Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. March 1, 2022
BACKGROUND
My Standards on Evaluating History: Both Human and Natural
I recognize that past events really can’t be proven. Proof is more in the realm of mathematics rather than history or science. Nevertheless, I tend to rank claims about historical events as: 1) highly probable or beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) probable, 3) plausible, 4) unlikely or 5) highly unlikely (probably false or myth). My level of skepticism of events and individuals varies and would be classified in the categories of plausible, unlikely or highly unlikely. In these situations, I tend to ask myself: which is more probable that the event actually occurred or that someone just made it up?
As I previously stated, I do not automatically reject secular histories that were written centuries after the described events. However, until I receive good external confirmation, I tend to be skeptical of a given claim in an ancient history, such as Arrian’s The Anabasis of Alexander. Similarly, I tend to be skeptical of the historical claims in the Bible and other religious works until I get external confirmation. For a given claim in these documents, I want to see external evidence that is contemporary with the event or in the lifetime of the individual, such as inscriptions or documents. Depending on the circumstances, I might carefully give some credence to evidence from artifacts from a few decades after the event or the death of individual. For example, if an artist or writer knew the subject of his work and did a painting or sculpture within a few decades of the subject’s death that might be acceptable enough evidence.
Of course, a document, inscription or other written record must be accurately dated to ensure that it was written at the time of the event or when the subject lived. This is usually not easy. The verb tense or other indications in the text may indicate that it’s an official record that was written at or during the time of the event or the reign of a king. Paleography is usually not very accurate and requires other well-dated written documents as standards. With standards that have fixed dates, paleography can restrict the date of a document to within a century or perhaps a few decades (e.g., Orsini and Clarysse 2012 – New Testament paleography). Radiocarbon dating is a destructive process and often does not give precise enough results for historians anyway.
External evidence will vary with the century, culture and technology. In the past 200-300 years, potentially suitable external evidence to confirm the existence of an individual or an event could include tombstones, contemporary paintings and photographs, other artifacts and a variety of contemporary and official public documents, such as census records, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, tax records, real estate transactions, wills, etc. Because of the possibility that some of these records could be forged, multiple public records should be available to verify the existence of an individual or event. I fully recognize that these types of public records are either totally or nearly absent in ancient history, but multiple examples of these types of records are valuable for verifying the existence of an individual and his/her migrations in the US from the 17th to 21st centuries. As I stated earlier, family records (trees) and DNA evidence are also important in confirming these records.
In the remote past of centuries or thousands of years ago, the quality and quantity of data become far less common. However, for kings and famous military leaders, there still may be inscriptions in temples and other buildings; contemporary statues, paintings, coins and mosaics; and other evidence that demonstrates that they existed or were present at a specific location.
If multiple claims in an ancient document, such as Anabasis of Alexander or 2 Kings in the Bible, have been reasonably verified by external evidence, then my skepticism of the document is reduced and I’m more likely to think that other claims in these documents are plausible. For example, the inscriptions in the Annuals of Sennacherib confirms King Sennacherib of Assyria’s successful attack on Judah during the reign of King Hezekiah as described in 2 Kings 18:13 (https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/). Although this does not mean that I should automatically trust everything in 2 Kings, it does indicate that I would take other claims in 2 Kings more seriously. I could then look for additional evidence that either collaborates or fails to support other statements in 2 Kings. Thus, for an unsupported claim in Anabasis of Alexander or 2 Kings, I would still want additional external evidence before I would be willing to elevate my classification of the claim from plausible to probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt.
While one individual, Arrian, may have written The Anabasis of Alexander over a short period of time, the Bible was written by numerous authors over a much longer period of time. So, just because archeologists have discovered inscriptions that confirm the existence of Hezekiah and other kings mentioned in 2 Kings that does not mean that events and people mentioned in Exodus and Genesis can be trusted.
In geology, we are more fortunate than most archeologists and historians. If there are controversies about a basalt in an outcrop and as long as it’s not on the Moon, North Korea or some other inaccessible location, we can usually gather more samples, look at the rocks below and above and laterally from the basalt, run more tests, and perhaps answer the questions. Unless new discoveries are made, historians and archeologists are often stuck with what they’ve got.
