Why doesn't the bible mention alexander the great?

why didnt the bible mention anything of Alexander the great if he lived in that time?

Alexander was briefly mentioned in the first Book of the Maccabees Chapter 1, verses 1-7. The following is a brief summary on how Alexander was portrayed in the Bible (RSV-CE version).

He was described as Alexander son of Philip the Macedonian. Defeated Darius, king of the Persians and succeeded him as king (Alexander previously became king of Greece). Fought many battles and advanced to the ends of the earth. He gathered a strong army and ruled over countries and nations. He fell sick and perceived that he was dying so he summoned his officers and divided his kingdom among them. After Alexander reigned for twelve years, he died.

Some believe that Alexander the Great was prophesied in the Bible in Daniel's dream.

Alexander the Great was one of the most successful military commanders in human history. At the age of 20, he gained control of the Greek army and quickly conquered territories east of Greece, all the way to India. When he was 33-years-old, he suddenly died from a mysterious illness.

The book of Daniel, which was written 250 years before Alexander was born, describes him in finite detail from the beginning of his reign to the end:

'As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. I saw him attack the ram furiously striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven' (Daniel 8:5-8).

The Bible interpreted the dream for Daniel. In verses 20-22 it says, 'The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the king of Greece and the large horn between his eyes in the first king. The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from this nations but will not have the same power.'

Thus, Alexander the Great fell ill in May of 323 and died on June 11. Even though he left an heir, the Greeks revolted and Alexander's officers began a civil war.

Some biblical scholars disagree with the interpretation of Daniel's dream. They say it did not identify Alexander the Great, but predicts the end times to come. As with most of the Bible, events that happened in the past seem to be repeated in the future. Man's character and actions do not change, just the circumstances.

Maybe he never met Jesus so he didn't go down in history!!

maybe the bible isnt real and whoever thought it up didnt do their research.

As amblessed noted, Alexander is mentioned in the (Catholic) Bible (or the Apocrypha) in 1 Maccabees 1; Jews and (later) Protestants removed these books from their Bible, so they no longer record him. But, why does he not have more notice? Perhaps because he was not central to salvation history! The Bible tells of the relationship of God and his special people. Alexander, for all his historical importance, is not a big part of that story. There are thousands of historical people, great and small, who are not mentioned in the Bible. What of the hundreds of Pharoahs, the Assyrian Kings and Emperors, the Roman Consuls?

His detailed story got left out... along with the dinosaurs...

The prophecy given to Daniel, as he related to the Persian kings Darius I:

'And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these.' (Daniel 11:2-4 RSV)

I'm a history major, not a Christian, but it still is eerily coincidental. Especially the accuracy of the prediction in the timing of this event -- namely, the third Persian king after Darius I. Of course, it is also wholly possible that the original text was modified by later scholars after the fact in order to more accurately match Alexander's exploits. I am neither a Greek nor Hebrew scholar, so I can't offer an accurate interpretation of the original text.

Dear texashistbuff,

Many scripture scholars say this accuracy is a cue that the book of Daniel was not written under the Babylonians, but under the Greeks. Indeed, if you look carefully, you can see where the symbols tell historical events, and where they suddenly become less accurate and specific. That is when it was written, according to modern scholarship.

