Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-30-2002, 11:56 PM

Apologists like to claim that there is a much or more historical evidence for Jesus as for any other figure in ancient history. I recently started to look at the evidence for Alexander the Great, and I was impressed with how utterly fallacious this argument is.

There are some rough similarities in the two histories. Alexander?s birth is alleged to have supernatural aspects, and it was variously claimed that he was descended from Gods or that his mother was impregnated by a god in the form of a snake. After his death, he was elevated to the status of a god.

But the differences are overwhelming, and they are the differences between an actual person whose history has been decked up with a little myth, and an accretion of legends and myth that may or may not have a man at the center.

For Jesus, we have two obviously fictional genealogies, and we cannot be sure of his mother or father?s name, since neither are mentioned in our earliest sources. For Alexander, we know his mother?s name, Olympias, and his putative father, Philip II of Macedon, an established historic figure in his own right.

We have no description of Jesus. There are no portraits of him until the sixth century. (The apologists say ?there were no photographs then?, but there were definitely artists.) We have descriptions of Alexander ? that he was of average height with an athletic frame, a fair complexion, red hair, eyes of different colors. We have representations of him on coins and art work.

We don?t know anything about Jesus? training or background. We don?t know if he was literate or not. But we have the names of Alexander?s tutors.

We have no indication that anything was written about Jesus when he was alive. Apologists like to speculate that there was oral transmission of eyewitness accounts, but there are no facts to support this. In contrast, we know that official court records were kept for Alexander, and things were written about him during his life. None of the documents from his lifetime have survived intact, but there are fragments that testify to their existence, which were quoted or used as sources in later biographies that have survived.

Eyewitness accounts of Alexander

Some of the documents:
Callisthenes, the official court historian, wrote 'Deeds of Alexander' during his lifetime

Onesicritus, who was Alexander's chief helmsman, a Cynic philosopher and a pupil of Diogenes, wrote 'How Alexander was educated' shortly after Alexander's death

Also records by
Ptolemy, commander in Alexander's army and later successor king of Egypt, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty that ended with famous Queen Cleopatra in 30 B.C., and

Aristobulus, a member of Alexander's staff of engineers; (he had an humble rank and is attested for the assigment to restore Cyrus' tomb at Pasargadae)

more sources

Shortly after Alexander?s death, a romance (historical novel) was written about him, full of fantastic events, and was continually rewritten and improved on for centuries. If this were our only source, we would not know if Alexander were history or legend. But it is not.

This is not to say that every detail we have is completely reliable. Undoubtedly the portraits were flattering, and the court chronicles as biased as any official history. But you can still have confidence that there was a real person who commanded armies that conquered the classical world. In fact, it would be difficult to explain Greek influence in the ancient world without Alexander; in contrast, the rise of Christianity can be explained very well without a human Jesus.

lpetrich · 10-01-2002, 12:52 AM

The historicity of Jesus Christ also gets compared to that of Julius Caesar. However, as Richard Carrier has noted in this article,the evidence for Julius Caesar's existence is much higher in quality than that for Jesus Christ's existence.

There are several historians who discuss his career, and they do so from varying viewpoints; by comparison, our main sources on Jesus Christ are grossly hagiographical. We even have some books purportedly written by Julius Caesar himself, something we do not have for Jesus Christ.

leonarde · 10-01-2002, 05:58 AM

I think the posters make some good points. On the
other hand:

1)NONE of the theists making the comparisons DOUBTS in the SLIGHTEST bit that Alexander the
Great and Julius Caesar existed (ie the talk is for comparative purposes only).

2)Alexander is credited with personally conquering
more of the known world than any other person in
human history (Genghis Khan seems to have had a
number of sub-conquerors).

3)Caesar ended for all practical purposes the Roman Republic and began the line of Caesars that
replaced it. He too is considered one of the greatest generals of all time.

4)In short both Alexander and Julius Caesar were
arguably the most famous persons alive in their
respective eras. They travelled extensively (Alexander especially).

5)Jesus on the other hand never seems to have travelled far from Judea, Samaria, Galilee. His TRUE fame was a posthumous one.

