2,885
edits
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Strong shift towards a 6th century dating
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Better structure and improvements) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
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> | 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 | 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> | ||
Tesei also notices an important point about the first prophecy, which actually begins by prophecising an even earlier Hun invasion which subjugated the Romans and Persians, with the shooting of arrows, and returned to their own land. This is a reference to the Hun invasions of 395 CE, but the author seems unable to date it in his prophecy, unlike the much less significant 515 CE (826 AG) invasion. It is understandable that an original author writing within a few decades after the 515 CE invasion would be able to date it precisely, but could only mention without a date the much more significant invasion that had occurred more than a century earlier in 395 CE. It is less likely that an author could correctly date that relatively minor invasion if he was writing the entire Neṣḥānā more than a century | Tesei also notices an important point about the first prophecy, which actually begins by prophecising an even earlier Hun invasion which subjugated the Romans and Persians, with the shooting of arrows, and returned to their own land. This is a reference to the Hun invasions of 395 CE, but the author seems unable to date it in his prophecy, unlike the much less significant 515 CE (826 AG) invasion. It is understandable that an original author writing within a few decades after the 515 CE invasion would be able to date it precisely, but could only mention without a date the much more significant invasion that had occurred more than a century earlier in 395 CE. It is less likely that an author could correctly date that relatively minor 515 CE invasion if he was writing the entire Neṣḥānā more than a century later. Moreover, the elders speaking prior to the prophecies describe the exact territories where the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasions took place and the kinds of damage caused, which suggests the author had likely witnessed their devastation.<ref>Ibid. pp. 41-42</ref> | ||
Also significant are two 6th century writers, John Malasas, who associated the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasion with the Caspian gates, and John of Ephesus, who mentioned the invasion of Gog and Magog (but not the gates) in his own eschatological prophecy.<ref>Ibid. p. 43</ref> | Also significant are two 6th century writers, John Malasas, who associated the 515 CE Sabir Hun invasion with the Caspian gates, and John of Ephesus, who mentioned the invasion of Gog and Magog (but not the gates) in his own eschatological prophecy.<ref>Ibid. p. 43</ref> | ||
A major indication of a 6th century context for the Neṣḥānā is Alexander's negotiation with Tubarlaq, King of the Persians after defeating him. Alexander extracts peace terms including tribute, and having done so, then agrees to military and financial cooperation in defending the Caucasus passes against Hunnic invasion. Tesei argues that this reflects popular concerns, apparent in various 6th century Byzantine writers who sought to assuage them, regarding the deals their own side had made with the Sassanids, as well as the latter's unreasonable demands about sharing security costs. These writers, and their own side's negotiators, had been anxious that peace payments to the Persians should not be perceived as tribute. The Byzantines had also resisted any linking of such payments to demands to share the financial or military cost of defending the Caucasus passes. In the Neṣḥānā, Alexander's cooperative agreement reflects the kind of non extortive, mutual assistance pacts these writers claimed had supposedly occurred in the past between the two empires. It ceased to be a hot topic and was never raised again with the Fifty Year Peace deal of 562 CE in which the Sassanid demands were dropped as they agreed to secure the Caucasus themselves and the Byzantines to never invade.<ref>Ibid. pp. 52, 57-59</ref> | A major indication of a 6th century context for the Neṣḥānā is Alexander's negotiation with Tubarlaq, King of the Persians after defeating him. Alexander extracts peace terms including tribute, and having done so, then agrees to military and financial cooperation in defending the Caucasus passes against Hunnic invasion. Tesei argues that this reflects popular concerns, apparent in various 6th century Byzantine writers who sought to assuage them, regarding the deals their own side had made with the Sassanids, as well as the latter's unreasonable demands about sharing security costs. These writers, and their own side's negotiators, had been anxious that peace payments to the Persians should not be perceived as tribute. The Byzantines had also resisted any linking of such payments to demands to share the financial or military cost of defending the Caucasus passes. In the Neṣḥānā, Alexander's cooperative agreement reflects the kind of non extortive, mutual assistance pacts these writers claimed had supposedly occurred in the past between the two empires. It ceased to be a hot topic and was never raised again with the Fifty Year Peace deal of 562 CE in which the Sassanid demands were dropped as they agreed to secure the Caucasus themselves and the Byzantines to never invade.<ref>Ibid. pp. 52, 57-59</ref> | ||
Yet another specifically mid 6th century context in the Neṣḥānā is identified by Tesei in the otherwise puzzlingly detailed role of the Egyptian blacksmiths. Details of the story serve to justify Byzantine rule over Lazica, close to the Caucasian passes: Both were said to be of Egyptian origin and became vassals to the Neṣḥānā's Alexander/the Byzantine empire without | Yet another specifically mid 6th century context in the Neṣḥānā is identified by Tesei in the otherwise puzzlingly detailed role of the Egyptian blacksmiths who at the end are rewarded with lands conquered by Alexander. Details of the story serve to justify Byzantine rule over Lazica, close to the Caucasian passes: Both were said to be of Egyptian origin and became vassals to the Neṣḥānā's Alexander/the Byzantine empire without having to pay any tribute. The Neṣḥānā's blacksmiths provide 7,000 men to help Alexander, the same number that Justinian sent to aid the Lazis in their 547 CE anti-Persian uprising. The Lazis were also seen as useful non-Persian allies to defend the Caucusus from the Huns. These mid 6th century political concerns are given a historic parallel in the Neṣḥānā's story of Alexander.<ref>Ibid. 59-67</ref> | ||
The rest of Tesei's book argues that various aspects of the Alexander-Tubarlaq story in the Neṣḥānā do not fit an early 7th century Heraclius context, but rather reflect the writer's criticisms of Justinian's agreements with the Sassanids, while also mocking the latter through the character of Tubarlaq. The story also served to counter specific propaganda from the Syriac Christian leadership, particularly Mar Aba, who interpreted sacred history in ways favourable to their Sassanid rulers. Ultimately, the Neṣḥānā's prophecies aim to raise hopes among Syriac Christians that universal rule will transfer to the Romans in the eschatological grand scheme of things. | The rest of Tesei's book argues that various aspects of the Alexander-Tubarlaq story in the Neṣḥānā do not fit an early 7th century Heraclius context, but rather reflect the writer's criticisms of Justinian's agreements with the Sassanids, while also mocking the latter through the character of Tubarlaq. The story also served to counter specific propaganda from the Syriac Christian leadership, particularly Mar Aba, who interpreted sacred history in ways favourable to their Sassanid rulers. Ultimately, the Neṣḥānā's prophecies aim to raise hopes among Syriac Christians that universal rule will transfer to the Romans in the eschatological grand scheme of things. | ||