The post-Alexander world would return to his character over and over, to illustrate a number of various and conflicting features. The king would obviously be recalled by numerous Greek and Roman writers in their works, but the reflected memory of his deeds and life was preserved in the histories of numerous other cultures, and not necessarily only the ones that he personally encountered. The Jews, the majority of whom lived on the lands conquered by Alexander andwho were directly affected by his actions, were one of these cultures. Sometimes under the influence of other traditions and sometimes independently, Alexander’s story was also told by, and for, the Jews. In fact, it started to be distributed in the Jewish circles very early on. The earliest written accounts on Alexander in Jewish tradition are older than the ones we have preserved from the Greco-Roman world. They start with the appearance of Alexander in the historical and prophetic narratives of the Second Temple period. In one of the most recognizable prophetic biblical passages, the Book of Daniel represents Alexander as a warrior he-goat conquering the previous imperial power and ruling over the world; in a similar context he appears in Book iii of the Sibylline Oracles, one of the parts of the Oracles that was quite certainly composed in the Jewish milieu. Alexander’s image in 1Maccabees, presented in short but poignant passages, is similarly connected with power, but set within a rather negative context of the rise of hubristic and inimical power of the Seleucid state. The fragmentarily preserved treatiseOntheJews by pseudo-Hecataeus also recalls, in a number of passages, the person and deeds of Alexander, presenting him in the context of the Jews and their obedience to the Law.

1. Later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, the character of the Macedonian king became an object of special interest for Josephus, who mentions him a number of times in his works and devotes to him an important chapter in Book xi of his Jewish Antiquities.
2. There is a set of rather fascinating stories about Alexander in the Talmud and in the Midrashic narratives. Some of the episodes repeat the stories known from Greek and Roman sources, but often with differences in details or with different focus and meaning, and it is a common consensus that they stem rather from an independent oral source than from a reworking of a literary Greek text. Such is the story in the tractate Tamid 31b–32a (Alexander in dispute with the Elders of the South, an equivalent of the disputation with the Gymnosophists, found in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander 64–65 and in the Romance iii, 6). Other cases include the Talmudic versions of narratives known otherwise from different Jewish sources, like the story of Alexander in Jerusalem, appearing both in Josephus and in the Rabbinic tradition (Megillat Taʾanit 9, Yoma 69a, Genesis Rabbah lxi, 7) or those shared (often with changes included) with the Romance tradition: Tamid 32a contains the stories of Alexander’s journey to the land of darkness, of his encounter with the Amazons and of Alexander at the gates of paradise, all of which appear also in the Romance (The Land of Darkness: Alexander Romance β ii, 39–41; see also Iter ad paradisum; the Amazons: iii, 25–26).

Other material in common for the Romance and Rabbinic writings includes the stories of Alexander’s ascent into the air (Abodah Zarah iii, 1, 42c, Numbers Rabbah 13, 4, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 11, 28b–29a, Yalkut Shimoni to 1Kings, 18) and his descent to the bottom of the sea (Midrash Tehilim Ps. 93, 5, Yalkut Shimoni Ps. 93, 848; Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 11, 28b–29a, Yalkut Shimoni to 1Kings, 18). Among the stories there are also some that do not have a direct equivalent in the existing Greek Alexander literature such as the story of the King of Kazia, present in a number of version in Talmudic literature (Baba Mezia ii, 5, 8c; Genesis Rabbah 33, 1; Pesikta de-Reb Kahana 9, 24; Leviticus Rabbah 27, 1; Midrash Tanhuma Emor 6, Yalkut Shimoni Ps. 36, 727), the story of the throne of Solomon (Targum Sheni i, 2) and the narrative about the bones of the prophet Jeremiah (Midrash Haggadah Numbers, 30, 15). In the late Middle Ages (12th–14th c.), a number of Hebrew versions of the Alexander Romance emerged. They differ very much between one another and it is enough to compare the (relatively) sober account of Sefer Toledot Alexandros Ha-Makdoni by Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfils with the fanciful and utterly fantastic set of stories presented in the Oxford and Modena versions and in the lost Damascus one; the latter are, conversely, different still from the versions known from mss Paris and London as well as from the passages in Yosippon, originating from the Romance. The Hebrew versions of the Romance are an interesting case for a study: as much as they do differ from one another, they nevertheless each form a part of a large transcultural tradition, constantly incorporating, appropriating and reworking themes and motifs, while being grounded, at the same time, in a set of common core characters and stories. Thus, they allow a careful reader to observe both continuity and change in the development of each of the Hebrew Romances and to determine to what extent the continued and the changed is connected with the demands of the social, cultural and generic conditions of its origins.

