#antigonid dynasty

[illustratus]

Demetrius I Poliorcetes

[lionofchaeronea]

Silver tetradrachm of Antigonus II Gonatas (320-239 BCE), king of Macedon during the Hellenistic period, minted at Amphipolis in 270 BCE. On the obverse, a Macedonian shield containing the head of the god Pan. The god is wrapped in a nebris (goatskin) and is shown with a lagobolon (a stick used for hunting hares, commonly seen in depictions of Pan). The reverse (not shown) bears a depiction of Athena Alkidemos ("Might of the People"). Now in the Staatliche Münzsammlung, Munich, Germany. Photo credit: ArchaiOptix/Wikimedia Commons.

[sleeplesssmoll]

Reference to Alexander the Great, his General, Antigonus, and the Battle of Gabiene.

The "Treasures of the Aegean Sea" tells the saga of a family of Western arcanists whose journey spans thousands of miles and over two millennia. Their ancestors fought alongside a Macedonian God-King (possibly Alexander the Great), shifting their loyalties after his death to the one-eyed general (possibly Antigonus). These war-hardened veterans joined his army after the Battle of Gabiene and formed a powerful but volatile force.

The arcanists within this army were eventually sent east, where they blended into the Sogdian tribes and thrived along the Central Asian trade routes. Over time, they settled near the ancient Hellenistic city of Ai-Khanoum, establishing a small arcanist commune. However, the turbulence of early conflicts eventually scattered them once again, leaving behind only fragments of their story—maps, diaries, epitaphs, and archives that tell the tale of their incredible adventure.

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), king of Macedon, succeeded his father Philip II at age 20 and embarked on a decade-long military campaign, creating one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to India. Undefeated in battle, he conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire and expanded Macedonian control across Western and Central Asia, Egypt, and parts of South Asia. After defeating Indian king Porus, Alexander’s army refused to advance further, leading him to turn back. He died in 323 BC in Babylon. His conquests spread Greek culture widely, marking the start of the Hellenistic period. Alexander’s military legacy influenced later leaders and became legendary, inspiring literature across many cultures. source

Antigonus I Monophthalmus aka "Antigonus the One-Eyed"; 382 – 301 BC) was a Macedonian general and a key successor to Alexander the Great. After serving in Alexander's army, he became satrap of Phrygia and later assumed control over large parts of Alexander’s former empire. He declared himself king (basileus) in 306 BC and founded the Antigonid dynasty. Following a series of wars among Alexander’s successors, Antigonus became one of the most powerful Diadochi, ruling over Greece, Asia Minor, and parts of the Near East. However, he was defeated and killed at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, leading to the division of his kingdom. His son Demetrius later took control of Macedonia. source

Gabiene: After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his generals immediately began squabbling over his empire. Soon it degenerated into open warfare, with each general attempting to claim a portion of Alexander's vast kingdom. One of the most talented generals among the Diadochi was Antigonus Monophthalmus (Antigonus the One-eyed), so called because of an eye he lost in a siege. During the early years of warfare between the Successors, he faced Eumenes, a capable general who had already crushed Craterus. The two Diadochi fought a series of actions across Asia Minor, and Persia and Media before finally meeting in what was to be a decisive battle at Gabiene (Greek: Γαβιηνή). source

[jeannereames]

hello!!! Dr. Reamen, I wanted to ask, did the Ptolemies know that Alexander was not related to them or did they really believe their own propaganda about being descendants of ATG?

Just a quick clarification: the claim was that Ptolemy I Soter was the bastard son of Philip, so they weren't descendants directly of Alexander, but of Alexander's father, making them Argeads. The person who made the claim was almost certainly Ptolemy's creepy son Ptolemy Keraunos,* who nobody liked much. He kept flitting between Diadochi courts when he'd outworn his welcome, assassinated someone, or conspired to assassinate someone. Ptolemy himself replaced him as heir with his younger brother, which started his perambulations, looking for support.

This claim also seems to have been made after Ptolemy I's death (contra Tarn). Ptolemy Keraunos made it because he was (briefly) king of Macedon. This was after Kassandros died (another liked-by-nobody figure who's father also passed him over), and his sons killed each other until Demetrios Poliorketes killed the last one. After Demetrios died, things in Macedon went wiggy (or maybe wiggy-er), which is when Ptolemy Keraunos took over before being killed in battle with invading Gauls. Antigonos Gonatos finally stabilized Macedon and instituted the Antigonid dynasty, which lasted.

Yet if Ptolemy Keraunos was making a bid to be king of Macedon, you can see why being the grandson of ol' Phil would be quite useful. Yes, it gives the Ptolemies a connection to Alexander, but it's really the connection to PHILIP, who was much more popular back home in Macedon, that Ptolemy Keraunos wanted.

Did later Ptolemies believe it? Possibly. Certainly the further they got from its origin, the more likely they probably were to accept it without squinting too hard...or recognizing the timing problems. (Philip would have had to be really young when he fathered Ptolemy.**)

There was a long-standing tradition in Greece of divine descent for kings. The Argeads themselves claimed it to Zeus via Herakles. Having a connection to the divine Alexander would have been right in line with that.

------------

See N. L. Collins "The Various Fathers of Ptolemy I," Mnemosyne 50.4 (1997) 436-76.

I had a lot of fun with making Ptolemy Philip's son in Dancing with the Lion, and did make sure he was young, but in my author's note at the end, I also state that it's almost certainly false.

[wishesofeternity]

"Stratonike’s marriages in the Seleukid dynasty were further steps in experimenting with legitimacy. Her role as an Antipatrid and Antigonid basilissa brought authority in the Mediterranean sphere, just when relationships between the royal families needed to be redefined after her father’s defeat and Seleukos’ victory at Ipsos in 301. Plutarch gives the account of her marriage, how Seleukos requested Stratonike in marriage because he needed an alliance with Demetrios to counterbalance other marriage-alliances being forged by Ptolemy I. Phila joined her daughter and the two kings at Rhosos, Syria for several days of festivities before departing to handle a political dispute with her brother Kassandros, and then Seleukos helped the already polygamous Demetrios broker another marriage with Ptolemaïs, daughter of Ptolemy. Turmoil between the kings erupted almost immediately after; nevertheless it is clear that Stratonike’s first marriage fits into a complex sequence of inter-state negotiations, for which the physical and familial movements of basilissai were integral.

