I was told today by a Christian that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great. Having read that there is little evidence for Jesus outside of the bible, and all of it rather suspect, I find that a little hard to believe, but I could be entirely wrong. I'm certianly having a harder time finding what historians consider to be proof of Alexander's existance. Does anyone have any insight on this, or at least a good link?
There's a distressing number of Evangelical apologists these days who have no real knowledge of history, science, or alternative religious traditions, and who spout apologetic snippets like that, which they've presumably heard somewhere or learned in Sunday school or something, without ever questioning their accuracy or--heaven forbid--actually verifying it themselves.
The result is that many of these apologists end up looking like idiots and giving people a negative impression of their religion, which I have to imagine is not their intent.
In any case, people have already given good answers, but I'll say that from the position of a classical historian,
nobody questions whether Alexander really existed (seriously, it would require a conspiracy of epic proportions, of the sort that people probably aren't even capable of pulling off), and there's enough documentary and physical evidence to reconstruct much of his biography, although some things will always be unknown or inseparable from the mythic tradition that grew up around him. But we have good records on his father, who was already a big deal in the Greek world, and from there we can trace Alexander's rise to power, his military campaigns and specific strategies that he used, his conquests in Asia and Africa, and the institutions of the empire he left behind at his death. The successor states would be the new superpowers that shaped Mediterranean politics for the next couple of centuries. Everyone from Rome to India would be affected in concrete terms by what Alexander did.
With Jesus we only presume that he existed; there is no primary-source evidence, but we figure that somebody had to be the starting point of the mythic tradition that grew up around him, and it's likely that it's at least
based on a real guy. And all we have is that mythic tradition, since there is no documentary or physical evidence from his life whatsoever. The closest thing we have is Paul, who never met the guy but claims to have met people who knew him. (Well, yes, Paul does claim to have met Jesus in a vision, but that wouldn't hold up as historical evidence.) Mentions of him appear in Josephus, one of which is a clear insert from a later scribe--seriously, Josephus the Jew is talking about something, then suddenly bursts into a gushing affirmation of the true Messiah Jesus Christ, then goes right back to talking about what he was talking about before--and the other of which simply reports what he has heard, which is evidence of the tradition, not of the man himself. Tacitus similarly reports what he has heard Christians believe, which is not evidence of anything. And those are the sources that apologists keep trotting out every time this issue comes up.
Now, did Jesus affect as many people as Alexander? Yes and no. Alexander's actions, as I mentioned, had concrete consequences for the political, economic, and cultural course of Eurasia for centuries to come. The story of Jesus has inspired just as many people over the millennia. But notice the difference: Jesus didn't directly affect people outside of a small group of followers, who then spread tales of him around the world that would then come to inspire people. I don't want to disparage that, as it's a very powerful thing, but at the same time it's worth pointing out that tales of Hercules were also regarded as inspirational by a great many people, and that's not evidence of Hercules as a historical figure.