I fully recognize that my standards for accepting claims about natural or human history are probably too stringent for the official procedures used by archeologists, historians and definitely for apologists of the Bible. But that’s too bad for them and I’m not going to lower my standards to appease their religious, political and academic agendas. My standards are high and based on the scientific method and those used by geologists. My standards work for natural history and I see no reason to lower them for human history. Yes, my approach is very conservative and would lead to more false negatives than other approaches; that is, I would have the tendency to be more skeptical of a lot of historical claims that historians, Christian apologists or archeologists would accept as “fact.” However, I think that this is the right approach to avoid accepting bad claims as “history.” I also recognize that very little human history will ever reach my standard of confidence, but I think quality evidence is better than quantity of claims. Most human history is never recorded anyway.
The Supernatural
I define a supernatural act or “magic” as a feat that violates the laws of chemistry and/or physics. Such a supernatural feat could also be called a miracle. For our everyday macroscopic world, the laws of physics would include Newtonian physics for the most part rather than Einsteinian Relativity. The laws of Chemistry are based on atomic theory. Obviously, as our knowledge of chemistry and physics grows, my views of what is supernatural, artificial and natural might change. However, even with the advent of Einsteinian physics, Newton’s laws still widely apply in our Universe.
I would define a supernatural being as an individual or thing that is capable of performing supernatural acts or has bodily structures that are inconsistent with biology. Examples would include gods, angels, the Talking Snake, fire-breathing dragons, and trees that produce fruit that can increase lifespans and mental abilities with one bite. Also, if a “prophet of God” actually and demonstrably turns lead into gold in violation of the laws of chemistry or levitates against the law of gravity, I would accept that as evidence of the supernatural, and I would have to recognize that this individual has real supernatural abilities. Unlike other secularists, I’m unlikely to move the goal posts to redefine a truly verified miracle, if it ever occurs, as part of a new still totally naturalistic worldview. So, from what we know about the intelligence and the inability of snakes and other reptiles to speak, if a snake starts having a conversation with me and other witnesses, I would have to change my skeptical views of Genesis 3. We also don’t expect the fruit of trees to immediately and substantially increase the mental abilities and lifespans of humans beings with just one bite. If science verifies that such trees exist, I would again have to reduce or even eliminate my skepticism of Genesis 3. Until I actually have definitive evidence of the supernatural, I will not say that miracles are impossible. However, I will automatically classify any supernatural claim as highly unlikely; this would include the Talking Snake of Genesis, as well as the claim that Romulus was born of a virgin. Again, I’m not saying that miracles and supernatural beings are impossible, but I’m saying that they’re highly unlikely until we get good evidence for them. I have yet to see any definitive evidence of any supernatural event or being, but I’m open-minded as long as my standards are met. I will not lower my standards for any religious, political or other agenda. I fully recognize that this is very difficult for my opponents to meet. However, that’s too bad for them. I won’t lower my standards to help them. They must find some way of meeting my standards if they want me to accept their claims. If they meet my standards, I will change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Again, these are my standards and I don’t speak for other secularists.
In addition, there are claims of natural and not necessarily supernatural creatures where the evidence of their existence is either inadequate or nonexistent, such as Bigfoot, Nessie or the Cyclops. Claims for their existence are either based on personal testimony or ancient written records, which, so far, have been untrustworthy. Although their existence is naturally possible, we currently have no physical evidence of their existence. The presentation of a living example or a dead body that can be examined for authenticity, such as a Bigfoot, would be enough to demonstrate that they exist.
My Agnosticism
Although I don’t believe in Zeus, Thor and other specific gods, I am an agnostic about generic God(s). Although I don’t find the evidence totally convincing, I see some evidence in Intelligent Design arguments, which may indicate that one or more Gods could have created the Universe and possibly life on Earth. If these God(s) exist, I suspect that they are totally or largely Deistic. In other words, if they exist, they are probably impersonal. I see no evidence for answered prayers or an afterlife. However, if someone actually demonstrates that prayer can raise the dead or restore a severed limb, then I must recognize that one or more personal Divine Beings exist.
My willingness to consider the possibility of God(s) creating the Universe or life is not a god-of-the gaps (i.e., God did it!) fallacy because I’m only saying that it’s a possibility and not definite. Nevertheless, I see the origin and geological history of the Earth as being totally explained by natural processes without the need for supernatural intervention.
I am also a “weak” and not a “strong” agnostic. That is, I only speak for myself. I recognize that others may have had a definite vision or personal encounter with God or gods. I don’t know if their personal experiences with God or gods are real. I suspect that Kat Kerr is delusional or lying when she says that she has seen Jesus’ Candyland in Heaven.