Stratonike’s second marriage [to her stepson Antiochus] was an experiment internal to the Seleukid family, laying the basis for the representation of dynastic cohesion and a stable succession. Setting aside the romantic reading of motivations, in purely political terms, Stratonike transferred all her weight as basilissa to Antiochos, bringing it to bear on his new responsibility for ruling the eastern Seleukid empire. This in itself is interesting: that the Seleukids at this time saw feasibility in dispatching a western basilissa to become a very successful Eastern leader. Stratonike had had [several] years already in which to grow into her role as a Seleukid dynasty founder. Her move to be with Antiochos perhaps represents the point when those years of work came to fruition for her own benefit, plus the benefit of both her husbands, and Apama too."

-Gillian Ramsey, "Apama and Stratonike: The first Seleukid basilissai," "The Routledge Companion to Women and Monarchy in the Ancient Mediterranean World" (edited by Elizabeth D. Carney and Sabine Müller)

[classicschronicles]

Hi lovelies,

I was reading through a classics article the other day and I noticed that the word ‘Hellenism’ was thrown around a lot, but that as a classics student people just assume you know what that is without ever having been told. So, today’s entry is a quick whistle-stop tour of Hellenism. Before I start I would like to point out that this has a great deal to with Alexander the Great and whilst many Western sources heroise him, it is important to remember that he was still a coloniser and that many of his actions did result in devastating effects for the victims of his military escapades.

Alexander the Great became the leader of the Greek kingdom of Macedonia in 336 B.C., and by the time of his death 13 years later, his empire stretched all the way from Greece to India. The short, but exhaustive, empirical expansion mission changed the world by spreading Greek ideas and cultures from the Eastern Mediterranean all the way to Asia. Historians referred to this era as the ‘Hellenistic period.’ It lasted from the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. until 31 B.C., when Roman troops conquered the last Macedonian territories.

Some quick etymology of the word ‘Hellenistic’- comes from the greek word ‘Hellazein’ which means to identify with the Greeks or to speak Greek.

The Hellenistic period started with the official end of the Classical period and the beginning of the Macedonian expansion. Around 360 B.C., the Greek city-states were weak and disorganised from two centuries of internal and external warfare. All this fighting made it easy for a rather unexpected city-state to rise to power- Macedonia- under the rule of King Philip II.

Philip and the Macedonians began to expand their territory outward and were aided by a number of advances in military technology (e.g. projectiles and long range catapults). Philip’s ultimate goal was to conquer Persia and plunder the empires land and riches. However, Philip was executed at his daughters wedding (rough I know) by his own bodyguard (again ouch that’s a major L). His son Alexander (or more famously, Alexander the Great) immediately took over his fathers empire building project.

Alexander led his troops across the Hellespont (a narrow, natural strait in Turkey that had great strategic significance as it linked the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea) into Asia. From then on out, Alexander kept his troops moving and conquered huge chunks of Western Asia, Egypt, Persia, as well as the Indus Valley. Out of this colonisation was born ‘The Hellenistic Age”.

As you can expect from an empire built in 13 years, Alexander the Great’s empire was not a strong one, and after his death, in 323 B.C. his generals divided his conquered land amongst themselves. The fragments of the Alexandrian Empire became three powerful dynasties- the Ptolemies of Egypt, the Antigonids of Greece and Macedonia, and the Seleucids of Syria and Persia. Although these dynasties were not politically united (since the death of Alexander) as they were no longer part of one Greek Macedonian empire- they had a surprising amount in common. The main similarity is Hellazein- or Greek-ness. This shared identity formed from the Alexandrian empire is the reason that the word ‘Hellenistic’ is used when talking about this era.

Hellenistic states were ruled by kings, unlike the states of the Classical Greek period which were governed democratically by the people. These kings had a universal view of the world and took great interest in amassing as many worldly riches as they could. Because of this, they worked hard to cultivate commercial relations across the Hellenistic world. From India, they imported gold, ivory, ebony, cotton, spice, and sugar. From Syria, papyrus, linen, and glass. From Babylon and Damascus, dates, and prunes and from Spain they imported silver.

Understandably, their wealth was put on display with elaborate palaces, commissioned art, sculptures, and jewellery. They funded huge libraries (e.g. the Library of Alexandria), museums, and universities.

Culture also thrived in the Hellenistic period, with people moving fluidly around the Hellenistic kingdoms. There was an understanding that everyone in what had once been the Alexandrian empire spoke some form of colloquial Greek (known then as “koine”). Koine served as a unifying force between the Hellenistic kingdoms and it meant that no matter where a person came from they could communicate with anyone from this universal ‘empire’. However, the vastness of these kingdoms also left some feeling isolated. Where previously they had lived in smaller city-states and had enjoyed a democratic voice, they now lived in impersonal empires governed by bureaucrats. This led to the rise of mystery cults which promoted importantly and wealth.

People expressed this alienation through art and literature were there a was a shift in sculptures and paintings away from idealised forms so that they had more of a focus on the individual. Some famous works of Hellenistic art include the ‘Venus de Milo’, ‘Winged Victory of Samothrace’, and ‘Ludovisi Gaul’.

As all things must, the Hellenistic period eventually came to an end with its fall to the Romans. The official date for the end of the era was 31 B.C. During the Battle of Acteon that year Mark Antony’s fleet was defeated by the Roman Octavian. Octavian then took the name Augustus and became the first Roman emperor. Although the Hellenistic era did not last long, its contribution to art, culture, and literature was been withstanding and to this day still influences many.

Before I finish this article off I wanted to tell you guys something really cool! Recently I was contacted by a Telegram channel dedicated to Dark Academia which has taken to translating entries from this blog into Russian in order to help others learn more about antiquity. Their work is so so cool and you can check them out here- https://t.me/de_thyme. I hope you all enjoyed learning about Hellenism and that you enjoy the rest of your weekend!

~Z

[jackredfieldwasmyjacob]

2 and I hope I don't die

Let's hope ❤

You'll now be living in Berge or Berga (Βέργη, Βέργα), a town in the Macedonia region, precisely in Bisaltia, a country once free before being conquered by the Macedonians around the time of the Peloponnesian War, with the Bisaltae as its inhabitants, a Thracian people. Before that, however, Berge was originally a colony of Thassos sometime in the 5th century, becoming also part of the Delian League and being colonized by around 1000 Athenians. It was a rich city before the founding of nearby Amphipolis, and it even minted its own coins between 476 to 356 BC depicting Silenus with a nymph or Silenus with a carp, which I imagine was their preferred deity as a rural area. It was also the homeland of author Antiphanes of Berge in the 4th century, writer of the novel Apista. Due to the qualities of the novel, the verb βεργαίζειν, derived from the name of the city, was created to denote someone who told incredible stories.

