youngalexander

Well that is a relief. What with Bill WaverDagger and Jesus I'm a bit fed up with non-historical characters. Defending the family escutcheon is beyond me at this time.

However, I do have two stalwart grandsons named Alexander, and may delegate the job to them if there is any further trouble.

PS: premjan you will be pleased to note that one of them is part Indian - whatever that means!

ynquirer

Please don’t misunderstand me. According to the standards of evidence urged on Jesus by the JM-ers, Alexander the Great wouldn’t be historical either. That you so joyfully sing the paean is not smoking gun of a double yardstick, is it?

mountainman

What standards of evidence are you referring to?

Carrier has adopted a series of criteria
for historicity, and has been discussed here.

Under these standards, Alexander the Great
would score a reasonable percentage value.

ynquirer

I’m not sure if those are the best criterions. In any case, I hope they will do. Let’s have a look on them:

No.1:
Neither Alexander nor Jesus wrote a line, as far as we know.

No.2:
Both Alexander and Jesus have been the subjects of a number of biographies and hagiographies.

No.3:
There are, as you well know, a number of coins that we suppose represent Alexander, most frequently as Hercules.

Jesus account in this score is particularly poor, though by no means inexistent. The earliest representations of either Jesus or the cross in coins appeared in the Byzantine Empire, some five centuries after his life is dated.

No.4:
The first extant work of a historian to mention Alexander is Polybius’ Histories, almost two hundred years after Alexander’s death is dated.

The first extant work of a historian to mention Jesus is Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, some sixty years after Jesus’ death is dated.

No.5:
Many extant writers have mentioned either Alexander or Jesus.

As a summary, both Alexander and Jesus fare rather poor in No.1 while exceedingly well in Nos.2 and 5. Alexander fares very well in No.4 while is disappointedly poor in No.4. Jesus fares poor in No.3, yet pretty well in No.4. All in all, I’d say that both figures offer the same type of problems of authenticity for the historian.

Toto

Alexander's contemporaries wrote about him, both friend and foe. The Persians described him as "Alexander the Pest." As far as we know, none of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him.

We have physical descriptions of Alexander. We have none of Jesus.

Alexander's parents were known, and his father's tomb and skeleton have been discovered.

The best explanation of historical events of him time is that someone led Macedonian armies to conquer a lot of places. The best explanation of Christianity does not require someone like Jesus at the time he is reputed to have lived.

mountainman

Eusebius has Jesus writing a reply to the letter of to King Agbar.
This may attract negative points instead of positive.

There are some fourth century coins that may qualify.

This mention is largely looked at as a fourth century interpolation,
that Josephus in fact did not mention "the tribe of christians", and
that in fact is was Eusebius who penned the mention, as some
particulalry shameful hour.

The only mention of Jesus in extant writers is derived from the writings
assembled by the christian historiographer Eusebius. The references by
non christian authors Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius are also generally
regarded as interpolations from at least the fourth century.

The five criteria might be allocated 20 points each thus totalling 100.
The comparitive historicity of the scores between Jesus and Alexander
should reflect the "relative authenticity" according to the criteria used.

ynquirer

The mention was largely looked at as an interpolation a century ago. Today is much less so. Most of the scholars think that it at is a partial interpolation, if any, and this would preserve its condition of witness to the historicity of Jesus.

You shift the criterions at will. You first spoke of “extant historians” and “extant writers.” Well, Josephus as well as Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius are such historians and writers. Now, you require the historians and writers to write what fits in an a priori notion, that Eusebius forged every mention to Jesus prior to the fourth century. I could quite easily contrive of a parallel theory, that Diodurus of Sicily forged every previous mention of Alexander - including a brief paragraph by Polybius - and that Augustus, in support of Diodorus’ theory, minted all the coins with the face of Alexander/Herakles. That wouldn't take us too far.

Doug Shaver

I hate to second-guess anyone with Carrier's credentials, but I think he omitted a vital question: What is the person alleged to have done, and what evidence is there that he or anyone else actually did it?

Alexander is supposed to have conquered a substantial region of the world. Next question: Do we have any reason to believe that a substantial region of the world was conquered by some Greek warlord during the time in question? I believe we do have very good reason to think so.

Now, what is Jesus alleged to have done, and do we have good reason to think that anybody in fact did those things?

mountainman

Today it is accepted that the TF may indeed be regarded as
evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation by Eusebius.

Most scholars in the field think that the HJ is to be regarded
as an "unexamined postulate", which is a totally unscientific
approach to hypotheses. Thus is the mainstream dismissed.


I am not alone in citing Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius as
interpolated references. Have you examined the claims?

The postulate that Eusebius wrote fourth century literature
which was referred to by Julian as "the fabrication of the
Galilaeans" is consistent with what very little we really know
about pre-Nicene christianity. Zero archeological citations of any
real merit of anything christian prior to Constantine supports the
hypothesis that "the tribe of christians" had but a literary existence
in history until the fourth century.

ynquirer

There are a number of threads at this forum to discuss the authenticity of the TF, not necessarily this.


Which field - the field you draw? Most of the scholars working in the field, regardless of their a priori beliefs, think that the HJ is the reasonable conclusion of evidence at hand. Of course, if you exclude those that think so, not most but all the remaining scholars think the way you say.

Yet, again, this is off thread.

Some of them, yes. Arthur Drews’, in particular, I have examined with the utmost care.

You seemed to appreciate the scholars’ support. In supporting Julian’s theory that Christianity was “the fabrication” of Eusebius, I’m afraid you’re almost alone, if not absolutely alone.

Regardless, by the standard of authenticity that theory proposes, even Julius Caesar could be shown to be an invention of the Augustus-Diodorus factory.

NB: To call the Roman Catacombs, with their Christian remains, "no archeological citations of any real merit," is an excess of yours.