A.'s idea is a fascinating one: to link the two most famous figures of our past and show how the meme-plex (the terminology is taken from the theory of memes as expounded in R. Dawking, The Selfish Gene 2 [1989], 1st ed. 1976) of the first one influenced the shaping of the second one.
More than half of the book deals with a motif about which much has been written and discussed, although not yet in such a systematic way: the relation between Alexander and his mythical ancestor Heracles, which is the fulcrum of the man Alexander and the divine Alexander. The Macedonian had been close to Heracles from the very beginning of his life. Heracles was the ancestor of the Royal Argead family and became Alexander's constant reference point during the expedition in Asia (Chapter 1). The king did not pass up any opportunity to sacrifice to Heracles or to repeat what he was said to have done. The desire to honour the hero explains Alexander's anger at Tyre when his request to sacrifice to Heracles was refused. The siege of the city is likewise justified by divine intervention: Alexander dreamt that Heracles beckoned him onto the island. Alexander resolved on diverting to Siwah, where he received, according to tradition, the confirmation of his divine nature, because Heracles and Perseus had preceded him there. How Alexander followed further in the footsteps of Heracles and his inspired gestures is illustrated in Chapter 2: the barbaric punishment of Bessus compared to Heracles' mutilation of the envoys of Erginus, the search for water at the Oxus compared to Heracles' expertise in finding water, and the hunt in the animal sanctuary compared to Heracles' frequent battles with wild beasts.
Chapter 3 is related to Alexander's experiences in India. His Greek predecessors here had been Heracles and Dionysus. Alexander even gained an advantage over his ancestor at Aornus, which the hero had failed to capture. In the context of the campaign against the Malloi and the Oxydrakai we find the last reference to Heracles: it might be reasoned, says A., that ‘after Alexander turned back westward there was no more need for the trailblazing Herakles’ (p. 54).
But in Chapter 4 A. adds even more details taken from Alexander's final banquet, his birth legend, the episode with the Pythia at Delphi and other anecdotes, which encourage constant comparison between Alexander and his hero. After examining Alexander's fervent admiration of Heracles so fully, A. notices, and this is most original, that Alexander's legend also influenced Heracles' legend: the meme does work in multiple directions.
Chapter 5 deals with the meeting between Alexander and the Amazons. This myth originated because both Heracles and Achilles had met the Amazons. In this context Alexander's behaviour appears to be in contrast to that of his predecessors: it does not feature hostility but rather familiarity. According to A. this is a product of ancient propaganda and particularly of the adherence of the historians to the dream of a peaceful world unified by Alexander.
Alexander's successors are the subjects of Chapter 6. Perdiccas, Ptolemy, Eumenes, Demetrius and Seleucus all contributed greatly to the formation of the Alexander meme-plex, using it for their own ends. Unlike the Ptolemies, who could take advantage of a long-established religious tradition in Egypt, the Seleucids had to invent a new one and Alexander's pathway to divinity was the obvious model for them. In Chapter 7 A. reports how Alexander appeared in the Jewish tradition, showing that ‘The memory and myth of Alexander … form an integral part of Jewish eschatological thought’ (p. 122), even though with differences. While a positive attitude is to be found in Josephus, with Alexander as the protector of Israel against Gog and the hordes of the North according to the prophecy of Ezechiel, Alexander's presence is quite sinister in the book of Daniel, and unable to be judged in the Seder Olam and in the later Midrash of Ten Kings, where Alexander's kingdom precedes the kingdom of God.
In Chapter 8 and in the conclusion the new focus is Jesus. According to A., there are much more significant aspects in the Alexander–Jesus equation than the traditionally cited coincidence that both died at the age of 33. These are ‘Divine Sonship, dual paternity, virgin birth, moral choice in the face of Temptation, world rule, Mission for the benefit of humankind, death at a young age before the Mission is complete and, finally, apotheosis’ (p. 125). Other motifs which offer a connection are the journey to India, which according to a later myth was also visited by Jesus, and the resurrection, which also concerned Alexander, as referred to by Cassius Dio. This is a sign of the reverse influence of Jesus on Alexander, parallel to that of Heracles on Alexander, which was able to transform the emblem of war into ‘a beacon of proper education’ (p. 150).
The book includes three appendices, the first of which argues for the similarities between Alexander and David. This might have encouraged first-century a.d. Jews to link Alexander with Jesus, who was acclaimed as the son of David. Appendix 2 shows that Heracles was not the only divine model for Alexander but that other religious matters must also be taken into consideration. In Appendix 3 A. looks at the references to drinking in the histories of Alexander; the connection with A.'s topic is in this case quite obscure.
It is not A.'s aim to distinguish history from legend, since both the historical Alexander and the mythical Alexander made the Alexander meme-plex. However, A. does ascribe to the man Alexander prerogatives which are at least questionable, showing some lack of criticism. To give an example, it is implicit for him that Alexander ‘historicus’ from the visit of Siwah onwards claimed to be considered a god: no sign of the literature against such an idea is to be found (A. Collins, ‘The Divinity of Alexander in Egypt: a Reassessment’, in Wheatley and Hannah [2009], pp. 179–205 or B. Dreyer, ‘Heroes, Cults and Divinity’, in Heckel and Tritle [2009], pp. 218–34). It is also true that A.'s thesis would still work if he attributed less to the history and more to the legend. It was the idea of Alexander's divinity as son of Zeus, either self-proclaimed or not, which influenced the shaping of the divinity of Jesus. An idea which, let us not forget, was extremely useful for Alexander's successors in legitimising their power.
The goal of comparing Alexander and Jesus Christ is very ambitious, as it involves the two main figures of our past, and demands the reading of different sources and a large amount of literature. Most of A.'s book is on Alexander, and its major contribution is to furnish a very detailed and complete analysis of the relations between Heracles and Alexander (and Alexander and Heracles). This author is in agreement with A.'s argument that the Alexander meme-plex did influence the construction of the mythical Jesus. It could, however, be questioned whether mediation through Alexander was always necessary: it is possible that, in some cases, the heroic figures of the past contributed to the Jesus meme-plex independently.