Specifically, the figure of Alexander is used here to mark a beginning of a new era. With his conquest, a new epoch of rule and rulers starts. The passage lists a number of names of persons, peoples and places—Alexander, Philip, Darius, Macedon, Greece, Kittim, Persians, Medes—as well as sequence of nameless nations, countries, princes and kings (βασιλεῖς, τύραννοι). Their presence, together with the fact that they are used to delineate dynastic and geographical relations, carefully places the events following in the subsequent chapters in time and space. The image of Alexander as a universal ruler is combined here with a suggestion that Alexander’s hubristic rule (line 3:ἐπήρθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ) is only a starting point of the deteriorating sequence of kings. After Alexander hands down his power to his παῖδες, officers-successors (line 6), they start their own period of rule over the conquered lands (line 8), subsequently becoming kings (line 9) and starting their own dynasties (line 9). The evil suggested in the description of Alexander’s hubris is spelled out clearly when the generation of his successors’ descendants is mentioned. The concept of evil inherent in the rule of the Kittim kings is finally declared when, in line 10, we come to the sinful root, Antiochus iv Epiphanes, who is to be the main villain of the historic-propagandistic tale ahead of us. The initial part of 1Maccabees forms a narrative sequence which links two kings: Alexander and Antiochus, via the successors who are not named but whose identities must have been perceived as obvious. The kings ruling between Alexander and Antiochus are steps in the progression of evil: Alexander’s conquest and his rule over the oikoumene, presented in v. 1–9, seems to acquire new and sinister meaning here.

1. He becomes a precursor and beginner, a symbolic father, through his παῖδες, of generations of wicked kings that ended in the most malicious king of all. The construction of 1Maccabees points at the validity of such a role ascribed to the Macedonian king.
2. When seen with this in mind, the presence of Alexander in 1Maccabees, albeit small, turns out to be rather significant. At the same time his role here is limited: in addition to being a universal ruler and a king par excellence, he serves also as a figure delimiting an era with his arrival and starting a line of succession of (evil) kings, a progression of wickedness. The notion that Alexander’s reign started a new era in history, particularly Jewish history, will later appear very often in Jewish and Christian writings. Amitay in his discussion on Alexander and the end of prophecy (Ory Amitay, From Alexander to Jesus, 112–113) recalls two passage from previously discussed 1Maccabees. One of them is 14:41, the other is 44–46. Both these passages imply that in the time of the Maccabees it was commonly believed that true prophets no longer appeared among the Jews. While nowhere in the 1Maccabees is it explicitly stated that it was in the time of Alexander that prophetic activity ended, the later works prove the existence of such a notion at least among the Jewish intellectual elite in the 1st c. ce. It is worth recalling, in this context, the following passage from Seder Olam (Seder Olam 30), a Rabbinic text of clearly chronographic character, which interprets biblical material in order to make it possible to clearly describe the history (understood as dating and periodization) of the Jewish people. The presence of Alexander in Seder Olam is connected clearly with the main purpose of the book.

1. On the debate whether the prophecy did end in the Second Temple period see e.g.: Benjamin D. Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation”, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 1, Spring, 1996, 31–47, with extended bibliography in the text.
2. Prophecy in Daniel

