Gamera

Yep, in the great scheme of western history. To grow from a bizarre jewish cult in Judea to the official religion of the Empire in three centuries is utterly remarkable by any standard.

jeffevnz

Yeah, and although this still isn't a smoking gun for an historical Alexander, it tells us that, comparatively, the case for him is stronger than it is for an historical Jesus; at least in this respect.

Furthermore, the lack of surviving contemporary sources may change. There's a contemporary Babylonian cuneiform inscription on a tablet (apparently a diary), saying "the King died today", and written in the year Alexander is supposed to have died. While it's not conclusive that the tablet actually refers to Alexander, it would be an unlikely coincidence if it didn't... Because the Babylonians wrote so much on clay tablets, which last longer than papyrus, and because we're finding possibly relevant inscriptions from the same period, there's a good chance we'll actually find contemporary accounts of him, assuming he was real.

By the way, does anyone know if the Arab and Persian legends about Iskandar are independent of our Greek and Roman sources? Is there any way to tell?

Gamera

Thanks for the link.

I'm still unclear whether the claim for the site of Bethany was made based on the current arabic name refering to Lazarus, or whether the two are independent of each other.

If independent, then of course, that provides some very credible support for something remarkable happening in Bethany involving one Lazarus. Further, even if the arabic name is the basis for the conclusion that it is the NT Bethany, some story about a Lazarus must have been significant enough for the local Arab population, who were presumably Muslims and not Christians, to refer to Lazarus. It suggests at the very least a local tradition about something remarkable about a Lazarus. I'm not aware of any other story from that time and that area involving a Lazarus, except John's rendition of his resurrection from the dead at the hands of Jesus. So, this is indeed some evidence of Jesus's historicity.

Let me suggest that one can also throw into doubt the various eponymous arguments about Alexander. Obviously, once Alexander became a important historical figure, there would be an incentive to rewrite history to glom onto his name, by changing the names of cities or producing false etymologies to make a city's name fall into line with the great Alexandrine expansion. Etc.

Again, I'm not saying that happened, but if you are going to scrutinize Bethany with such a jeweler's eye, similar scrutiny should be applied to the claim that Alexander's empire was self-evidently in existence shortly after his purported life.

Toto

According to Rodney Stark, the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire followed the growth rate of most modern new religious movements, which recruit new members primarily through personal contact with converts. There was nothing remarkable about the growth of Christianity.

Gamera

This is exceedingly tendentious. The NT authors purport to be eyewitnesses or claim access to eyewitnesses. This is no different from the claims of the authors concerning Alexander. The difference lies in the ms history. Christian mss are simply closer in time and better attested to than the mss refering to Alexander, which if I remember correctly, aren't within a 1,000 of the Macedonian's life, and whose origins are obscure.

Gamera

I'm not refering to a growth rate. I'm refering to its rise from a persecuted cult to official religion of the Empire. That just doesn't happen everyday or every three centuries, as far as that goes.

Toto

If they were Muslims, the year was after 600 CE and the local muslim-arabs must have had a long historical memory. It's more likely that the local population were Christians when the city was named. Lazarus might have been a local bigwig. There's no reason to assume that the town was named after him because he was raised from the dead there.

Gamera

Well, we would need a onomastic study to make any headway here. If the name is rare then presuming the town is named after a big wig would be unsupported.

What we do know is that we have a story about a Lazarus, that takes place in more or less that area, involving a remarkable event and involving Jesus. Unless there is other evidence on the table, this seems to provide some support, however attenuated, of Jesus' historicity. Or at least it is of the same or similar quality as the eponymous evidence relating to Alexander, which was my original point.

By the way, a 600 year old tradition is hardly unusual in that area of the world. We have longer traditions than that concerning Jesus' tomb, etc. The point isn't whether the tradition is true, but that it exists at all.

jeffevnz

Well that doesn't sound right. AFAIK, the authors of Mark and Matthew don't make any such claim, and the author of Luke says he wasn't an eyewitness. Only the author of John even implies that he was, and that seems unlikely given the book's late dating and apparent dependence on Mark. Since the gospels are the only books with more than a trace of biographical information about Jesus, they're the ones that count for HJ/MJ purposes.

Now some of the epistles may (for all I know) purport to be written by eyewitnesses. However, the only ones whose authenticity is widely accepted are some of Paul's, and he of course does not claim to have seen Jesus... Then there's Acts, which was almost certainly written by the same person as Luke, who, again, says he wasn't an eyewitness. That leaves Revelation, which identifies its author as John, but does not make clear which John, nor whether he witnessed anything. And, like GJohn, it was probably written too late.

I'm not aware of any NT book which plausibly claims to have been written by an eyewitness.


As far as access to eyewitnesses, the author of Luke and Acts does not claim it. He only says he investigated matters... Paul says he has access to the original disciples, but does not relay much, if any, biographical information about Jesus that he got from them. Furthermore, the dating of all the NT books (other than Paul's letters) makes it unlikely that they are even second-hand.

aa5874

Joseph Smith is not analogous to Jesus Christ, more like Saul/Paul. Both Joseph Smith and Saul/Paul claim to have visions of a character called Jesus and developed doctrines about this mythical character, bearing in mind that this character have fundamental differences in Mormonism.

Mormonism is a religion based on mythical characters called God and Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith. Valentinus and Marcion, according to Irenaeus, did actually exist, yet these Christians claim that Jesus was not a real human being.

Billions of people accept Jesus by faith and a few reject Jesus by reason.

No one can prove Jesus exist, so JMers cannot lose any argument with respect to Jesus.