By the time you arrive here in 250 BC, Berge will be a town that had lost its past glory but was still self-suficient enough, under the rule of the rich Antigonid dynasty, and especially under the current king, Antigonus II Gonatas.

The current ruins of the city are located 1.6 km northeast of Nigrita, in the Serres regional unit.

Send me a number (1-26) and I'll assign you an Ancient Greek city to live in

[aaronsmithtumbler]

Buddhism is an Abrahamic religion

Sure, why not? This sounds like the sort of thing I should be able to prove.

The first point we need to establish is that the patriarch Abraham's granddaughter married Hercules. The Bible says that after Sarah died, Abraham took a second wife Keturah and had some children by her, including one named Epher. Epher founded Africa, because this was back in the day when anything that sort of made sense based on the sound of words had to be true.  The Greek writer Cleodemus picks up the story and writes that Epher helped Hercules when he was fighting the monster Antaeus in Libya, and Hercules married his daughter.

This tradition gets obliquely referenced in no less an authority than the Bible. In a description of the diplomacy of Israel in 1 Maccabees 12:20 we hear about the following letter from the king of Sparta:

"To the high priest Onias. Greetings! It has been discovered in a written record that the Spartans and the Jews are relatives and are both of the family of Abraham. Since we have learned this, please let us know how you are."

Historians spent a while being pretty baffled by this. The most plausible explanation seems to be the Abraham-Hercules link - remember, the Spartan kings believe they are descendants of Hercules. Apparently this story was well-known enough at the time to be referenced in diplomatic communiques.

The Spartans weren't the only descendants of Hercules out there. The Argead Dynasty of Macedon also claims descent from the hero . That means Alexander the Great was a descendant of Abraham. So were many of the Macedonian generals who became Alexander's successors and shaped the course of the Hellenistic Age. For example, the Antigonid Dynasty claimed descent from the Argeads. It's not really clear how this was supposed to work, but historians' best guess is that Stratonike, the wife of Antigonus Monophthalmus, was of royal blood. Her son was Demetrius Poliorcetes, who conquered Greece at one point. He had a daughter, also named Stratonike, who married Seleceus I Nicanor, who conquered Central Asia at one point.

Seleucus arrogantly thought he could succeed where Alexander failed, and so set himself to conquering India. He put up a good fight, but he was resisted by Chandragupta Maurya, the great Indian conquerer-king. Finally the two rulers bonded over their mutual love of conquering things, decided to be friends and allies from then on, and celebrated with a great feast where Maurya gave Seleucus 500 elephants, and Seleucus gave Maurya his daughter's hand in marriage. Seleucus went off to conquer Syria and Turkey, but his daugher stayed in India. Maurya's son and successor (plausibly birthed by Seleucus' daughter) was Emperor Bindusara, and Bindusara's son and successor was the famous Emperor Ashoka (or “Asoka”, depending on transliteration). It was he who transformed Buddhism from a small local cult to an imperial religion that spread across all of India.

But Ashoka was the grandson of Seleucus' daughter, who was the great-granddaughter of the original Stratonike, who was of the Macedonian Argead royal dynasty. And the Macedonian Argead royal dynasty are descendants of Hercules, and so presumably of Hercules' wife, and so also of Abraham. Therefore Ashoka was a descendent of Abraham. And surely any religion that owes its existence as a modern and influential faith to a descendant of Abraham - in fact, to the only descendant of Abraham in the whole country where it originated - should be counted an Abrahamic religion.

Therefore, Buddhism is an Abrahamic religion.

[evilelitest2]

Another ancient history question: which of the Diadochi successor kingdoms do you think was the most successful? The Antigonids? The Seleucids? The Ptolemies? The Attalid dynasty in Pergamon or Diodotus in Bactria? Maybe even Mithridates in Pontus? I know it's kind of a moot point considering how the Romans trashed almost all of them eventually (except Greco-Bactria, they got trashed by the Parthians), but I'm curious as to who did the best after Alexander?

OH that is a very good question, and like all good question, it depends on yoru definition of power.  LIke for me, I’d say the Ptlomies, both because they lasted the longest and by the standards of ancient world post Alexander dynasties, were the most stable, Egypt was a wealthy and decently powerful semi independent state until like 66 BC, and if Octavian had one it might have been able to make a resurgance as its own power.  But the Seleucids managed to hold the largest amount of territory and had the greatest potential, but I think they were just Alexander’s own problems continued, being unable to really forge an empire out of this random territories.  Mithridates the Great was the msot individually impressive post Alexandrian ruler I feel, but he just didn’t ahve the ability to compete with the romans, and Pontus is only arguably a sucessor state anyways.  

If we aren’t romantic, you could argue that the Attalid’s were the best, because they just gave up to Roman earlier, but that didn’t even work out for them in the end (poor Pergamon).  

I feel this conversation brings up the larger weakness with the Hellenize Kingdoms, namely 

1) They were so fixated on the legacy of Alexander, specificially reclaiming the empire that only existed for liek a decade, they couldn’t really forge a new order.  When everybody wants to be Alexander the Great, there isn’t much room for compromise or more stable state craft.  

2) They didn’t really focus on the essentials, they were all these minority goverments ruling over disinterested majorities, and never really had much of a claim to their land.  Only Pontus and Egypt really built a larger structure but even they didn’t really have the transformation elements of the Romans.

I mean the sad truth is...Alexander the Great just wasn’t a very good ruler.  He was a great general, but Macedonian would have been better off is somebody who had stopped waring and focused on building after Issus 

Its temping to look back and just assume Rome would win no matter what, but if these guys could have gotten their act together, Rome likely wouldn’t have been able to so easily just steamroll the east.  

[thelastdiadoch]

THE GALATIANS, THORNS ON THE SIDE OF THE SELEUCID EMPIRE

This is an excerpt from my post, ‘GAULS OF THE EAST: PART 2 – HELLENISED GALATIANS OF ASIA MINOR’.

