re: Does anyone actually believe this

quote:

---

I read most of this thread and understand that you have a lot of questions about the chance of Jesus actually existing. I understand that you are going to believe what you want, but I'm curious if you accept Alexander the Great as someone who actually existed or not because as far as I'm aware, most of the historical writings about him come more than 60 years after he reigned.

---

The Babylonian Royal Diary is the best evidence posited for Alexander's existence.

There is a contemporary administrative document from Bactria, written in Aramaic, that records the moment of Alexander's arrival in Bactria in pursuit of the main assassin of Darius III, Artaxerxes V or Bessus. Indeed, the same documents record the moment that Bessus reached Bactria too, and as the documents both name him as King Artaxerxes and Bessus we have absolute confirmation about his status as a usurper.

Both of these, as stated, are contemporary (They happened in his time, not 60 years after) and while dating we can put several cities he conquered at the time of about his existence.

We also have contemporary inscriptions on coins with a universal portrait.

So, yes, I have no trouble believing that Alexander was a king who had a few battles here and there. It could have been augmented, but with so much contemporary evidence it'd be impossible to dismiss the majority of his works.

Not to mention the trek toward Asia and all of the cities named after him. It'd be strange to completely fabricate a king, his image, contemporary works and a bunch of cities for literally no reason whatsoever -- and then never mention that it wasn't to be taken literally. (There's a reason why Heracles is not considered a real man.)

So if we're comparing: Contemporary sources vs. Anonymous post-death sources, I'd say Alexander has much more evidence.