As for the existence of other supernatural beings, such as fairies, a Talking Snake, Tiamat, witches with supernatural powers, sirens, fairies, ghosts, angels, and other magical creatures my doubts are even stronger. I see absolutely no evidence for them. Until a claim about them actually has some evidence, I won’t accept their existence. However, if someone eventually comes forward with evidence for demons, Talking Snakes, fairies, witches, and other supernatural beings, I’ll simply change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Until at least some evidence that can be totally verified under strict scientific conditions, I will not accept their existence. Eyewitness testimonies under uncontrolled conditions are not good enough evidence for me. I totally recognize that this could mean that I end up rejecting valid claims for the existence of a supernatural event or being, but that’s not my problem. It’s the problem of those that advocate for their existence. I also fully recognize that believers in the supernatural will find my standards essentially impossible to meet or, as you have said, no one can locate and excavate the Garden of Eden. However, that’s your problem. You have the burden of evidence for claiming that supernatural beings exist and that supernatural events occur or have occurred. You will need to somehow produce evidence for a Talking Snake. Even if it’s essentially impossible for you to do so, I will not lower my standards.
INVESTIGATION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
My Proposal on Alexander the Great
My proposal or hypothesis for testing the existence of Alexander the Great is very conservative. I simply propose that Alexander the Great was:
1. a human being that lived in the 4th century BC and not a mythical or fictional being.
2. he was a military leader that had an extraordinary political effect over a wide region of at least the Middle East.
Again, I don’t expect to “prove” these statements, but only show that they are either probable or beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, as a scientist, I don’t claim ultimate proof. However, some claims are so well verified that I would identify them as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If these two claims are demonstrated to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt, then I could look at other claims made about Alexander in the works of Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, etc. and possibly test them with external evidence. I also fully recognize that my very conservative and cautious approach will at least initially overlook many of his detailed accomplishments and underestimate Alexander the Great’s influence in his society. But, I want to be slow and cautious.
McDaniel (2019)
McDaniel (2019) at https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/ is a response to archskeptics that claim that Alexander the Great never existed at all. She presents some relevant evidence that Alexander the Great was an actual military leader and king, which is exactly what I want to demonstrate. If her claims actually had been thorough and totally reliable and if she had properly referenced her claims with peer-reviewed science journals, I could have just linked to her essay and declared that archeology effectively supplements the Roman histories and demonstrates my proposal to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, no one is perfect and I have found a number of errors and inadequacies in her article. First of all, it’s poorly referenced. Wikipedia links aren’t good enough. We don’t know if she got her statements from reliable sources or not. Thus, her claims need to be verified with other sources and even if she had referenced her claims, I would still have needed to check those references to make sure that she properly cited them. Furthermore, it’s possible that other researchers have proposed opposing and alternative explanations to her claims. Secondly, when I checked her claims, I found that she had made some errors. Now, I fully recognize, as she stated in her essay, that she could not discuss all of the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great in a brief article. Yet, I found some important details about the artifacts and the life of Alexander the Great that she did not discuss, which I think deserve mentioning. Although I don’t see any need to comment on some of her claims, there are cases where I will further discuss the issues that she raises, correct her errors when I can, and present additional relevant information that she did not mention. Nevertheless, McDaniel (2019) made a good start and her essay is a valuable guide on where to start looking for contemporary evidence about the life of Alexander the Great.
Ancient Histories
McDaniel (2019) lists five ancient historians that produced works that discuss Alexander the Great, which are (various spellings): Diodorous Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Arrianos (Arrian), Plutarch, and Justin’s work based on an earlier work by Trogus. In her opinion, the works by Arrianos and Diodoros are most reliable. If it could be shown that these historians were independent of each other and if they had reliable sources, then we would have reason to place greater confidence in their claims even without any external evidence. Furthermore, if one author writes a positive biography on a leader and another writes a negative one, we might have more confidence if they both agree that the leader was involved in a battle at particular time and location. So, independent or competing written accounts can certainly improve the confidence that an event occurred or an individual actually existed. However, demonstrating that two accounts are truly independent is not easy unless they are well-dated records, such as any observations of a comet from 10th century China and central Europe.
Nevertheless, too often ancient authors fail to list their sources. Furthermore, they may be relying on each other or burrowing information from the same erroneous sources. So, in most cases, we will need external evidence to confirm their claims. Again, once several claims made by a particular historian have been confirmed by reliable external evidence, I can have greater, but not absolute, confidence in their other statements.