Firstly, he is named as the king under whose rule the period of prophecy in Israel ended and the times of the wise men began. His coming is predicted by the prophecy of Daniel—once more it becomes quite obvious that Daniel’s vision is crucial for the presence of this aspect of Alexander in Jewish tradition; later on the author of the chronology passes to the discussion of the times of Alexander and the end of prophecy. The words quoted above spell it out quite clearly: until the time of Alexander, Israel had prophets whose words the people could follow. The era of the prophets ended with Alexander and with him the times of the sages started. Amitay (Amitay, From Alexander to Jesus, 110–112) states—absolutely rightly, in my opinion—that the association of Alexander with the temporal end of prophecy situates him right in the middle of a crucial historiosophical concept. This special role of Alexander as a king associated with the prophetic vision and at the same time with World Empire is most famously explained in the Book of Daniel. In fact, in all probability Alexander’s eschatological associations in Jewish literature of the period could be linked to his appearance in the prophecy in the Book of Daniel. The complicated history of its creation makes it rather difficult to date the Alexander material that it contains. Anyway, the prophecy of Daniel which sees Alexander and his state as one of the world empires became—due to Daniel’s status within both Jewish and Christian biblical canon—the second among Jewish narratives on Alexander, as far as its influence within Jewish culture and outside of it is concerned.

1. There are three visions in Daniel which could be associated, to some degree, with Macedonian empire and/or Alexander. In Daniel 2:31–45, the king’s vision of the mighty statue made of mixed materials is interpreted—after the failure of other prophets—by Daniel as pertaining to the succession of world empires; elsewhere in the prophecy, as we know, one of the world empires is clearly associated with Macedonia, so it is not impossible that a similar association is present here. The second vision, in Daniel 7, describes another apocalyptic scene, four mythical beasts coming out of the sea.
2. This beast, different from the rest, is quite universally interpreted as signifying the Hellenistic, post-Macedonian kingdoms. The crucial vision, however is the one in Daniel 8. It describes two creatures, a ram and a goat, fighting. The hegoat, having won the fight, grows exceedingly great, but during this process of growth his biggest horn breaks apart and is replaced by four smaller ones. All these developments are cruel and hubristic, and despite their ostensible power, ultimately destined to fall. If the main motif of this part of the prophecy seems to be the growth of human world empires, the underlying theme is that of God’s power and his ultimate triumph over the imperial creations of men. The pride of Alexander—a vice of his mentioned also in 1Maccabees—appears also here as a quality ascribed to both him and his kingdom. The visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are focused quite clearly on the final result of what we see—that is, on Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution of the Jews. The confrontation between the kingdom of Epiphanes and its forerunners, the world empires with special attention paid to Alexander, is undoubtedly one of the major themes in these passages. And while in the prophecies of Daniel the sequence of empires is of crucial importance, the arrival of Alexander is marked as a special event, or at least a central one in a sequence of events. A similarity of concept with 1Maccabees and with its idea of Alexander as a starting point of a period of time which would end with the ascension of Antiochus and finally, in the long term, lead to the triumph of God and the end of days, seems quite important here.

1. The apocalyptic visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are strongly rooted in the politics of the day (even if they strive to present themselves as prophecies), but at the same time they reach beyond, in time and space, and create a link between the era that started with Alexander (or with his antecedent, the Persian empire) and would last until the kingdom of God. The prophetic vision concerning the rule—and role—of Alexander in Jewish history appears also in one of the notoriously problematic texts of the Second Temple period, namely the Sibylline Oracles.
2. In the passage from Book iii, devoted to Macedon and Alexander, the first thing that draws attention are certain motifs in common with the image in Daniel 7. The image of the Diadochi as horns, with the one on the side finally triumphing and taking power, is one of these common motifs; the division of history into four periods ruled by four empires is another. Of greater interest here is a general setting of the prophecy and its character, visible especially well in the broader context of the book. Typical for the Oracula Sibyllina is the kind of prophecy that suggests inevitable disasters to come in a determined and defined future. The section in Sibylline 3 containing the prophecy on Alexander (lines 295–488) deals mainly with the punishments for various nations. Among them the author/redactor of the book placed also Macedon, represented mainly by Alexander. The description of Macedonians as descendants of Cronus associates them directly with universal dominion, bravery—and cruel wars. This generalized portrayal serves as a link between the description of Macedonians’ ancestor, Cronus, and their most famous, and, within the frame of the prophecy, most representative scion, Alexander himself. The Alexander prophecy does not follow the introductory statement on the Macedonians directly. The current redaction of the book has these two portions separated: the initial prophecy on the historical roles and fates of various nations, including the Macedonians, is only later expanded in a series of prophetic utterances on their destinies. The second part of the prophecy starts in v. 295. It discusses terrible fates threatening various nations, among them the Macedonians. Alexander is then introduced as a Macedonian king.