To all who desire to know the truth: The archaeological discoveries commonly called 'The Dead Sea Scrolls' give ample evidence the Book Of Daniel was written exactly when the Bible says it was, centuries before Alexander The Great. The suggestion that the events become 'less accurate and specific' might well be ascribed to Daniel's end-times descriptions of things unknown and unseen 2500 years ago when it was written. Perhaps the cavalier critics here, having never seen a man ride anything faster than a horse, nor wield a weapon with nuclear consequences, nor fly across the exapnse of the sky at mach 2, could nonetheless have been extremely specific when describing such things, even inventing words of immediate common understanding to fit. Daniel, unfortunately, was limited by what he knew. Meanwhile, his 'inaccurate' predictions were close enough to describe Alexander the Great 'from beginning to end,' to give the exact day of Jesus' arrival on the foal of a donkey, and to suggest the present times as reflecting previously unseen incredible gains in knowledge. Considering some suggest man has been around for 15 million years, the fact that until 100 years ago man still rode horses and communicated via quill pens, men on the moon, computers, worldwide communications, and a knowledge explosion impossible to adequately relate to anything previous should capture the attention of those with an honest desire to know. Of course, it does not, as sadly demonstrated by some posters here who make unsubstantiated claims dismissing it easily. Of course, similar reactions occurred over the Biblical record of the 'Hittites,' which contained specific details lost from perhaps the 8th century B.C. until the late 19th century A.D.. When those details were confirmed by archaeology, proving an early writing and consistent Bible, the event was marked again by droves of naysayers who simply moved their 'intellectual objections' to other areas. While mythologies suggested the world was carried about by Atlas or even turtles, the Bible claimed 'God hung the world on nothing.' This written most likely 3500 years ago. When the invention of telescopes barely a few hundred years back began to show the expanse of stars before unknown, at approximately the same time as the reference above the Bible likened the number of stars to the number of grains of sand. It was not until Hubble that this realilty was confirmed. In the late 1400's, though the point had been argued for a number of centuries, men still sailed within sight of land for fear of 'falling of the edge of the earth.' Meanwhile, nearly 2000 years ago the Bible specifically and clearly explained at any given moment, some dwelled in daylight working while others were in darkness sleeping. Lucky guesses? Perhaps, but not a single such 'guess' was wrong. Not the mountains and valleys under the sea, the water cycle, the movement of ocean currents, and so on. The 'intellectuals' who rewrite their textbooks every 10 years to explain away all the false teachings they once professed, tell us one celled amoeba became fish, fish became lizards, lizards became birds, and of course even man somewhere along the line. The Bible, speaking scientifically again, tells us each species was designed to reproduce 'in like kind.' Each year quadrillions of expermiments are conducted as farmers plant countless crops, insects, animals and men similarly reproduce, and every single, yes, EVERY SINGLE experiment proves the Bible is right and the scientists are confused. Don't be surprised, still they do not flock to truth. Of course, if indeed all we see is actually the result of mutation shaped by environment, we would naturally expect more mutations to be visible now than at any time in history, both those which will one day die off as unsuccessful and others destined to be successful. Where are they? Where are the animals developing 'eyes in the back of their heads'? Where are those with not only redundant kidneys but redundand hearts and brains. Where are the men able to regrow limbs? If an opposing thumb, walking upright, and reasoned thinking are advantageous, why are all of these attributes limited to the species that have had the shortest lifespan? Why aren't cockroaches teaching ethics, forming governments, and demanding their 'rights'? Some of us are willing to accept the eyewitness account, substantiated and never contradicted, that something neither energy nor matter designed and created both. Those who claim to be 'thinkers,' however, deny this and their own rules, claiming energy and matter which cannot be created or lost somehow were (without the intervention of anything else), organized themselves, created life, and one day became reasoning beings. All of this in direct contradiction to scientific precepts, principles and methods. Yet they demand it be called 'science'. So are the superstitious those who believe in a God who proved Himself to thousands of witnesses who were amazed enough to record and protect their experiences for thousands of years, or those who believe in rocks from which they claim 'life spontaneously emanated'? If you found a notebook computer in your front yard, would you confidently declare, 'Look what evolution did!'? Yet man, incredibly more capable and complex, with far superior reasoning, able to create those very computers, able to heal himself, with an 80 year battery, an incredible cooling system, etc., etc., etc., HE EVOLVED! Prima facie it is ludicrous and every bit of evidence, including the Book of Daniel, shows it so. Nonetheless, there remain the 'intellectuals' who simply say, 'Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!'