I was watching a History Channel presentation about Alexander the Great and was struck by the amount of historical information about him and his battles... then I noticed that the historians being referred to had been writing about and studying Alexander's life in the second century AD. (Alexander lived in the fourth century BC). These "contemporary histories" are hardly of the same caliber of Christian "histories" which were written within one century of the Jesus' life. YET... Alexander's life history gets more credibility among some than Jesus. Funny, huh?
41 comments
Alexander's existence and accomplishments are attested to by documentation from numerous sources,and contemporary coins and other artifacts.There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed. Not a scarcity of evidence, or poor evidence, or dubious evidence. No evidence. Not one, single solitary soul found Jesus' exploits of enough interest to write about. Funny? Hell, it's hilarious!
And the very question, WTF?, writting biographies of a person shortly and long after his decease is nothing new, be it Jesus or Alexander the Great, or Bill Clinton, for that matter. Contemporary, you idiot, means WITH RESPECT TO OUR TIMES.
"Alexander's life history gets more credibility among some than Jesus. Funny, huh?" with you, though.
So wait, KCDAD is upset because the historians writing about Alexander were writing in the 2nd century AD?
We have evidence other than writings. The writings we do have are from multiple sources, but besides that, we see Greek influence in all of the areas that Alexander was said to conquer, confirming these writings.
that's because there are LOTS of documents about Alexander the Great. And nobody ever claimed Alexander the Great walked on water, cast out "demons", turned water into wine, and brought the dead back to life.
Hey everyone,
Not really. Countless anecdotes, journals and other artifacts from numerous and varied sources, not to mention a city named after the man himself.
We also know a fair amount about King Tutankhamun of Egypt (about 1300 BCE). Among the evidence of his life history? His tomb, his personal artifacts, records of his life, stories of his life, art based on his likeness, and oh yeah, his body!
@Mister Spak:
Yeah, funny how one is credible and one is not. No, wait, that's not funny, that's common fucking sense to believe one with thousands of documentations about realistic and believable acts over the one with extraordinary claims and four copies of the same thing in the same book.
he historians being referred to had been writing about and studying Alexander's life in the second century AD. (Alexander lived in the fourth century BC). older documents and proofs to base their research on. They didn't write the first stories about the guy, that would be writing stories and not researching history.
Comparable amounts of historical documents refer to Alexander, Jesus and King Arthur. Of the three, only Alexander comes with any real physical evidence or independent confirmation, while Jesus and Arthur feature only in interrelated stories (i.e. myth cycles).
Yes, I know that Alexander made a claim for divinity, but no one is making this claim now, are they? I've never seen any History Channel special proclaiming that Alexander was divine. Jesus has to prove he is divine, I'm saying those making the claim that Jesus is divine have to prove it.
I think you're all being a little bit harsh on Jesus, here. (Hear me out - I'm an atheist!) Apeirion and David B. make good points, which I fully agree with, but when considering the historicity (note: not divinity) of JC, I think you do have to consider the Gospels (canonical or not) as evidence. You have to apply William of Ockham's shaving implement here; and really, the most likely explanation for how and why the Gospels came to be written is that there was a guy called Yeshua, who lived roughly when it is said he did, who was a follower of Jochanan the Baptist, and preached in Palestine, and got offed by the Romans. The alternative scenario, that the story was invented out of whole cloth (by whom?) and a new faith began spontaneously, as it were, is quite as incredible to me as any of JC's miracles. Oh, and I think Alexander was a bit over-hyped, too :-)
That's because he actually existed.
Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher and carpenter, He was born in Naserath to Jospheph and Mary, He was crusified. These are the bits of his life that can be backed up by Roman and Jewish sources as well as the bible. This is why Jesus' dosn't get as much credability, even ignoring the son of god part most of his life was only recorded by friends not enemies. Alex had both write about him plenty cos he took over most of the known world.
Alexander of Macedon (I don't think that he was "Great" at all) had enormous influence on the World during his lifetime. He conquered Persia and Egypt, the two greatest Western powers at the time and set up an huge empire, the largest that the World had ever yet seen. He also conquered Afghanistan and large portions of India, establishing a Hellenistic influence in India that has persisted even until today.
During his lifetime, Jesus conquered no countries, changed no political systems, and established no empires. He also wrote no books, either. It is therefore only natural that Jesus would be far less notable during his lifetime than Alexander.
Alexander of Macedon (I don't think that he was "Great" at all) had enormous influence on the World during his lifetime. He conquered Persia and Egypt, the two greatest Western powers at the time and set up an huge empire, the largest that the World had ever yet seen. He also conquered Afghanistan and large portions of India, establishing a Hellenistic influence in India that has persisted even until today.
During his lifetime, Jesus conquered no countries, changed no political systems, and established no empires. He also wrote no books, either. It is therefore only natural that Jesus would be far less notable during his lifetime than Alexander.
Isn't it funny too that the Romans had a lot of documentation on Alexander yet failed to record the Jesus story? Or any of the events or claims about the Roman occupation in the Jesus story?
Oddly enough they did report on the Jews expecting a Messiah and how many were rumoured to be the son-of-God, no leader in that position was ever varified
"YET... Alexander's life history gets more credibility among some than Jesus. Funny, huh?"
At least there's proof he existed. And even funnier - Alexander the Great was gay. Yet, he conquered all of the known world (at that time).
They were STILL writing about Alexander in 2 AD and referencing accounts from the past, it was at this point they were compiled and, since the accounts were in at least three different languages from different locales, were being translated and cross referenced.
Jesus has no such contemporary records, one of the recorded accounts of Alexander was only Rome, ever hear about them?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