Another narrative which might associate Alexander with eschatological themes and with marking beginnings/ends of historical periods is the story of the gate of Alexander and of the Unclean People locked behind it. The story of the gate (or wall) of Alexander is a staple feature of the Alexander Romance— and, since the Jewish versions of the Romance are, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on the other, especially Arabic, Syriac and Latin ones, it is only to be expected that the story would find its way also into the Hebrew Romance tradition. Alexander’s role as the founder of what became known as the Gates of Alexander and, in more general terms, as the one who defends the Unclean Nations/Gog and Magog is one of the crucial parts associated with him in Medieval literature and culture. In the episode Alexander defeats the nations of Goth, Magoth and their twenty associates and then, recognizing them as uncivilized, barbaric in their way of life and generally a threat to the order of things—a threat that could “come out and pollute the inhabited world” (Richard Stoneman, Greek Alexander, 187) — he prayed to God and asked for the two mountains, which were previously eighteen feet apart, to come close and permanently lock the passage. Alexander built a gate there and made it safe against fire and assault and then he planted the brambles all around so that the crossing of the game was even more difficult. The association of Alexander with defeating all kinds of dangerous monsters—a heroic activity par excellence ( Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great. A Life in Legend, 171–172) — is mentioned throughout the ancient sources on the conqueror, with episodes presenting such activity of the king set at various stages of his conquest. However, for the Jewish tradition (and, conversely, also for the Christian one) Alexander as the conqueror of evil is crucial mostly due to his association with the Unclean Nations and the Gate of Alexander.

1. The story as it is told in the γ recension of the Romance has a strong monotheistic colouring and its importance for the later tradition lies, it seems, in its biblical connotations. The story of Alexander’s encounter with the Unclean Nations was merged with the biblical narrative on Gog and Magog. These figures/names as such have an interesting if rather mysterious history and are known from a number of Hebrew Bible sources (Gog and Magog: Gen 10:2, Ezechiel 38:1–4) and some additional places in lxx (Bøe, Gog and Magog, on the insertion of Gog and Magog in Amos (pp. 61–70) and the lxx version of Ezechiel (133–135)), as well as from the Book of Revelations (Revelations 20:7–9).
2. It is particularly interesting that, according to Pfister (Friedrich Pfister, Kleine Schriften zum Alexanderroman, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie Heft 61), the very motif of the gate is of Jewish provenance (Josephus being the oldest source to quote it) and only from the Jewish tradition did it spread to the Christian and Islamic ones. Pfister’s belief in the Jewish origins of the motif is not universally shared: its provenance is a topic of debate among scholars and not everyone agrees with Pfister’s assessment of the concept as Jewish in origins (A.R. Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (Cambridge, ma) 1932). It seems rather reasonable to believe that whatever its origins were, it has gained importance mainly due to its Christian elaborations, most notably Pseudo-Methodius. It is to a great extent through his Apocalypse that the Gog and Magog story became associated with the gate of Alexander motif and took on eschatological proportions and meanings. From there on, it has found its way into the γ recension of the Alexander Romanceto become, in time, one of the universally known narratives in Medieval Europe. The case of Jewish culture is, in this case, rather intriguing. The association of Alexander with the iron gate built somewhere at the supposed end of the world is present already in Josephus (Bellum, vii, 244–245). Josephus’ comment on the gate is brief and of minor importance for his entire narrative and it is only mentioned here to show that the inclusion of the gate of Alexander motif in Jewish tradition reaches rather far into the past.

