Why The Descrepancy or Ambiguity?

Question

Alexander Lived 350 BC And There Is An Accurate Description of What He Looked Like, But Why Not Jesus.
Not That It Is Of Any Importance To A True Christian

Answer 1

Because Alexander actually existed. We can't say that about Jesus.

Answer 2

The fact is that Alexander the Great was the ruler of a great empire. In his day, Jesus was more or less a hippie that went about the country with 12 other hippies--and a bunch of groupies that followed here and there for a while.

Jesus just happened to tick off the wrong people. Those people happened to be the religious and political rulers of his time and place, and he died as a consequence.

Regardless of his status of a deity (I will not step on toes or give my opinion either way here) Jesus was, in his time, just a guy with some good ideas and a bit of a following for about three years. He was, in modern terms, a one hit wonder.

Couple that with the fact that the people that killed him were in control of the little bit of "media" that was available at the time. There has always been a trend among controling powers to attempt to "erase" those that are in opposition.

Take the case of the Egyptian Pharoh Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti. he tried to convert all of Eqypt to monothesism. After he died, the polytheists regained controll, and tried to erase Akhenaten and Nefertiti from history. They did a pretty good job, as they remained unknown until the 19th Century.

when you take these two ideas into consideration--that Jesus was only regionally known for three years of his ministry, and he had angered those that could not only kill him, but "erase" him, it is not suprising that there is little to know contemporary historical or archaeologcal evidence for his existence.

With all of that said, it seems like there is evidence that other characters from the Jesus myth did exist. There have been finds that seem to corelate with John the Baptist. They have recently found Herod's tomb, as well as the ossuary of Ciaphas (of the Sanhedrain). There are also some records of pontius Pilate, and (as I understand it) they have Barabbas' (the insurrectionist that stood trial with Jesus) rap sheet.

If that evidence exists, one must wonder, was the Jesus tale true, or were contemporary figures added to a fictional tale to add to the realism? There are also theories that John the Baptist and Jesus were one in the same, just separated in the telling--as were Jesus of Nasareth and Jesus Barabbas!

I have listed a few links to Wikipedia pages. I know (before I hear it) that Wikipedia is open-sourced, and as such not overly reliable for research, but there are plenty of external links, and ideas on which to ase your own further research if you are interested.

Answer 3

Funny - have you ever compared the historical evidence for Alexander the Great with the historical evidence for Jesus? Start by looking at the dates between the earliest manscripts mentioning Alexander and the earliest manuscripts mentioning Jesus.

Incidentally, there are descriptions of the physical appearance of Jesus composed within two centuries of his life. Again, compare that to the references to Alexander's appearance. There are even portraits of Jesus in the catacombs dated to within 150 years of his life.

Answer 4

I'm inclined to think that Alexander and others had circles of intelligent people surrounding them... These great leaders were interested in keeping an honest and accurate account of their own doings as evidence of their merit, while Jesus, (if, in deed, he was an actual living man,) was quite different. He lived in the midst of a relatively ignorant people and he, as a leader, had no true interest in record keeping. Truthfulness and accuracy were not significantly important or of any useful purpose to the developmental movement of his philosophy. Jesus was merely spreading sensation and stirring up emotionally motivated people to gain a flock of philosophic followers.

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 5

Hello:

You are correct, it is of little consequence.

Laptop Jesus 5.0: I'd be curious to understand where you got your information, suggesting that we don't know for certain that Jesus was a real person. The historical evidence is very strongly in favor of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person. Whether or not he is who he claims to be is a difficult matter, but that he was an historical figure is not in dispute among most scholars.

If you have a reliable, scholastic source of information that destroys historical evidence of Jesus' personhood, I would be interested to know about it.

Cheers!

Answer 6

There is a bit of description of Jesus somewhere. But it was of no importance to work he did. Alexander was all about self-glorification.

Answer 7

Good question.

Apparently JESUS had a very common appearance which did not set HIM apart from the crowd.

dave

Answer 8

Maybe Jesus' physical appearance wasn't what was important about him. The Bible says that he had no outward appearance that any should desire him. I don't think He stood out in the crowd based on His physical appearance.

Answer 9

Because Jesus was only in Israel. Alexander was all over the place.

Answer 10

Alexander had his face on coins. Jesus came not to be famous but to deliver us from our sin. God does not want us looking for some one who looks like Him to follow He just wants us to follow Him.

Answer 11

The description of Jesus was that his appearance were not of the sort that would draw us to him. I think the reason he is not described further is it doesn't make any difference...that was the point.