Although these five works were written centuries after the lifetime of Alexander the Great, they can still be used as guides to test their accuracy with archeology and other scientific results. For example, when Arrian says that Alexander the Great saw a lunar eclipse within the month of the Battle of Gaugamela, as discussed below, we could look for Babylonian tablets and use archeoastronomy calculations to confirm the time and date of the eclipse. Thus, statements in these histories might give us value clues on where to dig (sometimes literally) for more evidence about Alexander the Great.
At the same time, we have to be initially skeptical about written documents. As you know, any literate individual can write anything. Just because something is written down does not mean that it happened. As I’ve stated before, the history of the Mormon Church teaches us that it’s very possible for large numbers of people to believe in fabrications in a short period of time. I also see no reason to be superstitious and invoke demonic activity to explain the origin of the Mormon Golden Plates, especially when human lies and deception are adequate enough explanations. Thus, documents, like the book of Mormon, have the capability of deceiving thousands or even millions within a few decades after the fabrications. Certainly, claims in the literature must be verified with external evidence.
Contemporary Administrative Document from Bactria
https://www.khalilicollections.org/collections/aramaic-documents/khalili-collection-aramaic-documents-a-long-list-of-supplies-disbursed-ia17/
This is a link that shows an administrative document, identified as sample C4, which states that it was written starting on 15 Sivan in the 7th year of “Alexandros” and then extending over the next three months. This date, which is June 8, 324 BC, is based on when Alexander ascended the throne in Babylon and not Macedonia (Naveh and Shaked 2006, pp. 199, 206). The document deals with the distribution of supplies. It is one of 30 administrative documents all written in Official Aramaic from the province of Bactria in central Asia. Some of the other documents in the collection mention Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes V, Bessus, and Darius III. Naveh and Shaked (2006, pp. 15-19) discuss the paleography of this and the 29 related documents and the cities in Bactria where they might have been written. Naveh and Shaked (2006, p. 15) indicate that the Official Aramaic script is from the late Achaemenian period and into the time of Alexander the Great. Of the 30 documents, 29 are confirmed to be from the 4th century BC. The 30th document is fragmentary, but the writing suggests that it may be from the first half of the 5th century BC (Naveh and Shaked 2006, p. 16).
Document C4 by itself indicates that it was written in Bactria during the 7th year of the reign of “Alexandros” – a king with a Greek name. The paleography of C4 and associated documents confirms that they were written in the 4th century BC. This is an excellent example of a contemporary document.
Gaugamela Campaign and a Lunar Eclipse
Although they rely on the writings of Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, and other ancient accounts to partially understand Alexander the Great’s route to Gaugamela and Arbela, Marciak et al. (2020a) is also a good example of a research team using archeological and other scientific evidence to provide specific dates for Alexander the Great’s campaigns when the accounts in the ancient histories of Arrian, Plutarch and others are inadequate and even contradictory. The second article by Marciak et al. (2020b) is an erratum for Marciak et al. (2020a). However, it only deals with some omitted affiliations of the authors and omission of their acknowledgements, and nothing serious.
In their investigation to determine the exact date for the Battle of Gaugamela, Marciak et al. (2020a, p. 537) state:
“The exact date of the Battle of Gaugamela has long been contentious because it cannot be unambiguously fixed based only on information proved by classical writers. Only two classical sources about the Battle of Gaugamela provide us with relatively detailed chronological references – Arrian and Plutarch. However, upon consideration, they turn out to contradict each other.”
So, Arrian, Plutarch and other ancient histories aren’t good enough by themselves to specifically date this battle. They need archeological and other scientific evidence to provide details and clear up contradictions.
