Talk:Syriac Alexander Legend

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alexander Romance?

This article used to say that it was independent of the Alexander Romance. It now says that it is a recension in the tradition of the Greek Alexander Romance. @Pogenplain and Wiqi55: I feel like there must be some confusion here. I believe the current text is correct, based on the GEDSH article Alexander Cycle. The article Alexander Romance mentions all the Syriac Alexander works, which I think is quite unhelpful. Better to spin off a "Alexander legends in Syriac" article or something like the GEDSH article. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First GEDSH entry is on Syriac translation of Pseudo-Callisthenes / Syriac Alexander Romance which is not the same as the Syriac Alexander Legend / Exploits of Alexander / Neshana (covered in the 3rd entry of GEDSH w/o mentioning source language). I will hopefully make a page in the next few days about that text which, with the Neshana page and the Song of Alexander page, will cover all the notable Syriac-language Alexander texts. But youre right the GEDSH mentions a bunch more Syriac texts about Alexander. These are not individually notable so an Alexander legends in Syriac page would be helpful. But maybe it should be named in a way that is closer to the name of the pages Alexander the Great in legend or Alexander the Great in Islamic tradition. We could call it Alexander the Great in Syriac legend and then move Alexander the Great in Islamic tradition to Alexander the Great in Islamic legend so that their names all match. Pogenplain (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede confuses the Syriac Romance with the Syriac Legend. Some of the claims added recently are actually about the Romance and not the Legend. For example, the embassy to China is found only in the Romance. We also shouldn't use "a recension of X" unless sources support that usage. Wiqi⁵⁵ 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pogenplain: I think "tradition" is better in both cases than "legend" (but it could go either way), but I agree the titles should match. I'd propose Alexander the Great in Syriac tradition. Your first comment doesn't make sense to me, since the claim that Nöldeke has influentially argued that the Legend was translated from a now-lost Middle Persian (Pahlavi) original clearly matches GEDSH #1, while GEDSH #3 is not clearly Pseudo-Callisthenian. So I think Wiqi55 is correct that there has been conflation here. @Wiqi55: The article still says in the tradition of the Greek Alexander Romance. Is that correct? Is the Legend/"exploits" text based at all on Pseudo-Callisthenes? Srnec (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous lede ("independent of the Alexander Romance") was more accurate. Recently Tommaso Tesei (2024, p.10) emphasized a similar viewpoint:

it is noticeable that only a very limited number of elements in the Neṣḥānā echo elements found in those recensions of the Romance that antedate its composition. In the end, it is important to stress that the Neṣḥānā is a completely separate work from the Alexander Romance.

For article titles, "tradition" and "Arabic" (over "Islamic") is more commonly used and matches with the Syriac. Wiqi⁵⁵ 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes when I rewrote the lead several days ago I mixed up the Romance and Legend. I'll correct the lead after making Syriac Alexander Romance. Ill also agree with "tradition" over "legend" in titles of new pages. Tesei, 2023, pg. 10 is compelling that the Neshana is independent of Greek Romance. But there is one issue: renaming Alexander the Great in Islamic tradition to Alexander the Great in Arabic tradition conflicts with the former containing traditions in Arabic, Persian, Andalusian, Central Asian, and Malaysian traditions. Instead of splitting this page into 5 or more we can just make Alexander the Great in Christian tradition. A dedicated page, but separate page for Alexander in Arabic tradition is also a good idea. We can have pages both about Alexander traditions in specific languages (Syriac, Arabic) and specific religions (Islam, Christianity). Pogenplain (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be disagreement on the relationship between the Neshana and Greek Romance. Tesei says it is a "completely" separate work, but Monferrer-Sala, "Alexander the Great in the Syriac Literary Tradition" pg. 55 calls it a "substantially reshaped form of the Alexander romance". Pogenplain (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]