One foe the Galatians (a hellenized nation of Gauls in Asia Minor) are known to have clashed with many times was the Seleucid Empire, a realm established by one of the most successful Diadochi (Seleucus I Nicator, ruled from 305–281 BCE). The Seleucid dynasty ruled over a massive Hellenistic empire which encompassed Greater Persia, west toward the Levant and southwestern Asia Minor. Covering such a large area with a limited amount of Macedonians meant that they depended highly on a large pool of ethnically diverse local levies and mercenaries. Its only real neighboring threats were the Maurya Empire of India in the east, the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt in the southwest and the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia across the Aegean Sea.

^ The empire at its greatest extent and on the eve of the death of Seleucus I, 281 BCE. 

The Seleucids were now ruled by Seleucus’ son, Antiochus I, a king who was attempting to conquer Asia Minor. Seleucid expansion here was time and again hampered by the Bithynians and the Galatians. The Galatians played an important role in this Hellenistic ‘Game of Thrones’ as the hiring of them as mercenaries could heavily sway the odds in favor of their benefactors. Galatians were involved in most dynastic disputes and wars of succession, especially those between Pontus, Bithynia, and the Seleucids.

Battle of the Elephants

One of the better documented clashes is one which occurred after the Galatians caught the eye of the Seleucids under Antiochus I (281–261 BCE). The Galatians were formed up in a dense phalanx formation with the forefront being made up of “steel-clad warriors” and followed by “ordinary heavy-armed type to the depth of four-and-twenty”. The Galatian flanks were supported by twenty thousand cavalrymen and it is mentioned that the Galatians continued to use chariots (160 of them) and that another eighty were scythed chariots.

^ Osprey – ‘Warrior’ series, issue 030 – Celtic Warrior 300 BC-AD 100 by Stephen Allen and Wayne Reynolds (Illustrator). Plate H: British Chariot Warrior. Early 1st century AD.

This force caused fear among the Seleucids as their hastily assembled scant force was made up mostly of unarmored infantrymen while the other half were lightly-armed infantrymen and skirmishers. But Antiochus held a secret gambit, sixteen elephants which were hidden and held as a reserve. The Galatian chariots were behind the Galatian phalanx and when the battle commenced their phalanxes were to open up and make way for the rapid advance of chariots, their cavalry wings too would make a mad dash towards the enemy. The Seleucids decided that when this happened they would let loose their elephants, eight from the center to demolish the Gallic chariots and four others on each wing to cripple the Galatian cavalrymen.

“By this means,’ he (Antiochus) concluded, 'the horses will be frightened, and there will be a stampede into the Galatian infantry.” – Works of Lucian, Volume II, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

The Seleucid ploy was more than effective, before the Galatian cavalrymen were close enough to come to blows the horses fell into a chaotic panic. The ground trembled beneath the weight of these stampeding behemoths, the battlefield darkened under the shade of their silhouettes and their trumpeting shook the chariots (figuratively of course). The Galatian horses turned back in fear towards their allied ranks where they trampled over their masters. The allied Galatians unlucky enough to be caught in the crosshairs of the scythed-chariots met a darker fate as they were mangled, dismembered and maimed.

^ Seleucid Elephant by Angus McBride.

“Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other’s spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them.

The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars’; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,’ their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims. Next came the elephants, trampling, tossing, tearing, goring; and a very complete victory they had made of it for Antiochus.” – Works of Lucian, Voluim II, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

This momentous victory over the Galatians granted Antiochus the surname ‘Soter’, “savior”. Most of the Galatian army was either killed or captured.

^ Elefantes de guerra by José Daniel Cabrera Peña. 

“The kings of the east then carried on no wars without a mercenary army of Gauls; nor, if they were driven from their thrones, did they seek protection with any other people than the Gauls. Such indeed was the terror of the Gallic name, and the unvaried good fortune of their arms, that princes thought they could neither maintain their power in security, nor recover it if lost, without the assistance of Gallic valor.” – Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Marcus Junianus Justinus, 25.2.

Renegades and Turncoats: “in the hope of ravaging Asia with greater freedom”

Though being skilled and feared warriors, eastern Gauls were notoriously known for turning on those that hired them if they saw an opportunity. Seizing the moment to create chaos and disorder in Asia Minor, they were responsible for a surprisingly high amount of assassinations of Hellenistic kings. If you recall they mutinied against Antigonus II Gonatas (Antigonid Macedon), some abandoned him to join Pyrrhus of Epirus then looted the royal Macedonian tombs of Aegea (Vergina) while those under the employ of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt) plotted to seize his treasures and possibly claim Egypt for themselves.

Aside from the above, while Seleucus III Ceraunos (of the Seleucid dynasty) was marching to attack Attalus I Soter of Pergamon he was “assassinated by the Gauls Apaturius and Nicanor (Polybius 4 48 8)” after crossing the Taurus Mountains. There was also a war of succession between two feuding Seleucid brothers (Seleucus II Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax) which hit its climax near one of the three Galatian capitals (Ancyra, modern Ankara). The young brother and ambitious usurper Antiochus Hierax (“hawk”) hired the Galatians so they could help him acquire the throne.

“In the battle that followed Antiochus was victor, indeed, through the prowess of the Gauls; but they, thinking that Seleucus had fallen on the field, began to turn their arms against Antiochus himself, in the hope of ravaging Asia with greater freedom, if they destroyed the whole royal family. Antiochus, seeing their design, purchased peace from them, as from robbers, with a sum of money, and formed an alliance with his own mercenaries.” – Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Marcus Junianus Justinus, 27.2.11-12.

The furthest east that we find the Galatians is near the settlement of Apollonia in Media. Molon, the satrap of Media, rebelled against Antiochus (III) the Great so in 220 BCE the two of them met near the city of Apollonia. In this clash both sides had Gallic assistance, Antiochus (III) the Great had a body of Gallic Rhigosages (“King-seekers”) while the satrap Molon had a locally assembled mercenary band of heavily armed Gallic infantrymen. After earlier military defeats the Seleucids were not allowed to recruit Galatians so it is thought that his Rhigosages (“King-seekers”) were Galatians who continued migrating eastward into Seleucid territory where they were taken in as military settlers like those in Ptolemaic Egypt I mentioned in part 1 of this post (LINK).