Arrian (3.15.7) states that Alexander’s victory at the Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the same month as a near-total lunar eclipse (Marciak et al. 2020a, p. 538). To resolve the dating inconsistencies and contradictions in the works of Arrian and Plutarch, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) reviewed the dates of the events from two cuneiform tablets in the British Museum and results from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries for that time (Hunger and Sachs 1988). In the Astronomical Diaries, the Babylonians made daily astronomical observations and noted celestial events. Now, the two tablets are not ideal and were probably not contemporary with Alexander, but they were closer to the events than the ancient histories. Marcia et al. (2020a, p. 539) refer to the tablets and state:
“The tablets in question were definitely written after the described events (as their narrative continues until Seleucid times). The tablets refer to the battle as ‘raising the standard’ by Alexander (who is named ‘king of the world’) and date it to the 24th day of the sixth month (Ululu) in the fifth year of the reign of King Darius (III). This reference can be transferred into the modern Gregorian calendar as October 1, 331 BC. Furthermore, the tablets also record two other interesting events directly preceding the battle – an outbreak of panic in the camp of the (Persian) king on the eleventh day of the sixth month (Ululu) and a lunar eclipse on the thirteenth day of that month.” [reference numbers omitted]
Using the two Babylonian tablets and the Astronomical Diaries, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) were able to derive more precise and consistent dates than what could be derived from Arrian and Plutarch alone. Their results are September 18, 331 BC for the panic, which they think probably coincided with Alexander’s crossing of the Tigris River, the lunar eclipse was on September 20, 331 BC and the Battle of Gaugamela occurred on October 1, 331 BC. Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 539-543) then correct and reconcile the accounts in Arrian and others with their results. In another study, Polcaro et al (2008) used an astronomy computer program to confirm that the lunar eclipse would have been visible in the region where Alexander the Great, his troops and his opponents were located shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela and that it would also have been observed by the Babylonian astronomers on the evening of September 20, 331 BC.
Babylonian Cuneiform Tablets
McDaniel (2019) mentions two other Babylonian cuneiform tablets associated with Alexander the Great: The Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia and the Alexander Chronicle. According to McDaniel (2019), the tablets are contemporary and describe the last few years of the reign of Alexander the Great, including a description of Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela about one year after it happened.
However, the contents of the two tablets are not very well preserved and the conclusions are not as definitive as McDaniel (2019) claims. The content of the Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia, also called BCHP 2 and BM 41080, is especially not very well preserved.
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-2-alexander-and-arabia-chronicle/#:~:text=The%20Babylonian%20Chronicle%20concerning%20Alexander,Macedonian%20king%20Alexander%20the%20Great
The reverse side of the tablet is not preserved at all and the above website admits:
“This fragment probably deals with the second entry of Alexander the Great into the city of Babylon in 323 BCE, but the condition of the tablet hardly allows firm conclusions.”
The contents of the Alexander Chronicle are more definitive. The Alexander Chronicle, also identified as ABC 8, BCHP 1 and BM 36304, clearly refers to Alexander and his troops and king Darius (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/). Nevertheless, parts of the tablet are damaged and some details are difficult to follow.
Alexander’s Letter to the Chians
The letter from Alexander the Great to the people of Chios is an inscription on a limestone slab. It’s currently in a museum on the Greek island of Chios. McDaniel (2019) does not discuss this artifact. The inscription is in the present tense and refers to Alexander as the king (Heisserer 1973, p. 192). Heisserer (1973) discusses the dating of the slab. Some scholars think that the slab refers to events recorded by Arrian and should date to the late summer of 332 BC. Heisserer (1973, pp. 192-193) also uses Arrian and other ancient references, but disagrees. He thinks that it’s more consistent with Alexander’s attitude towards the city of Ephesos in 334 BC.
Certainly, Heisserer (1973) and his references depend on Arrian’s work. However, this is an example of where an artifact helps to confirm the claims in Arrian about Alexander. Heisserer (1973) also discusses some of the characteristics of the Greek lettering on the slab. So, potentially, the Greek vocabulary and paleography might also confirm the age of the slab. However, Heisserer (1973) and his colleagues seem confident that the slab dates from 334 to 332 BC and was from Alexander the Great.
Priene Inscription in the Temple of Athena Polias
McDaniel (2019) mentions the Priene inscription in the Athena Polias Temple. The inscription says that “King Alexander dedicated this temple to Athena Polis” ( https://www.livius.org/pictures/turkey/priene/priene-temple-of-athena-polias/priene-temple-of-athena-polias-alexander-inscription/ ). McDaniel (2019) states that the inscription dates to about 330 BC. However, other references state that its date is not that exact. The livius website linked above dates the inscription to 332-323 BC. Others have dated the inscription from 334 to 306 BC (Paganoni 2017). Sherwin-White (1985) is a researcher that thinks that the inscription was created after the death of Alexander during the reign of Lysimachus. Lysimachus lived from about 360 to 281 BC. That is, he lived during and long after the lifetime of Alexander the Great.
Contemporary Egyptian Inscriptions
McDaniel (2019) mentions the Egyptian hieroglyph showing Alexander the Great addressing the god Min in the Luxor Temple in Egypt. According to McDaniel (2019), the inscription dates to about 332 BC. Additionally, Bosch-Puche (2013) and Bosch-Puche and Moje (2015) lists numerous examples of contemporary Egyptian inscriptions referring to Alexander the Great during his reign. Dates for the inscriptions are often included. For example, Bosche-Puche and Moje (2015) list the dates of the 22 inscriptions. One inscription has an uncertain range of dates from 332-323 BC. The other 21 inscriptions tend to have dates that are quite specific and range from about 331 BC to 12 April – 11 May 327 BC.
