Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tammuz · 10-04-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

What about contemporary inscriptions concerning Alexander, such as this one in the British Museum?

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore...er_the_gr.aspx

Comparing the evidence of Alexander's historicity to Jesus' is kind of a no-brainer.

The narrative is used to make the plaque refer to Alexander The Great "of history". Without the narrative the inscription could refer to some other Alexander. But where did the narrative come from? If you trace it back you'll find it derives from MSS written 1000 years after the fact.

So, a perverse historican might claim that the narrative (which was subject to a millennia of mythmaking and emendation and redaction) was drafted in a way to incorporate the preexisting inscription, which refered to some unidentified Alexander now lost to history.

See, it's easy to be a mythicist.

But then you'll have to explain the rise of the Hellenistic dynasties in Persia, Egypt, Bactria and even India and the spread of Greek ideas and Greek influence over a very large area. And you'll have to explain how the fragmented Greek city states could be unified, and also accept a Macedonian (the Macedonians before Alexander were only half-accepted as fellow Greeks) as their hero-king.

Alexander also made it into various legends among the surrounding peoples For instance he is most likely the king Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran. Also in a Zoroastrian work he is called "the accursed Alexander", not strange considering that he conquered Persia and destroyed its capital Persepolis. Have a look here.

The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great are much stronger than the evidence for the existence of Socrates and Arminius.

Chris Weimer · 10-04-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

But then you'll have to explain the rise of the Hellenistic dynasties in Persia, Egypt, Bactria and even India and the spread of Greek ideas and Greek influence over a very large area. And you'll have to explain how the fragmented Greek city states could be unified, and also accept a Macedonian (the Macedonians before Alexander were only half-accepted as fellow Greeks) as their hero-king.

Odd. Whenever historicists ask mythicists to provide a rational trajectory, we're usually met with blank stares. The two people who have offered to do so haven't been very convincing. One makes up meanings for Paul's words, and the other practices extreme, unwarranted skepticism.

Quote:

The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great are much stronger than the evidence for the existence of Socrates and Arminius.

Yes, this is true. The point of the analogy, in my opinion, is not to make a mythicist case for Alexander, but to expose the double standard in Jesus mythicism.

Boro Nut · 10-04-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

But from what we know of Alexander the great, we know he tried to model himself after Achilles, so it is only natural that we would expect to see parallels in his life.

Then why no mention of an eel?

Boro Nut

Gamera · 10-04-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The narrative is used to make the plaque refer to Alexander The Great "of history". Without the narrative the inscription could refer to some other Alexander. But where did the narrative come from? If you trace it back you'll find it derives from MSS written 1000 years after the fact.

So, a perverse historican might claim that the narrative (which was subject to a millennia of mythmaking and emendation and redaction) was drafted in a way to incorporate the preexisting inscription, which refered to some unidentified Alexander now lost to history.

See, it's easy to be a mythicist.

But then you'll have to explain the rise of the Hellenistic dynasties in Persia, Egypt, Bactria and even India and the spread of Greek ideas and Greek influence over a very large area. And you'll have to explain how the fragmented Greek city states could be unified, and also accept a Macedonian (the Macedonians before Alexander were only half-accepted as fellow Greeks) as their hero-king.

Alexander also made it into various legends among the surrounding peoples For instance he is most likely the king Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran. Also in a Zoroastrian work he is called "the accursed Alexander", not strange considering that he conquered Persia and destroyed its capital Persepolis. Have a look here.

The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great are much stronger than the evidence for the existence of Socrates and Arminius.

Myths are powerful things. The dynasties trace themselve to a mythic Alexander. We can't take them seriously.

As to their dispersion, myths travel like the wind. They know no bounds. There's nothing odd at all about the Alexander cult traveling east along trade routes, which later the narratives rationalized by charting this as conquest.

Listen, I happen to agree with you. My point is that mythicism can work its magic on anybody, despite the evidence for historicity. Thus, its application to Jesus results in the mythification of Socrates and Pericles and Alexander. The methodogy explains everything and hence explains nothing.