“Many of the Gauls now lived in Egypt as cleruchs (klerouchoi, “(p)lot-holder”; i.e. colonists or settlers) or katoikoi (“settlers, inhabitants, residents, dwellers”), intermarried with Macedonian Greeks and native Egyptians, the latter of which resulted in mixed offspring which were referred to as epigonoi (“progeny, descendants, successors, heirs”; i.e. the descendants of earlier Gallic settlers in Egypt).” – Excerpt from my post, ‘GAULS OF THE EAST: PART 1 – BANDITS OF THE BALKANS’.

Later on the Seleucids are mentioned as having a Gaul named Lysimachus as a commander during the Battle of Raphia (217 BCE) against Ptolemaic Egypt (who themselves employed six thousand Gauls), at the Battle of Magnesia (190 BCE) the Seleucids used 1,500 ‘Galatai kataphraktoi (Galatian cataphracts)’ and 4,000 Gallograecian cavalrymen against the Roman Republic, and 5,000 were paraded at the Daphne Procession (166 BCE).

Head over to my post, ‘GAULS OF THE EAST: PART 2 – HELLENISED GALATIANS OF ASIA MINOR’. In this post I cover the Celts who migrated into Asia Minor, established a Greco-Gallic state, became renowned as warriors and mercenaries, played an integral part in the Hellenistic ‘Game of Thrones’ of the Diadochi (Alexander the Great’s successor), ravaged and terrorized the region, as well as forcing “tribute on the whole of Asia west of the Taurus” (Livy, 38.16.12). I also speak about their armors, weaponry and how they may have inspired some Greek and Roman arms as well as some military units.

You can also read the prequel to the above mentioned post. The prequel is titled ‘GAULS OF THE EAST: PART 1 – BANDITS OF THE BALKANS’, the rarely spoken of Gauls of southeastern Europe, their invasion of Greece, employment as mercenaries under Ptolemaic Egypt, their rebellious and warlike society as well as their little known kingdom of Tylis in Thrace.

[lionofchaeronea]

Hellenistic copper-alloy bust of a man, thought by some scholars to depict Philip V of Macedon (r. 221-179 BCE), next-to-last monarch of the Antigonid dynasty and ally of Hannibal against Rome.  Artist unknown; ca. 200 BCE.  Now in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond.  Photo credit: PericlesOfAthens/Wikimedia Commons.

[bloggstar247]

The Wikipedia article of the day for May 7, 2020 is Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. The kingdom was founded and initially ruled by the Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, it originated on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula. Before the 4th century BC, it was a small kingdom outside of the area dominated by the city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes, and briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia. During the reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC), Macedonia subdued mainland Greece and the Thracians' Odrysian kingdom through conquest and diplomacy, and defeated Athens and Thebes in the Battle of Chaeronea. His son Alexander the Great, commanding the whole of Greece, destroyed Thebes after the city revolted. During Alexander's subsequent campaign of conquest, he overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered as far as the Indus River.

[jeannereames]

Could you comment on kasta tomb? Is the excavation still ongoing? Has there been new discovery/hypothesis/debate? For a while it was all over the news then it fizzled out. Google searche only surfaces old articles. What's the academic consensus, if any, regarding whether it was a dedication to Hephaistion?

 Okay, so, for the TL;DR crowd:

1)    The excavation is more-or-less on hold due to lackof funding (like a lot of excavations in Greece).

2)    No new discoveries for reason 1, plus the usualquagmire in Greek archaeology of access to a site and turf wars. But, thesethings also take time.

3)    It wasn’t a dedication to Hephaistion. I don’tknow an academic (outside the excavator’s team) who genuinely believes it was. Attachingit to H. (or any other major figure at ATG’s court) is part of the usualattempt to get media attention (and funding).

Let’s start with #3, which will in turn answer #s 1 and 2.

First rule of archaeology: gold and famous names raise money.It doesn’t matter how important one’s discoveries actually are for the field,it matters how well the lead archaeologists can market what they’re finding topeople/gov’t with funds. Sometimes really good (non-gold) artwork also can beused for attention.

Witness how the archaeologists at Bethsaida (Israel) havehandled the finding of an iron-age stele w the image of the moon god in a “highplace” in the gate. This is *really cool*, given the date (900s?). But do theytalk about its rarity, etc.? Oh, hell, no. The email I got from Rami pointing to anarticle about the find from Israel’s Jerusalem Post announces, “Archaeologists identify citygate from time of King David.”

Famous name! Especially in Israel.

Now, compare: “Large Looted Tomb from Hellenistic Period Foundin Northern Greece,” or “Archaeologists Report they may have Found the Tomb ofAlexander the Great’s Mother/Best Friend/General…etc.” Now, which of those isgoing to get anybody to read the article? :-D

That’s how you get media attention (and hopefully, money tokeep digging, as archaeology is EXPENSIVE). Yet if the claim turns out to bebogus/unsupported, the media attention goes away or can even turn against theexcavator. If/when the first goes down, sometimes the team tries to come upwith other exaggerated explanations to maintain that spotlight, but this canjust dig the grave deeper.

So, why couldn’t this tomb be Hephaistion’s?

First, there are other burials in it—five people to be exact.Were it a monument for Hephaistion, it would be a cenotaph, not a tomb (hisbody was burned in Babylon), and it would be solo, not have other people there.Macedonian Tombs come in two basic types: solo and family. We do have otherfamily tombs (most famously, the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, excavated byStella Miller-Collett), and this appears to be similar to that. So attachingthis tomb to Hephaistion faces the immediate problem of, “Uh…other people?”

(Couldn’t they be his surviving family? Well, maybe, but it’sstill really weird. Trying to argue such a thing would be better called “reaching.”*grin*)

The presence of an older woman in (if I recall right) her60s, led some to propose it was Olympias in there—except, again, other people,plus we know (from ancient testimony) that Olympias was buried in Pydna (whereshe was murdered on Kassandros’s orders). So it’s also not Olympias. BothOlympias and Hephaistion are important enough that they’d have merited a solo,not family, tomb. (And most all of Olympias’s family were killed and buriedelsewhere.)

Another name put forward is Nearkhos, one of Alexander’sgenerals, who had land in the Amphipolis area. At least he is a possible candidate,although the tomb might be too late for him (but he sure as hell would have hadthe money for it). Like our Macedonian soldiers, Lyson and Kallikles, Nearkhosmight have sought to establish a family tomb. Again, it’s a reasonablepossibility, just a question of whether the tomb is too late.