6)We expect the greatest number of historical CONTEMPORANEOUS writings to be about persons who
were VERY famous far and wide IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES.

7)Until the very last 24 hours of his life, Jesus
had never been seen by either Pontius Pilate OR
Herod Antipas. Even his local fame was circumscribed.

Cheers!

MortalWombat · 10-01-2002, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
7)Until the very last 24 hours of his life, Jesus had never been seen by either Pontius Pilate OR Herod Antipas. Even his local fame was circumscribed.

Luke 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.

Wyz_sub10 · 10-01-2002, 06:34 AM

I would agree that there are many places if the gospels that indicate his reputation preceded him where he went.

The problem, of course, is that the gospels were written in retrospect, and there is little other literature available that corroborate the biblical accounts from the gospels.

Toto · 10-01-2002, 08:13 AM

My point was not that apologists doubt the existence of Alexander or Caesar, it was that they say that if you accept the existence of Alexander or Caesar based on ancient documents, you should also accept the existence of Jesus. This argument is clearly deficient.

Vanderzyden · 10-01-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
This argument is clearly deficient.

Not so. Apparently you have not undertaken to look at the other side. It would seem that you have not taken time to consider the affirmation of many biblical scholars (believers or not) who attest to the strong reliability of the NT accounts.

Your presentation here is heavily lop-sided and uncritical.

Vanderzyden

Starboy · 10-01-2002, 08:57 AM

The existence of Jesus as a historical person is not important. If he did live he was not an important person of his time as was Alexander the Great. Jesus was the excuse that Paul(Saul) needed to create his church. A church that has as much to do with the existence of Jesus as the existence of Alexander the Great. Most of the dogma that is promulgated as Christianity was coined by Paul. A man, who was never an apostle, didn�t know Jesus and did not have the blessings of Jesus� family. In short a fraud, very much in the vein of modern day evangelists. God only exists in the minds of men and requires contact with infected individuals to become present in new minds. Something that would not be necessary if god had a real exisistence.

Starboy

Toto · 10-01-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Not so. Apparently you have not undertaken to look at the other side. It would seem that you have not taken time to consider the affirmation of many biblical scholars (believers or not) who attest to the strong reliability of the NT accounts.

Your presentation here is heavily lop-sided and uncritical.

Vanderzyden

Very funny. Would you like to cite even one of those non-believing Biblical scholars who attests to the "strong reliability" of the NT? Even the Christian scholars I read have to try to explain away the historical problems, inconsistencies, and outright absurdities of the Gospels when read literally.

leonarde · 10-01-2002, 10:03 AM

Posted by Starboy:

Quote:

The existence of Jesus as a historical person is not important.

This is an incredible statement.

