Despite the tremendous number of studies and biographies of Alexander the Great, his life is difficult to reconstruct historically. Of the sources we possess, not one was written in his lifetime. All of the reports we have of this remarkable man and his extraordinary achievements were penned three hundred years or more after the events they relate. Eyewitness reports exist now only in fragmentary form or not at all. We know of them because they were quoted or drawn upon by later, secondary accounts.

The customary view of these secondary accounts distinguishes between the official tradition and the vulgate tradition. The official tradition is represented by Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander. Though it was not written until the second century A.D., Arrian’s work draws upon eyewitnesses, primarily Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and is accorded greater legitimacy than other sources.  The vulgate tradition is composed of works that draw upon sources that were not eyewitnesses. Two of the most prominent authors within this tradition are Diodorus Siculus (first century B.C.) and Quintus Curtius Rufus (first century A.D.).

But among the other surviving historical sources, there is an author who is rarely referenced except to be discounted. Josephus (A.D. 37-c. 100) was a Jewish statesman and soldier high in the esteem of the emperors Vespasian and Titus and the author of two historical works for a Roman audience: Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. In Book XI of the latter work, Alexander emerges without preface, having crossed the Hellespont, won his first victory at the Granicus River, and subdued Asia Minor. Unlike other sources, Alexander is not the focus of Josephus’ work—not even of the small segment of it in which he appears. The great conqueror is woven into another story, taking center stage only when he intersects the history of the Jewish people.  Among the historians, Josephus alone reports this interaction, and he alone records that Alexander visited Jerusalem.

Alexander in Josephus

The story in which Alexander intervenes is concerned with Jewish national and religious identity. At the time of Alexander’s advent in Asia, Jaddua is the high priest of the temple at Jerusalem. Jaddua’s brother, Manasseh, was married to a Samaritan woman, a people with whom the Jews had long had a problematic relationship. The elders of the city, concerned that such a union in close proximity to the highest office could renew intermarriage with foreigners, commanded Manasseh to divorce his wife. Rather than be deprived of sacerdotal dignity, he agreed. But his father-in-law—Sanballat, Governor of Samaria—sought to dissuade him. Sanballat promised to build a new temple upon Mount Gerizim and to make Manasseh the high priest. But this promise could only be fulfilled with the approval and support of Darius III, the Great King of Persia. In this way, the long-standing division between the Jews and the Samaritans comes into contact with the fresh conflict between Darius and Alexander.

Alexander’s victory at the Granicus River (334 B.C.) and march through Asia Minor roused Darius to check the invader’s advance, eventually offering battle at Issus in Cilicia (333 B.C.). Supremely confident of Persian victory and the celebratory generosity that would presumably follow, Sanballat renewed his promises to Manasseh, but the Persians were crushed at Issus. Alexander continued his forward march into Syria. While besieging Tyre, he dispatched a letter to the Jewish high priest, commanding him to send men and provisions and in the future to remit whatever taxes he had previously given Darius to himself. Jaddua responded boldly that he had given his oath to Darius to never oppose him and that he would not break his word. Angered by this response, Alexander threatened to teach the high priest the realities of the new situation. Tyre fell after seven months of siege, and Alexander attacked the city of Gaza, the last holdout along the coast.

Sanballat, perceiving opportunity, had renounced Darius and marched to Alexander at Tyre with seven thousand men and pledged his loyalty. Received kindly, Sanballat pressed the matter of the new temple upon Alexander, arguing that it would be to the conqueror’s benefit to have the Jews divided and so less troublesome. Alexander granted his request, and Sanballat returned to Samaria, built the temple and installed his son-in-law as high priest.

When Gaza fell, Alexander turned his attention to Jerusalem. Jaddua, the high priest, was in great fear because he had refused Alexander’s commands. He ordained that the people should make supplication to Alexander while beseeching God for His protection. God told him in a dream to be of good courage, open the city gates, and go forth with the priests to meet Alexander in all the trappings of their order.

As the conqueror approached, the priests and a multitude of citizens went forth to meet him. The Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Syrians who accompanied Alexander expected the Jews to be punished for their disobedience, the high priest tortured, and Jerusalem given to them to plunder. They were amazed when Alexander saluted the high priest and adored the name of the Hebrew God. But only Parmenio, Alexander’s longest-serving general, dared to ask the king why he had done these things.  Alexander explained that while still in Macedonia a man dressed exactly as the high priest had exhorted him in a dream to press forward boldly and that he would be granted victory.

Alexander entered Jerusalem and sacrificed at the temple according to the high priest’s direction. He was then shown the Book of Daniel and was told it indicated that a Greek would destroy the empire of the Persians, which he took to be a reference to himself. Thereupon Alexander granted the Jews favors: they would be governed by the laws of their forefathers (extended also to the Jews living in Babylon and Media) and would pay no tribute on the seventh year.

Though it is unique, there is nothing in Josephus’ narrative that contradicts what is found in other accepted Alexander accounts and much that is an accord with those accounts.

Timing, Strategy, and Policy

Despite Alexander’s irritation with Jaddua, going on to besiege Gaza instead of proceeding directly to Jerusalem lines up with what we know of Alexander’s strategy. As elaborated by Arrian, he intended to seize the coast, securing Greece against Persian interference and buttressing the march into the heart of the Persian Empire. Persian-controlled Gaza was the last city on the road to Egypt, which he was also determined to control.