Back to Hephaistion (and why it’s not him)…

The argument that it is rests on the presence of some graffiti on stones. First, the graffiti does NOT name Hephaistion (that’s an interpretationby Peristeri and her team). Second, if this were a tomb memorializing such animportant person, why on earth would it be indicated by graffiti?

The graffiti says “arelabon” followed by the letters Eta andPhi (and maybe a sigma?). Peristeri has turned that into “parelabon” and “Hephaistion”:received by Hephaistion. Problem: “arelabon” appears twice, missing thenecessary “pi” in both cases. While missing letters in inscriptions is hardlyunusual, missing the same one in two different places is odd. I’m not going toplay with that further, just leave it for true epigraphers. (I’m aprosopographer, so I deal with epigraphy only occasionally and largely withnames.) What I really want to kick to the curb is the idea that the letters area monogram for “our” Hephaistion.

My current research work involves epigraphical occurrences ofHephaistion, as well as other Hephais-based names in both their Attic-Ionic andDoric forms. Trust me, there are a LOT of names that start with Eta-Phi, evenbeyond Hephais-based names. But even if this meant “Hephaistion” the nature ofthe graffiti itself suggests somebody working on the tomb: an architect,mason, or other craftsman—not the person for whom it was made. We find suchcrafters marks on pottery, bronze, etc. (We also find such etched names on dedicationsin temples, but I don’t think that applies here.)

I think if this was really referencing Hephaistion Amyntoroshis full name would have been given (not a monogram), and it would be a lotmore prominent within in the tomb.

Furthermore—and one of our eternal problems with IDingMacedonian tombs—is that, unlike many figured tombstones (stele), Macedoniantombs usually DON’T name the dead person buried there, even when we suspect theymay portray the dead persons image (like the Tomb of Judgement at Lefkadia).The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles is unusual. Instead, we get names like the Tombof Judgement, or the Tomb of the Palmettes. The Tomb of Eurydike was calledthat by later archaeologists; there’s absolutely no indication that it belongedto Philip’s mother. It’s almost certainly a woman’s tomb, but that’s about allwe know.

And oh dear, wouldn’t the whole Royal Tomb II at Verginadebate be SO much simpler if there was actually a flippin’ name on the tomb?!There’s not.

Identifying who’s buried in a tomb is REALLY HARD. Itdepends on dating, objects, and probabilities.

So yeah, some craftman’s graffito on the Kasta Tomb means zilch,except that he got his wish and has been spoken of by posterity.

So…trying to turn this into a cenotaph or tomb ofHephaistion is a pile of …wishful thinking. 😉  It’d be cool if it was…but it’s going to takea LOT more evidence to make that claim (not to mention explaining the 5 peoplein there).

Another problem is trying to DATE this sucker.

Those who want to tie it to Alexander more directly are desperateto make it early Hellenistic, despite clues to the contrary ranging fromarchitecture to the gown style of the Karatids. I’m not an art historian, so Iwon’t dig into that. I’ll simply point to one thing I found extremely curiousbut have not seen anyone (yet) address: the use of blue in the mosaic.

Now first, no silliness please about the Greeks not “seeing”blue; that was going around the internets for a while. Yes, they saw blue! Butthe color palette common to painters like Apelles in the late Classical period weremore earth tones. (Again, not an expert. I’m just gonna point to the word ofOlga Palagia, et al. Go and read Olga.) We find these colors in the pebblemosaics at Aegae (Aigai) and Pella, as well as Dion, et al. Even in thebeautiful Persephone painting in Tomb I and Aegae/Vergina.

The first time I saw that BLUE in the Kasta Tomb mosaic, itreally struck me. Unfortunately, art historians tend to catalogue mosaicsby how they’re made, not the colors in them, so I haven’t been able to track thisdown further, except to say that I, personally, have not seen an early Hellenisticpebble mosaic in Macedonia that used blue pebbles. Maybe there’s one hiding ina museum basement somewhere, but these mosaics are pretty spectacular and tendto be shown off. Blue as a color in mosaics is later, showing Egyptian influence.It’s also seen more in tessera mosaics than pebble, which were going out ofstyle by the Roman era. (I think the last datable pebble mosaic is from Delos,1st century BCE—again, Olga.)

So given the use of blue in that mosaic, I’d prefer to see adate that’s mid-Hellenstic at the earliest.

Ergo, we’re probably looking at the family tomb of animportant Hetairos during the Antigonid Dynasty. That’s my best guess.

Incidentally, pointing to the 4th century AmphipolisLion and saying, “Well, it was on top, so the tomb must be 4thcentury!” is horrible methodology. Something stuck on the top of thetomb (which may or may not have been there originally) does not date the tomb. Evenif the lion had been inside, that doesn’t help. Let me explain with an example:

Just because you want to be buried with your great-aunt Bertha’sWWII WAVE wings does not mean that *you* fought in WWII. 😉 It means you were buried with an antique. Sothe presence of the lion means only that the tomb probably can’t date BEFOREthe 4th century lion. That doesn’t mean it can’t date afterit. In fancy archaeologist-speak, the Amphipolis Lion provides only a “terminuspost quem” (earliest date for X), not a “terminus ante quem” (latest date for X).

[goodeggshen]

Wikipedia article of the day for May 7, 2020

The Wikipedia article of the day for May 7, 2020 is Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. The kingdom was founded and initially ruled by the Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, it originated on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula. Before the 4th century BC, it was a small kingdom outside of the area dominated by the city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes, and briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia. During the reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC), Macedonia subdued mainland Greece and the Thracians' Odrysian kingdom through conquest and diplomacy, and defeated Athens and Thebes in the Battle of Chaeronea. His son Alexander the Great, commanding the whole of Greece, destroyed Thebes after the city revolted. During Alexander's subsequent campaign of conquest, he overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered as far as the Indus River.

[planetinformation]

The Wikipedia article of the day for May 7, 2020 is Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Macedonia was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece. The kingdom was founded and initially ruled by the Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, it originated on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula. Before the 4th century BC, it was a small kingdom outside of the area dominated by the city-states of Athens, Sparta and Thebes, and briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia. During the reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC), Macedonia subdued mainland Greece and the Thracians' Odrysian kingdom through conquest and diplomacy, and defeated Athens and Thebes in the Battle of Chaeronea. His son Alexander the Great, commanding the whole of Greece, destroyed Thebes after the city revolted. During Alexander's subsequent campaign of conquest, he overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered as far as the Indus River.