Gamera · 10-04-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

[Yes, this is true. The point of the analogy, in my opinion, is not to make a mythicist case for Alexander, but to expose the double standard in Jesus mythicism.

BINGO!

Toto · 10-04-2007, 05:41 PM

Double standard? Have you read this thread? How many times do people need to explain the greater quantity and quality of evidence for Alexander?

J-D · 10-04-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

People said that Alexander the Great was the son of a god. Does that make him indisputably fictitious?

The historians recognised Philip, king of Macedon, as the father of Alexander the great, not a god, as it was rumored.

The conquests of Alexander the great are written by historians. Flavius Josephus wrote about Alexander the great, son of Philip, King of Macedon on his visit to Jerusalem and about wars conducted by him.

Antiquities of the Jews book 11.8, "About this time it was that Philip, King of Macedon, was treacherously assaulted and slain at Egae by Pausanias, the son of Cerastes, who was derived from the family of Oreste, and his son Alexander succeeded him in the kingdom.........

I cannot find any historian of antiquity that wrote anything about Achilles, the son of the goddess, with respect to the wars he fought and of his victories or defeat.

And Alexander the great was born July 20, 356 and died June 10 323 BCE, I cannot find any information about the date of birth or death of the son of the goddess, Achilles.

So people who are not recorded by historians never existed?

Steven Carr · 10-04-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Double standard? Have you read this thread? How many times do people need to explain the greater quantity and quality of evidence for Alexander?

Or the fact that Layman's article was not about mythicusm at all.

It was about how the parallels between the OT and the NT do not mean Christians scoured the scriptures looking for OT themes they could turn into stories about Jesus (like the 30 pieces of silver)

(Unless Layman was deliberately trying to obfuscate the two issues, so that he could say that only mythicisists find thse parallels suspicious?)

The OT/NT parallels are just like both Alexander and Achilles being 'moody', and both of them being depressed after a bereavement.

Steven Carr · 10-05-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, this is true. The point of the analogy, in my opinion, is not to make a mythicist case for Alexander, but to expose the double standard in Jesus mythicism.

Layman makes a devastating refutation of Doherty's claim that he believes Jesus was a myth because the earliest Christians came up with parallels and used the OT to create stories about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver etc.

Wait a minute! That isn't Doherty's thesis at all.

How strange! Layman attacked a strawman.

Tammuz · 10-05-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Myths are powerful things. The dynasties trace themselve to a mythic Alexander. We can't take them seriously.

No, they didn't claim decent from Alexander. However, Ptolemy and Seleucus (and possibly other Diadochi kings as well) were generals in Alexander's army. Alexander had one child from Roxana, his Bactrian wife (and later widow), but both of them were eventually murdered during the power struggle between his generals. So there was, as far as I know, none who claimed decent from Alexander. I think the man himseld was buried in Alexandria in Egypt (there were many Alexandrias in the territory conquered by Alexander.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

As to their dispersion, myths travel like the wind. They know no bounds. There's nothing odd at all about the Alexander cult traveling east along trade routes, which later the narratives rationalized by charting this as conquest.

But as you see, at least one group (the Zoroastrians) didn't like this Alexander because he had destroyed Persepolis. However, two groups - Greeks and Macedonians - liked him. And in the wake of Alexander's conquests, Macedonians were fully accepted as fellow Greeks. In fact, both groups needed each other now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Listen, I happen to agree with you. My point is that mythicism can work its magic on anybody, despite the evidence for historicity. Thus, its application to Jesus results in the mythification of Socrates and Pericles and Alexander. The methodogy explains everything and hence explains nothing.

I see.

To declare Alexander the Great to be mythical is like declaring Arminius to be mythical. And I haven't seen that done by anyone.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2007, 05:41 PM	#46
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Double standard? Have you read this thread? How many times do people need to explain the greater quantity and quality of evidence for Alexander?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.