Arrian records that from Gaza Alexander started directly for Egypt, a march which took six days. There is no mention of any intervening journeys in Diodorus or Curtius either—though these descriptions are very terse. We are left with a seeming open contradiction between the accepted writers and Josephus. But when did this six-day journey begin. Immediately? The journey to Jerusalem from Gaza is only fifty miles. Alexander could have easily gone and returned during the period necessary to prepare his forces for the desert march. Further, side missions with smaller, specialized units apart from the main army were common in Alexander’s campaigns. 

Alexander would have seen the journey as valuable, even necessary. He was concerned not merely with conquering but with setting up a sustainable governing structure in Asia. He intended no mere hit-and-run raid, but a steady, ordered conquest that replaced the rule of the Great King with his own. As a result, he was concerned to transfer the loyalties of the people he encountered to himself. When they resisted, he subdued them by force, but it should not be forgotten how often Alexander tried to avoid battle and destruction through forceful diplomacy. If Josephus is rejected, how do we explain Alexander exhibiting no concern for Jewish acceptance of his rule?

Further, Alexander’s concessions to the Jews described by Josephus are similar to his treatment of other peoples. As he marched through Asia Minor, the liberated Greeks were freed from taxes paid to the Great King, but many of them still had to pay tribute to their new Macedonian satraps. The cities in Carian Magnesia, Aeolia, and Ionia were permitted to retain their own laws. The Sabbath-year exception is unique but in conformity with Alexander’s willingness to work within established religious traditions.

Finally, Parmenio’s questioning of Alexander’s actions matches up with his behavior in other sources. Parmenio was the most able of his generals, whose talents were crucial to Alexander’s victories. He was also the one commander who dared to question or challenge Alexander. He advised against crossing the Granicus River in the face of the enemy, he urged a naval engagement along the Ionian coast, he recommended a night attack before the decisive battle of Gaugamela, and he counseled against the burning of the palace of the Persian kings at Persepolis.

Dreams and Wonders

Alexander’s explanation that he had seen the high priest before in a dream that prophesied his success has parallels in other Alexander accounts. One expects Plutarch’s inclusion of Alexander’s parents’ portentous dreams indicating the exceptional nature of the future child. But even the hard-headed Arrian reports that Alexander’s determination to conquer the city of Tyre was fortified by a dream in which Heracles led him by the hand into the city, and that divine influence over the conqueror’s life was indicated by dreams prophesying his death. Alexander sought favorable signs from the gods before all his major actions and decisions, and the final year of his life was heavy with omens.

The prophecy of Daniel would have been very attractive to Alexander; he was always looking for propaganda points to advance his agenda. Alexander’s propaganda offensive had two prongs. First, he maintained that his conquest was a Panhellenic crusade to avenge the wrongs done to the Greeks by the Persians and sought out means to reinforce this idea. One example in particular illustrates this: Alexander sent three hundred sets of Persian armor captured at the Granicus as a votive offering to Athena to remind the Athenians of the burning of their temples by the Persians in 480 B.C.

The second prong of Alexander’s propaganda campaign was aimed at encouraging the idea of the inevitability of his rule among the inhabitants of Asia.  This was the purpose that led him to seek out opportunities like the Gordian Knot which, attended by a prophecy that whosoever should undo it would be lord of all Asia, was a propaganda point that could hardly be neglected. Alexander would certainly have welcomed the idea that the sacred book of the Jews prophesied his inevitable victory.

            Alexander was not hesitant to exploit religious belief to secure power. Throughout the sources, he exhibits an easy-going polytheism that allowed for the acceptance of foreign gods and played a prominent a role in the absorption of the conquered people into a vast, multi-ethnic empire. He repeatedly accepted, gave material support for, even entered into the worship of whatever gods he came across. In Egypt, he was proclaimed “beloved of Ammon and selected of Ra.”  In Babylon, he restored the worship of Bel-Marduk, sacrificing and undergoing the rite of investiture that proclaimed him divinely-sanctioned ruler. Alexander’s sacrifice at the Jewish temple falls easily in line with these.

Josephus Restored

            Why then is Josephus not accepted? The primary objection is that the visit to Jerusalem appears nowhere else and is therefore suspect. But is this consideration definitive? The sources are fragmentary. Arrian selected from primary sources we no longer have. No doubt he did so according to his own interests and design. Jerusalem may well have been discussed by Ptolemy or Aristobulus and not adopted because it departed from Arrian’s narrative purposes.

The charge is also made that Josephus is poisoned by bias against the Samaritans. While they do not behave particularly well, rejecting a report of bad behavior as necessarily false seems incompatible with even a cursory survey of history or human nature. The essential question is whether bias led to fabrication. But none of the events Josephus describes have been conclusively disproven.

Finally, there is disagreement about the date of composition of Daniel and whether its inclusion is an anachronism. This is the elephant in the room: those who do not accept the divine inspiration of Scripture cannot accept that a book describing Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire was written centuries before he was born. It must have been written after the events it relates. In that case, Alexander could not have been shown a book that was not written yet, and Josephus is discredited. If this doubt is the driving force behind the rejection of Josephus’ account, it has less to do with the reliability of Josephus than with the rejection of the Bible as the divinely inspired and revealed word of God—raising important questions about the role that presuppositions play in deciding what is accurate in historical sources.

But even from a purely historiographical view, should such a consideration invalidate the entire account? Arrian’s invented Alexandrian speeches and unverifiable letters have not seriously damaged his reputation as a reliable historical source. Without a new manuscript discovery, the sources for Alexander’s life are fixed. No one holds that any of them are completely reliable. Why should an author of respectable antiquity and reasonable historical pedigree be simply discounted? It is time that the visit to Jerusalem took its place in the story of Alexander the Great.