[christophe76460]

En l’an 168 av. J.-C., la troisième Guerre macédonienne qui opposait Rome au royaume de Macédoine depuis 4 ans se termina à Pydna, près de Thessalonique. C’est là que Persée, sixième roi de la dynastie des Antigonides – rois macédoniens – subit une lourde défaite face à la République romaine. Le vainqueur, le consul Paul-Emile, divisa la Macédoine en 4 districts et Bérée devint alors l’une des premières villes macédoniennes soumises à Rome. La domination romaine devint définitive 22 ans plus tard, lorsque la province romaine de Macédoine fut fondée en 146 av. J.-C.

Cette même ville de Bérée se retrouve sous la plume de Luc dans le chapitre 17 du livre des Actes, versets 10 à 12 :

Aussitôt les frères firent partir de nuit Paul et Silas pour Bérée. Lorsqu’ils furent arrivés, ils entrèrent dans la synagogue des Juifs. Ces Juifs avaient des sentiments plus nobles que ceux de Thessalonique ; ils reçurent la parole avec beaucoup d’empressement, et ils examinaient chaque jour les Écritures, pour voir si ce qu’on leur disait était exact. Plusieurs d’entre eux crurent, ainsi que beaucoup de femmes grecques de distinction, et beaucoup d’hommes.

Nous y trouvons Paul annonçant l’Évangile à des juifs issus de la Diaspora au sein de leur synagogue, lieu de culte et d’enseignement théologique et spirituel. En effet, ces derniers disposaient librement d’un lieu de rassemblement et la tolérance romaine leur permettait de pratiquer leur religion sous l’occupation. Et cela parce que, « Jules César, en reconnaissance du soutien des Juifs pendant sa guerre avec Pompée, a accordé des avantages aux Juifs de Palestine et de la Diaspora, et diverses villes de l’empire ont suivi en donnant aux Juifs certains droits1 ». Les juifs pouvaient ainsi pratiquer leur « coutumes », leurs « rites sacrés » et leurs « règles » et bénéficiaient plus particulièrement des droits suivants2 :

1. Le droit de se rassembler ou d’avoir un lieu de rassemblement

2. Le droit de respecter le sabbat

3. Le droit d’avoir leur nourriture « ancestrale »

4. Le droit de décider de leurs propres affaires

5. Le droit de collaborer financièrement

Cette communauté juive, installée en dehors de la Palestine a sûrement dû entendre le message de la résurrection pour la première fois avec la venue de l’apôtre Paul. Et pourtant, ils accueillirent le message de l’apôtre avec empressement, contrairement à leurs frères de Thessalonique. L’auteur n’hésite pas à les comparer à ces derniers, les décrivant comme ayant « des sentiments plus nobles que ceux de Thessalonique ». Cet éloge de la part de Luc découle de leur ouverture au message de Paul entremêlée d’une belle soumission aux Écritures : « ils reçurent la parole avec beaucoup d’empressement, et ils examinaient chaque jour les Écritures, pour voir si ce qu’on leur disait était exact. » Nous retrouvons ainsi l’un des solae3 de la Réforme, le sola scriptura, par lequel les Écritures ont le dernier mot sur toute affirmation théologique.   

Cependant, il apparaît opportun de se demander comment les juifs de Bérée pratiquaient ce principe, la manière dont les propos de Paul étaient comparés aux Écritures. Or, ce passage voit bien souvent nos pratiques modernes se calquer sur celles de l’époque qu’il décrit. Il est dur de déroger à cette habitude dans notre lecture des Écritures et ce passage en est un bel exemple. Notre pratique de la lecture de la Bible, bien souvent individuelle et aidée de multiples copies des Écritures, ne peut pourtant pas pouvoir se transposer sur celle des Béréens. En effet, les synagogues issues de la diaspora juive possédaient bien souvent un rouleau de la Torah et parfois quelques autres rouleaux des Écritures (probablement en grec) mais ils étaient conservés au sein de la synagogue et ne faisaient pas l’objet d’une propriété individuelle4. Nous sommes loin du schéma actuel où chacun peut vérifier individuellement et séparément ce que le prédicateur affirme.  

Par ailleurs, les mots grecs traduits généralement par « ils examinaient chaque jour les Écritures » ont subi l’analyse minutieuse de Roy E. Ciampa dans un article de 2011. Il remet en question la traduction habituelle qui est faite de ces termes qui pousserait le lecteur moderne à « imaginer un cadre dans lequel la plupart des membres d’une communauté (ou au moins plusieurs personnes) avaient accès à une copie qu’ils pouvaient utiliser pour consulter les textes correspondants5 ». L’étude menée par l’ancien professeur du Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary sur des textes judiciaires et non judiciaires, bibliques ou extra-bibliques montre que le terme examiner qui traduit généralement άναϰρίνοντες n’est pas approprié pour l’examen d’un texte ou d’un document. Le sens courant de ce verbe pour un objet impersonnel tel un texte ou un document serait plutôt « se renseigner sur », c’est-à-dire « poser [à quelqu’un] des questions sur [l’objet] ». Ciampa n’est pas le seul à souligner la véritable signification de ce terme puisque C. K. Barrett dans son commentaire de 1998 affirmait : « άναϰρίνοντες n’est nulle part ailleurs dans le NT utilisé pour l’étude des Écritures ; il suggère plutôt l’examen juridique des témoins (ou d’une personne accusée) – voir Ac 4:9 ; 12:19 ; 24:8 ; 28:18 – et c’est en fait dans ce sens qu’il est utilisé ici. Paul a établi les Écritures comme témoins : leur témoignage, une fois testé, prouve-t-il ses affirmations6 ? » Ciampa propose alors de traduire l’expression du verset 11 par « ils posaient des questions à Paul sur les Écritures tous les jours » au lieu de « ils examinaient chaque jour les Écritures ».

La scène décrite par Luc serait ainsi celle d’une « communauté qui traitait Paul comme un rabbin ou un enseignant des Écritures très respecté et […] les Béréens étaient censés avoir (ou sont présentés comme ayant) évalué ses réponses aux questions qu’ils lui posaient à la lumière de leur propre connaissance et compréhension de l’Écriture7 ». Ce n’était pas une scène exceptionnelle puisque poser des questions à un enseignant juif ou à un rabbi sur l’Écriture était quelque chose de commun ; en ce sens, Jean-Baptiste a été sollicité de nombreuses fois. L’interprétation que l’on fait de ce texte en calquant notre usage moderne sur les pratiques du premier siècle semble donc erronée, la communauté des Béréens ayant accès à une quantité limitée de rouleaux scripturaires dans leur synagogue et préférant poser des questions à Paul sur ce qui leur enseignait. Leurs recherches ne se détachaient pas de leur communauté et de l’enseignant.