Coins Minted during the Reign of Alexander the Great
McDaniel (2019) mentions that numerous coins were minted during the reign of Alexander the Great and after his death. Kontes (2000) further states that the posthumous minting of the coins continued for about two decades after Alexander died. Thousands of the coins still exist today (Kontes 2000).
McDaniel (2019), however, incorrectly states that the coins show Alexander’s face on them. Most experts think that the faces on the coins, such as those shown in the figures in McDaniel (2019), represent Hercules wearing a lion skin. The seated figure on the reverse side is Zeus (Kontes 2000; Gatzke 2021, pp. 98-99). Gatzke (2021) suggests reasons why Alexander the Great used the image of Hercules on his coins. Gatzke (2021, p. 103) concludes:
“Because Alexander’s extensive minting and distribution of the beardless Heracles-type had established it as the most recognizable and acceptable currency of the period from the eastern Mediterranean to India, it is no surprise that in the years following Alexander’s death, as his successors struggled for political dominance and control of his empire, they maintained this coinage. The widespread and recognizable coin type provided them with the appearance of economic and political continuity in an otherwise unstable new world.”
Scholars discovered that the minting patterns and other characteristics of the coins allowed them to distinguish early from later coins, establish a general chronology and determine where the coins were minted (Kontes 2000). Kontes (2000) further discusses how the patterns and scripts on the coins changed during the years of the reign of Alexander the Great and with the mint. Price (1991) presents further details on the characteristics of the coins. I also fully recognize that mythical beings, such as Hercules or Harry Potter, sometimes appear on coins. My point is - it’s often not the image on the coin that is important, but who had the power and wealth to issue the coins.
As discussed by Kontes (2000), Price (1991) and their references, there are certainly controversies over when Alexander began minting his coins during his reign, exactly when certain mints began to operate, and other details. However, they all agree that Alexander the Great had a large number of coins minted in his lifetime. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000, p. 342) states that Alexander the Great established at least 31 mints in his Empire between 334 and 323 BC.
Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000) performed trace element analyses on silver coins minted in Macedonia during and after the reign of Alexander the Great. As a comparison, analyses were also done on two Babylonian coins. The analyses used energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF), which has the advantages of being non-destructive of the coins and it can simultaneously and accurately measure low concentrations of trace elements that are common in silver coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 343). The concentrations of trace elements, especially bismuth and copper, are important in identifying the location where the silver was mined, in distinguishing the coins from different mints and it can also provide evidence in identifying posthumous coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-348). Initially, the dates and minting locations of the coins were determined by numismatists Price, Le Rider and Troxwell. A bismuth to copper plot was able to distinguish the coins into two groups. The high bismuth group were mostly associated with the Amphipolis mint in Macedonia and 13 of the 14 posthumous coins formed as distinctly separate high bismuth and high copper subgroup (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-347). The low bismuth group contained four coins from Amphipolis and two from Babylon. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 348) then conclude:
“For most of them [the coins] the [analytical] results agree with the archeological attribution of the coins. In cases, where there is ambiguity in the archeological characterization, the bismuth-copper data can be used as further evidence.”
I won’t go into further detail about the discussions in these various documents. If you’re interested, you can read them for yourselves. The point is, that science helps to confirm that numerous coins were minted in Macedonia and throughout Alexander’s empire during his lifetime, which further indicates that he was a real and wealthy leader with extensive power and influence. He was not just a local ruler in Greece.
Alexander Sarcophagus
McDaniel (2019) states:
“Another piece of archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great’s exploits is the famed Alexander Sarcophagus, a remarkably well-preserved Hellenistic marble sarcophagus from Sidon dating to the fourth century BC, within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime. The carvings on the sarcophagus depict Alexander the Great’s conquests.”
She further mentions that the Sarcophagus is currently located in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.
McDaniel’s statements on the Alexander Sarcophagus are generally accurate and Heckel (2006) presents additional information on it. Heckel (2006, p. 385) states that the style of the artwork on the Sarcophagus dates to the last third of the 4th century or as McDaniel (2019) states “…within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime.”