09-30-2002, 11:56 PM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Why Alexander the Great is more likely to be historical than Jesus Apologists like to claim that there is a much or more historical evidence for Jesus as for any other figure in ancient history. I recently started to look at the evidence for Alexander the Great, and I was impressed with how utterly fallacious this argument is. There are some rough similarities in the two histories. Alexander?s birth is alleged to have supernatural aspects, and it was variously claimed that he was descended from Gods or that his mother was impregnated by a god in the form of a snake. After his death, he was elevated to the status of a god. But the differences are overwhelming, and they are the differences between an actual person whose history has been decked up with a little myth, and an accretion of legends and myth that may or may not have a man at the center. For Jesus, we have two obviously fictional genealogies, and we cannot be sure of his mother or father?s name, since neither are mentioned in our earliest sources. For Alexander, we know his mother?s name, Olympias, and his putative father, Philip II of Macedon, an established historic figure in his own right. We have no description of Jesus. There are no portraits of him until the sixth century. (The apologists say ?there were no photographs then?, but there were definitely artists.) We have descriptions of Alexander ? that he was of average height with an athletic frame, a fair complexion, red hair, eyes of different colors. We have representations of him on coins and art work. We don?t know anything about Jesus? training or background. We don?t know if he was literate or not. But we have the names of Alexander?s tutors. We have no indication that anything was written about Jesus when he was alive. Apologists like to speculate that there was oral transmission of eyewitness accounts, but there are no facts to support this. In contrast, we know that official court records were kept for Alexander, and things were written about him during his life. None of the documents from his lifetime have survived intact, but there are fragments that testify to their existence, which were quoted or used as sources in later biographies that have survived. Eyewitness accounts of Alexander Some of the documents: Callisthenes, the official court historian, wrote 'Deeds of Alexander' during his lifetime Onesicritus, who was Alexander's chief helmsman, a Cynic philosopher and a pupil of Diogenes, wrote 'How Alexander was educated' shortly after Alexander's death Also records by Ptolemy, commander in Alexander's army and later successor king of Egypt, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty that ended with famous Queen Cleopatra in 30 B.C., and Aristobulus, a member of Alexander's staff of engineers; (he had an humble rank and is attested for the assigment to restore Cyrus' tomb at Pasargadae) more sources Shortly after Alexander?s death, a romance (historical novel) was written about him, full of fantastic events, and was continually rewritten and improved on for centuries. If this were our only source, we would not know if Alexander were history or legend. But it is not. This is not to say that every detail we have is completely reliable. Undoubtedly the portraits were flattering, and the court chronicles as biased as any official history. But you can still have confidence that there was a real person who commanded armies that conquered the classical world. In fact, it would be difficult to explain Greek influence in the ancient world without Alexander; in contrast, the rise of Christianity can be explained very well without a human Jesus.

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

10-01-2002, 12:52 AM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The historicity of Jesus Christ also gets compared to that of Julius Caesar. However, as Richard Carrier has noted in this article,the evidence for Julius Caesar's existence is much higher in quality than that for Jesus Christ's existence. There are several historians who discuss his career, and they do so from varying viewpoints; by comparison, our main sources on Jesus Christ are grossly hagiographical. We even have some books purportedly written by Julius Caesar himself, something we do not have for Jesus Christ.

10-01-2002, 05:58 AM	#3
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I think the posters make some good points. On the other hand: 1)NONE of the theists making the comparisons DOUBTS in the SLIGHTEST bit that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar existed (ie the talk is for comparative purposes only). 2)Alexander is credited with personally conquering more of the known world than any other person in human history (Genghis Khan seems to have had a number of sub-conquerors). 3)Caesar ended for all practical purposes the Roman Republic and began the line of Caesars that replaced it. He too is considered one of the greatest generals of all time. 4)In short both Alexander and Julius Caesar were arguably the most famous persons alive in their respective eras. They travelled extensively (Alexander especially). 5)Jesus on the other hand never seems to have travelled far from Judea, Samaria, Galilee. His TRUE fame was a posthumous one. 6)We expect the greatest number of historical CONTEMPORANEOUS writings to be about persons who were VERY famous far and wide IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES. 7)Until the very last 24 hours of his life, Jesus had never been seen by either Pontius Pilate OR Herod Antipas. Even his local fame was circumscribed. Cheers!

10-01-2002, 06:34 AM	#5
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	I would agree that there are many places if the gospels that indicate his reputation preceded him where he went. The problem, of course, is that the gospels were written in retrospect, and there is little other literature available that corroborate the biblical accounts from the gospels.

10-01-2002, 08:13 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	My point was not that apologists doubt the existence of Alexander or Caesar, it was that they say that if you accept the existence of Alexander or Caesar based on ancient documents, you should also accept the existence of Jesus. This argument is clearly deficient.

10-01-2002, 08:57 AM	#8
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	The existence of Jesus as a historical person is not important. If he did live he was not an important person of his time as was Alexander the Great. Jesus was the excuse that Paul(Saul) needed to create his church. A church that has as much to do with the existence of Jesus as the existence of Alexander the Great. Most of the dogma that is promulgated as Christianity was coined by Paul. A man, who was never an apostle, didn�t know Jesus and did not have the blessings of Jesus� family. In short a fraud, very much in the vein of modern day evangelists. God only exists in the minds of men and requires contact with infected individuals to become present in new minds. Something that would not be necessary if god had a real exisistence. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.