En faisant cela, les Béréens pratiquaient effectivement le sola scriptura remis en avant par les Réformateurs. Mais ils ne mettaient pas en pratique le solo scriptura (ou nuda scriptura) en cours dans nos églises. L’Écriture seule des réformateurs ne signifiait pas l’Écriture comme seule source d’autorité mais l’Écriture comme dernière autorité. Il n’est pas question de défendre l’exclusivité de l’Écriture comme source de connaissance sur Dieu et son œuvre mais de défendre l’exclusivité de son autorité. Elle est la suprême autorité en théologie mais n’est pas la seule. « L’Écriture est-elle la norme qui norme d’autres normes, auquel cas nous pouvons parler d’un schéma d’autorité, ou est-elle la seule norme, auquel cas nous pouvons oublier les schémas et simplement affirmer un seul principe d’autorité : ‘solo’ scriptura8 ? »

Les conciles et les Pères de l’Église – la tradition – ne sont donc pas à mettre de côté pour comprendre ce que la Bible enseigne tout en n’étant pas à élever pas au rang de l’Écriture. C’est ce que, après avoir défini le sola scriptura, précise la Seconde confession helvétique :

L’apôtre Pierre déclare qu’aucune prophétie de l’Écriture ne peut être l’objet d’une interprétation particulière; nous ne recevons donc pas sans examen toute explication proposée. Par conséquent, nous ne reconnaissons pas comme vraies et authentiques les interprétations de l’Église romaine, que leurs défenseurs voudraient que l’on accepte aveuglément. Nous ne regardons comme véritables et orthodoxes que les explications tirées de l’Écriture elle-même (en prêtant attention au génie de la langue dans laquelle les livres saints sont écrits, en tenant compte des circonstances particulières et en examinant les passages parallèles qui, semblables ou différents, sont plus clairs, afin de les comparer avec ceux qui sont plus obscurs). Ces explications doivent également être conformes à la règle de la foi et de la charité, et servir à la gloire de Dieu ainsi qu’au salut de l’homme. […]

Nous ne méprisons donc pas les Pères de l’Église, tant grecs que latins, ni leurs argumentations ou ouvrages sur la religion, pour autant qu’ils soient conformes à la Parole de Dieu. Mais nous nous en éloignons avec humilité lorsque nous y trouvons quelque chose qui s’écarte de l’Écriture ou y est contraire. Nous croyons en cela ne leur faire aucun tort, vu que tous défendent de mettre leurs écrits au même rang que les Écritures canoniques. Ils déclarent, au contraire, que leurs affirmations doivent être mises à l’épreuve, pour que l’on reçoive ce qui est conforme à l’Écriture et que l’on rejette ce qui y est contraire.

La Réforme ne protestait pas contre « la tradition Catholique Romaine en soi mais contre l’écart depuis la tradition reçue9 ». Elle ne rejetait pas la tradition mais la replaçait à son juste rang : soumise à l’Écriture. Elle n’élevait pas non plus l’interprétation individuelle, particulière à un rang qui n’est pas le sien, elle ne se faisait pas partisane du solo scriptura. C’est malheureusement ce principe que l’on voit principalement à l’œuvre dans l’Église évangélique. La peur de toute tradition, de toute norme d’autorité autre qu’individuelle amène la création d’un cycle de construction-destruction – et contradictoirement ce cycle devient lui-même tradition.

En cela, rien de bien nouveau. Saint Hilaire reprochait déjà cela à l’empereur Constance II au IVe siècle qui s’amusait un peu trop avec les ariens : « Mais il t’arrive ce qui arrive d’ordinaire aux bâtisseurs novices qui ne sont jamais contents de leur travail : tu ne cesses de démolir ce que tu ne cesses de bâtir10. » De même, Tertullien avançait ces propos sur les hérétiques11 :

Au surplus, ils ignorent le respect, même à l’égard de leurs propres chefs. Voilà pourquoi il n’y a généralement pas de schismes chez les hérétiques. Quand il y en a, on ne les voit pas : le schisme est leur unité même. Je mens, si même entre eux ils ne s’écartent pas de leurs propres règles, chacun tournant à sa fantaisie les préceptes reçus, tout comme celui qui les leur a donnés les avait disposés à sa fantaisie.

Bien plus tard, au XIXe siècle, Charles Spurgeon, dans son Commenting and Commentaries, avertissait ceux qui affirmaient pouvoir exposer l’Écriture sans aide :

Bien entendu, vous n’êtes pas un puits de science pour penser ou affirmer que vous pouvez exposer les Écritures sans l’aide des œuvres des théologiens et des érudits qui ont travaillé durement avant vous dans le domaine de l’exposition. […] Il paraît étrange que certains hommes qui parlent tant de ce que l’Esprit Saint leur révèle, considèrent si peu ce qu’il a révélé aux autres.

Face à ce danger du solo scriptura, quelle solution ? Une des issues est le rappel important de Mathison : « L’Écriture elle-même indique que les Écritures sont la possession de l’Église et que l’interprétation de l’Écriture appartient à l’Église dans son ensemble en tant que communauté12. » Et c’est en effet ce que nous avons vu avec les Béréens dans Actes 17 et c’est ce que nous pouvons lire dans d’autres passages des Écritures. L’interprétation de l’Écriture n’est pas avant tout celle d’un individu mais elle est premièrement celle de l’Église. L’interprétation se fait dans et par l’Église. Et il ne s’agit pas seulement de l’église locale mais de l’Église qui s’étend dans le temps et dans l’espace ; l’Église vivante et morte, l’Église d’ici et d’ailleurs. Vivre cela tendra au véritable sola scriptura et esquivera son paronyme, le solo scriptura. Ainsi, l’anarchie interprétative ne pourra pas régner au sein de l’Église et les propos que tenait Bossuet sur les protestants resteront injustifiés : « Le propre de l’hérétique, c’est-à-dire, de celui qui a une opinion particulière, est de s’attacher à ses propres pensées ; et le propre du catholique, c’est-à-dire de l’universel, est de préférer à ses sentiments le sentiment commun de l’Église13 … »