Although the Sarcophagus is decorated with scenes involving Alexander the Great (Heckel 2006), it did not contain the body of Alexander. The ultimate fate of Alexander the Great’s body is unknown, although scholars like, Chugg (2002), have their convictions. The Sarcophagus gets its name from its artwork of Alexander the Great’s achievements.
Traditionally, most scholars thought that the sarcophagus was the resting place of Abdalonymus, who was installed as King of Sidon in late 333 or early 332 BC (Heckel 2006, p. 385). However, there are a number of controversies associated with Abdalonymus. First of all, we’re not certain if Alexander the Great himself or someone else installed Abdalonymus as king (Heckel 2006, p. 385). Secondly, Heckel (2006, pp. 386-388) is skeptical that Abdalonymus is represented in any of the artwork and that his body was placed in the Sarcophagus.
Tyre Land Bridge
McDaniel’s statements on the Tyre land bridge are brief and generally accurate. Marriner et al. (2007), Marriner et al. (2008) and Nir (1996) further discuss the geology of the land bridge, how Alexander and his troops probably constructed it, and how nature has modified it over time. Marriner et al. (2008) contains numerous radiocarbon dates, but none of them appear relevant to when Alexander the Great constructed the land bridge.
Conclusions about Alexander the Great
The ancient histories on Alexander the Great by Arrian, Plutarch, and others are extremely valuable. However, these histories cannot be taken at face value. Marciak et al. (2020a) and other researchers demonstrate that these histories are not infallible and that archeological and other scientific evidence is often required to supplement, correct and clarify their claims. The scientific data confirms that Alexander the Great had great influence over a wide region, including Greece, Central Asia and Egypt. The enormous number of coins minted in his name further demonstrate his wealth and economic power. The evidence overwhelming confirms my hypothesis on the existence of Alexander the Great and refutes any archskeptics that might say that he did not exist.
TALKING SNAKE IN GENESIS 3
Unlike the archeology and other evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, there’s not a shred of external evidence for the existence of the Talking Snake in Genesis 3. Now, I’m not going to wade into the controversy about the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Documentary Hypothesis. Any proponent claiming that Genesis 3 is history would have to deal with that.
We simply don’t know who wrote Genesis 3 and when they wrote it. As I mentioned before, there are scraps of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don’t appear to include chapter 3. Now, several hypotheses could be proposed to explain the origin of the Talking Snake story:
1. The Talking Snake existed and the account in Genesis 3 was accurately passed down by Adam to Moses. Moses then wrote it down in Genesis. There would have been no human eyewitnesses for most of the events in Genesis 1-2:14. If Genesis 1-2:14 is history, God would have to have given the information in these verses as visions.
2. Moses saw Genesis 1-3 and perhaps most or even all of everything else in Genesis through visions given by God. There didn’t need to be a continuous human transmission of information from Adam to Moses. Visions from God would not be open to errors unlike written or oral transmissions from Adam to Moses.
3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths. Of course, in the United States, pro-abortionists regularly use fictional TV shows to convince Americans that abortion is a good thing. Even though they are fiction, many people believe the propaganda. Right now, a lot of Russians are believing the fictional propaganda their government is inventing about Ukraine. People also often pick and choose parts of fictional stories that they want to believe and ignore the rest, such as individuals believing in the existence of “The Force” from the Star Wars movies, while recognizing that the rest of the movies are fiction. A lot of people are gullible and believe fictions are real.
4. “Prophets” or others claimed to have visions from God about events that supposedly happened thousands of years earlier. These visions were delusions or outright lies, but a lot of people came to believe them. Joseph Smith also did this and Kat Kerr continues with this nonsense in the US.
No doubt, other hypotheses could be proposed and you are certainly welcome to add to this list. From your email on February 14, 2022 at 7:27 am Eastern US time and again on February 21, 2022 at 9:44 am Eastern US time, you claim that Genesis 3 was passed down from Adam to Moses and to others. Thus, you seem to support Hypothesis #1 rather than #2-4. Until I see good evidence for #1-2, I think that #4 or maybe #3 are far more probable.
While Alexander the Great was just a normal human being, a Talking Snake would be a supernatural being and not an ordinary snake. That means that you have to demonstrate with positive evidence that a supernatural Talking Snake is even possible. I’m open to receiving any valid evidence that you may have in your upcoming response, but at this point, as I discussed above, I give the Talking Snake a low probability of existing. To be exact, I think it's safe to call the Talking Snake a myth until demonstrated otherwise.
