Many Christian apologists deny that there are no contemporaneous or primary sources for the Jesus found in the Bible. Others will accept this reality but claim that many other historical figures also have weak historical support. Alexander the Great is one of their favorites in making the comparison. Is this a fair comparison? The following says "no."
While the historical sources for Alexander the Great have conflicting information about him and existing contemporary writings are rare, no respected source denies his existence:- Despite these problems with the sources, the existence of Alexander is a reasonable belief because he has wide and independent attestation from all types of sources and not just those of his own followers. Some of these sources date from his own time and are attested archaeologically, not just from later accounts. So, we don’t just have to depend on later historians such as Plutarch and Arrian. For example, reliefs at the Shrine of the Bark at Luxor in Egypt mention Alexander by name and depict him artistically during his lifetime (ca. 330-325 BCE). That would confirm his presence in Egypt mentioned by all major ancient sources. (see link for more)