The story of the gate of Alexander has also made its way into the Jewish versions of the Alexander Romance. However, it is rather surprising to notice that the apocalyptic associations are nearly absent from these particular renditions of the Romance and that the Gog and Magog associations are not a part of the story in its Jewish versions. Also interesting is the fact that the most fanciful and fantastic of the Hebrew Romance versions, listed by scholars in the type 3 of Romances, the Gog and Magog/Gate of Alexander narrative does not, in fact, appear. These texts, quite specific and very original in their selection of the Alexander material, abound in fantastic elements and motifs; however, the story of the gate of Alexander has not been included here. In the Sefer Toledot Alexandros ha-Makdoni, the translation of Romance made by Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfil, the episode with the gate is quite elaborated. Having seized the Persian crown and married Roxane, Alexander assembles his forces and moves against the people of Hyrcania and Milyas (most probably Lycia or Caria). In fighting them, he encounters a “despised and lowly people” (Kazis, Sefer Toledot, p. 114), skilled in magic and prone to all kinds of transgressions, most of all dealing with impurity (they eat forbidden things, they do not bury their dead, and they practice cannibalism). They are, at the same time, rather formidable enemies, mostly because they instil fear in the hearts of the Macedonian and Persian warrior. Alexander makes them gather together with their wives and children and then commands that they must be lead to the valley in the north, situated between two mountains, high enough to reach the heavens. Then he constructs a building between the mountains and there, beyond the “bronze gates and iron bars”, he locks the conquered nation before proceeding to the Caspian Gates and to the war against the Albanian

The version of the narrative is slightly different in the London (ms London, 36) and Paris (ms Paris 260a) manuscripts, representing a different variation of the Hebrew Alexander Romance.

1. The story of the gate of Alexander in the Jewish versions of the Romance remains associated rather with certain geographical and historical facts than with the end of days and biblical enemies of God. If we want to look for the eschatological significance of Alexander—significance often ascribed in other sources to him building the gate and locking the Unclean Nations there until the last days—we need to look, as far as the Jewish literature is concerned, rather at Alexander’s associations with the end of prophecy or the beginning of the new world empire, and thus with a change of an era, rather than at the Unclean Nations episode.
2. Alexander & Cyrus
3. The second important motif in Jewish culture’s appraisal of Alexander is his image as a universal king, whose dominion and power exceeds the limitations of other rulers. Alexander’s association with prophecy, especially with Daniel’s prophetic visions, as well as with the End of Days weighs heavily on his image as the universal king in Jewish tradition. The prophecy situates him within the ranks of kings whose position is rather special, those whose rule encompasses the entire world. The apocalyptic qualities of Alexander’s reign, positioning him often as the last of the world rulers and linking his dominion and his actions, such as the enclosing of the Unclean Nations, make his a special case among the kings in Jewish tradition. Of special importance for the representations of Alexander, with which we want to deal here, is the biblical idea of a benevolent foreign king, ruling, by God’s will, the world empire, part of which is Israel. The idea itself is not always, as Gruen proves, treated with full reverence: more often the not, she notes, the images of powerful foreign rulers controlling Israel (Cyrus, Alexander) can be read with more than a little subversive irony: they are tools in the hands of God, but no more than tools, indeed, and without God and without their Jewish advisors it is not much than they actually could do ( Erich S. Gruen, “Persia through the Jewish Looking-Glass”, in Rajak et al., pp. 53–75).

The biblical representation of Cyrus share a number of features with those of Alexander: both are seen as chosen by God and, in fact, instruments in His hands (Cyrus: Isaiah 41:2, 25, ‘Alexander as God’ chosen appears in virtually every version of the Jerusalem narrative, regardless of the level of details). Just like in the case of Alexander, led by God’s will and foretold in prophecy, Cyrus owes his own elevation and triumph to God’s will and God’s decision. Alexander is also often put in common context with Cyrus—albeit, in this case, not Cyrus alone—whenJewish writings discuss the question of universal kings, ruling over the entire world. Both the Macedonian conqueror and the founder of Achaemenid Empire are usually found on such lists, among other rulers of similar qualities. Another king who is often assimilated with Alexander in Jewish tradition of the period is Solomon. An indirect comparison of the two appears in Targum Sheni i, 2, as Alexander obtains the marvellous throne of Solomon. It has previously been owned by a sequence of universal kings: Solomon, for whom the throne was made by Hiram of Tyre, was replaced by Ahasuerus the king of Persia, who was in turn followed by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, later by Alexander the Great and after him, by a curious sequence of quasi-historical rulers. The changing possession of Solomon’s throne corresponds to the shifting powers and the change in the role of dominant world empire.

