Contrary to the questioner’s bizarre claims, there is a great deal of historical controversy surrounding Alexander the Great.
But the basic facts are clear. There is for instance archaeological evidence for the burning of the palace at Persepolis. More importantly, his conquests left dynasties in his wake. The dynasty of Ptolemy, for instance, continued to rule Egypt up to the time of Cleopatra. This period is known as the Hellenistic Era.
For Jesus, on the other hand, there is no conclusive evidence to back the literal interpretation of the Bible. For instance, the story that after the crucifixion the dead rose up and walked through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:53) is backed up by no external commentator. One might have thought that for dead 'saints’ to stalk the streets of a major city of the Roman Empire would have excited some comment.
The text we are supposed to have received from Josephus is now known to have been edited in later centuries, and scholars are divided as to whether Josephus actually wrote about him at all.
The difference between Jesus and Alexander is that Jesus is a historically trivial figure, whose actual life affected his world in small ways if indeed he existed at all. Had Jesus worship not emerged from a pack of competing religions in the fourth century, he would not today be remembered. Alexander, on the other hand, commanded tens of thousands of men, and conquered an Empire stretching from Corfu to Karachi. It is hardly surprising if his real historical legacy looms rather larger.
Incidentally, according to some sources he also claimed to be the son of God, or at least the son of a God. Whilst at Siwa, Egyptian priests are supposed to have told him he was the son of Amun.
And one piece of evidence for Alexander can be found in the Book of Daniel. In Chapter 8, one of the usual tedious metaphors is, unusually, explained. It describes a Greek king, and Biblical apologists like to claim that it refers to Alexander.
Stephen Jay Gould school claimed that religion and scholarship occupied separate, non-overlapping worlds. I don’t agree with this view, but it would help the case for it if religious buttinskis didn’t keep shoving their noses into subjects they clearly aren’t qualified to discuss.
Posted: October 29th 2007
See all questions answered by jonecc