Turkic allies who invaded), but rather is an interpolation representing the redactor's hopes that these Huns (who invaded in 629 CE) and the Persians will destroy each other. He further argues that the 826 AG / 515 CE prophecy immediately preceding it makes most sense if composed in a 6th century setting in which there were repeated Sabir Hun invasions. Van Bladel, who assumed that the whole text was composed in 629-630 CE, had proposed that the fulfilled 515 CE prophecy was included merely to lend credence to the 2nd, genuine prognostication. However, Tesei argues that invasions due to Alexander's flawed defensive wall a century earlier and which played no role in the eschatological drama would be a highly dysfunctional choice for such a purpose.<ref>Ibid. pp. 30-40</ref> | Firstly, the author of the Neṣḥānā has detailed geographical knowledge of the regions of Roman Armenia and its political matters in the 6th century, including the raiding of the area by the Sabir Huns at that time (Alexander's first prophecy, about the year 826 AG / 515 CE).<ref>Ibid. pp. 17-20</ref> Tesei argues that the 2nd prophecy about the year 940 AG / 629 CE must be missing some words, as grammatically, it doesn't make sense, and in any plausible reconstruction cannot be about glorifying Heraclius (it was, after all, his Kok Turkic allies who invaded), but rather is an interpolation representing the redactor's hopes that these Huns (who invaded in 629 CE) and the Persians will destroy each other. He further argues that the 826 AG / 515 CE prophecy immediately preceding it makes most sense if composed in a 6th century setting in which there were repeated Sabir Hun invasions. Van Bladel, who assumed that the whole text was composed in 629-630 CE, had proposed that the fulfilled 515 CE prophecy was included merely to lend credence to the 2nd, genuine prognostication. However, Tesei argues that invasions due to Alexander's flawed defensive wall a century earlier and which played no role in the eschatological drama would be a highly dysfunctional choice for such a purpose.<ref>Ibid. pp. 30-40</ref> | ||