1. Solomon and Alexander(edited)
2. Direct similarities between Alexander and Solomon in Jewish legends and in Romance were noted by Rosalie Reich in her introduction to Sefer Aleksandros (Reich, Tales of Alexander, 9–13). The parallels that she notes are numerous and not all of them seem convincing; the filicide case, comparing Solomon’s mother wish to kill her son for the offensive remarks he made on women with the plan of Alexander’s mother who wants to kill him to give the throne to her son born legally of Philip, seems especially implausible. Some of the parallels however, are undoubted and rather fascinating. Among these of special interest is the fact that both Solomon and Alexander are associated with the journey towards the mountain of darkness or the short mention of Alexander handing to the citizen of Jerusalem the amounts of gold not seen in the city since the times of Solomon son of David (the last example is present in the text but missed by Reich in her summary of Alexander-Solomon parallels). Reich concludes her comments by stating that the attributes of Solomon, known from Talmud and Midrash, were transferred and used in creating the portrayal of Alexander. One wonders, however, if in some of the cases the reverse was not true and if the legends of Alexander could have been a significant influence in forming some elements of the later Solomonic legends.

The idea of the universal rule of Alexander also appears in theJewish sources very early on: it can be traced back to 1Macc., chronologically one of the earliest Jewish sources on Alexander, and is later continued throughout Jewish Alexander literature. In 1Macc. 1–10 Alexander’s characteristic as a universal ruler and king of all the world also appears. It is combined with certain features of an evil tyrant, the king who is also an oppressor and an enemy of the Jews. Alexander the king inherits royal power from his father, (l. 1), vests it on others (l. 6); he uses it to successfully conquer many nations, in short—the entire world (l. 1–3). All this achievements make his proud beyond measure and— what is suggested, but not stated expressly—brought about his downfall. The idea of the universal rule of Alexander also appears in theJewish sources very early on: it can be traced back to 1Macc., chronologically one of the earliest Jewish sources on Alexander, and is later continued throughout Jewish Alexander literature. In 1Macc. 1–10 Alexander’s characteristic as a universal ruler and king of all the world also appears. It is combined with certain features of an evil tyrant, the king who is also an oppressor and an enemy of the Jews. Alexander the king inherits royal power from his father, (l. 1), vests it on others (l. 6); he uses it to successfully conquer many nations, in short—the entire world (l. 1–3). All this achievements make his proud beyond measure and— what is suggested, but not stated expressly—brought about his downfall.

The whole sequence of Tamid stories concerning Alexander points, infact, at various failures of Alexander. He, in general, loses the debate with the Elders of Negev; he is slightly ridiculed in the episode with the Land of Darkness; he fails a quest for immortality, he is barred from entering the Paradise (with additional implications calling into question his very qualifications to rule) and he loses a debate with women. Moreover, his pothos is clearly shown in these scenes as something dangerous and distractive. Alexander’s character is used here in a rather ahistorical, fantastic context— which seems an important feature of Talmudic narratives on the Macedonian king and on Greek/Roman historical characters in general. The moralistic character of the tale is, however, juxtaposed with the political one: with a debate on royalty, royal power and its limits, when compared to the might of God. As in the case of other universal rulers, Alexander is shown here in ambiguous way: his power over the lands is indisputable, but once his ambitions compel him to compare himself to God, he is obviously doomed to fail.

Jewish tradition preserves a number of stories concerning the founding of Alexandria and already Friedrich Pfister ( F. Pfister, “Eine jüdische Gründungsgeschichte Alexandrias: Mit einem Anhang über Alexanders Besuch in Jerusalem”, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften 5, 1914, Abh. 11, 20–22) noted their similarity to the narrative in pseudo-Callisthenes γ (i 31–33). Some Jewish variants of the Romance preserve this story with certain variations. The narrative on Alexandria in mss London (12) and Paris (247a–b) is quite parallel. Jewish texts on Alexander contain also a number of stories concerning Alexander’s other activities, namely his meetings with various other royal figures, both historical and mythological. Many of them, like the story of Alexander’s wars with Darius and Porus, are based on historical accounts. Others, like the story of the Amazon queen, come from the common repository of legends concerning the Macedonian conqueror. Some, however, are specific to the Jewish culture.