Steven Carr

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

'Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. '

A 'few sheets of paper'?

Is this the same JP Holding who reels off hundreds of kilobytes of facts about Alexander?

For example,

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

'Moreover, according to the ancient historian Arrian, author of "Anabasi Alexandri," (2.20.1-2), Alex got some help in attacking Tyre. Having no navy of his own to speak of, he got naval help from his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships also came from Enylos, Soli and Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to join in the fray and help Alex overcome Tyre '

If Holding wants to denigrate the massive evidence of Alexander's historicity compared to Jesus, he does so.

But at other times, Holding can tell you exactly Alexander did at various times, with a degree of detail that is amazing considered that it all comes from 'a few sheets of paper'

Holding can even co-author essays claiming Alexander the Great was shown a copy of the Book of Daniel (I wonder where that is on the 'few sheets of paper') and that Alexander claimed descent from Jupiter Ammon.

Of course, when Holding wishes to discredit claims that there are parallels between Alexander and Jesus , he writes 'Alex T., in an account written 600 years after his death that portrays him as the divine product of the god Ammon,...' http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pricer04.html

One second, Holding says Alexander claimed something (see http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html )

Then Holding talks out of the other corner of his mouth, saying that that claim came from somebody else, 600 years after Alexander's death.


But Christian apologetics consists of choosing whatever arguments suit whatever point you are trying to make, rather than being consistent.

And the marks aren't going to check up on you, are they?

dog-on

...funny that it seems that everything we know about HJ can fit on the back of a postage stamp...

jeffevnz

The situation with Alexander is substantially different from that with Jesus. Although we have no contemporary written sources, we do have compelling evidence that he existed and that the traditional story of his conquests is fairly accurate. The most obvious thing is this large, Greek-speaking empire that popped into existence in a short period of time, consistently with the accounts we have. Furthermore, within that empire a number of cities named "Alexandria" were founded within that same period. And, although our sources are not contemporary, some are probably independent of others.

Gamera

How is that difference from the large religious movement that popped into existence in a short time right after the purported life of Jesus and wound up becoming the official religion of that Empire? Sounds like something more than a soupcon of a myth was behind it.

Gamera

Depends on what you're counting as texts relating to Alexander. We have a whole bunch of later texts (indeed people are still writing about Alexander today, but that's not any evidence of his historicity). A lot of mediaeval authors were fascinated with Alexander, but again, that goes to nothing.

The issue is the quality and chronology of the texts. Are they contemporaneous with Alexander or nearly so? There are no extant mss relating to Alexander within, I believe, 1000 years or so of his life, though some of these are attributed to authors who were contemporaries or near contemporaries of Alexander (and we have no reason to doubt the attribution, except for the vast passage of time).

On this score Alexander's historicity has support qualitatively not much different than the textual support for Jesus, though the mss history of the Christian texts are much better documented and much closer in time to Jesus and their authors.

Steven Carr

An interesting argument, which can also be applied to the Book of Mormon.

Does anybody doubt that the Book of Mormon exists, although it is based on myths?

Gamera

Well, first there is no doubt that Joseph Smith existed, so that makes the HJ point, not the MJ point.

Second, this really isn't much of an analogy. Christianity overwhelmed the Roman Empire in a short amount of time. It fundamentally changed the structure of society. Just like Alexander did.

In contrast, Mormonism is, by any standard, still a rather small cult that has little cultural impact. It certainly hasn't restructured the American Empire, and I don't see how it ever could.

DaveGE

300 years is "a short amount of time"?

Angrillori

Well, haven't you heard of Jesusville? And the library at Jesusia?

Of course the spread of the speaking of English was certainly evidence of Jesus' existence since the King James Bible clearly shows Jesus spoke English.

Gamera

In fact, my understanding is that the site where the village of Bethany was thought to be, is now called el-æAzariye, so called from the memory of Lazarus (The initial letter of the name Lazarus is elided in Arabic after the l of the article). Now, Bethany is identified in the gospel fo John as the village of Lazarus, whom Jesus purportedly brought back from the dead. John 11:1-46

Does anybody know if the current scholarship supports this interpretation, which seems to support the historicity of Jesus in the same way eponymous cities support Alexander's historicity.