Because there’s absolutely no evidence for the origin of the Talking Snake, Hypotheses #3 and #4 are consistent with reality unlike #1 and #2 that depend on groundless speculation about supernatural beings and visions. As I said earlier: which is more probable that someone made up a story that was later believed or that Genesis 3 is actual history? Furthermore, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews would have a serious problem in choosing between Hypotheses #1 and #2. Yet, there’s a problem with consistency in Hypothesis #1. While advocates of Hypothesis #1 would have to admit that Genesis 1-2:14 came as a vision from God, why exclude Genesis 3 from the same set of visions? Why should any conservative Christian or Jew believe Hypothesis #1 rather than #2?
Even if you could ever demonstrate that Moses wrote about the Talking Snake story, you still would have to somehow demonstrate that Moses had access to accurate historical information about Genesis 3 that supposedly occurred thousands of years before he was born. Just saying as you do in your Tuesday February 22, 2022 email at 8:51 am US Eastern time that the earliest known audience believed that Moses existed is no evidence that Moses actually existed. The oldest claim that we have for Moses was still centuries after he supposedly lived. We don’t know if Moses and Exodus were originally a work of fiction, borrowed from other myths, obtained in “visions” by prophets, distorted history, or actually history. Considering the archeological work discussed in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), there’s no evidence of a mass Exodus from Egypt. The ancient Israelites were probably just Canaanites.
REFERENCES
Bosch-Puche, F. 2013. “The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great, I: Horus, Two Ladies, Golden Horus, and Throne Names”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 99, pp. 131-154.
Bosch-Puche, F. and J. Moje. 2015. “Alexander the Great’s Name in Contemporary Demotic Sources”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 101, pp. 340-348.
Chugg, A. 2002. “The Sarcophagus of Alexander the Great?”: Greece & Rome, v. 49, n. 1, April, pp. 8-26.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
Gatzke, A.F. 2021. “Heracles, Alexander, and Hellenistic Coinage”: Acta Classica, LXIV, pp. 98-123.
Heckel, W. 2006. “Mazaeus, Callistthenes and the Alexander Sarcophagus”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, v. 55, n. 4, pp. 385-396.
Heisserer, A.J. 1973. “Alexander’s Letter to the Chians: A Redating of SIG3 283”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 2nd qtr, v. 22, n. 2, pp. 191-204.
Hunger, H. and A.J. Sachs. 1988. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C.: Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.
Kallithrakas-Kontes, N., A.A. Katsanos, and J. Tourastsoglou. 2000. “Trace Element Analysis of Alexander the Great’s Silver Tetradrachms Minted in Macedonia”: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research v. B 171, pp. 342-349.
Kontes, Z.S. 2000 “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great”: The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great | Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology | Brown University (accessed February 27, 2022).
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020a. “Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 536-559.
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020b. “Erratum: Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 103, n. 1, p. 408.
Marriner, N., C. Morhange, and S. Meulé. 2007. “Holocene Morphogenesis of Alexander the Great’s Isthmus at Tyre in Lebanon”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 104, n. 22, pp. 9218-9223.
Marriner, N., J.P. Goiran, and C. Morhange. 2008. “Alexander the Great’s Tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean”, Geomorphology, v. 100, pp. 377-400.
McDaniel, S. 2019. “What Evidence is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.” https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/ (last accessed February 27, 2022).
Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (eds.) 2006. The Khalili Collection: Ancient Aramaic Documents from Bactria (Fourth Century B.C.E.): The Khalili Family Trust: London, UK, 288pp.
Nir, Y. 1996. “The City of Tyre, Lebanon and Its Semi-Artificial Tombolo”, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 235-250.
Orsini, P. and W. Clarysse. 2012. “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, v. 88, n. 4, pp. 443-474.
Paganoni, E. 2017. “Decreto di Priene in onore di Antigono figlio di Filippo” (in Italian, English abstract), Axon, v. 1, n. 2, December, pp. 103-110.
Polcaro, V.F., G.B. Valsecchi, and L. Verderame. 2008. “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”: Mediterranean Archeology and Archaeometry: v. 8, n. 2, pp. 55-64.
Price, M.J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus: A British Museum Catalogue: Volume 1: Introduction and Catalogue: The Swiss Numismatic Society in Association with British Museum Press: Zurich and London, 509pp.
Sherwin-White, S.M. 1985. “Ancient Archives: The Edict of Alexander to Priene, a Reappraisal”: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, v. 105, pp. 69-89.
