Why did pagans not take any notice of Jesus?

[Yonadav]

Little known fact about Jesus, he was the world's first ninja. Only the blessed could bear witness to his holiness.

Only the thirsty sees the mirage, but it is still a mirage.

Everyone can see a mirage. You pretty much have to be blind to not see a mirage.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who was it was they were supposed to noticed, how, and why?  The chimera in magic book?   Some nobody on the fringes of civilization? They didn't notice "jesus" or the movement because it simply didn't come to be in the postdated timeframe.

[fredd bear]

@Brian37


"Because he didn't exist. "


Devil's advocate:

The historicity of Jesus has not been established. That does not prove he did not exist. Claiming he did not exist puts you in the same position as the believer who claims he did. Making a claim leaves you with the burden of proof.

Context; Jesus is said to have lived and died during the reign of Tiberius. He seems to have been a wandering rabbi at a time such people were common in Judah. He seems to have had a small group of disciples. He seems to have founded a tiny very Jewish sect. At the beginning only observant Jews or converts could join the sect. This did not change until Paul of Tarsus stuck his oar in--it was Paul who invented the religion called Christianity, not Jesus.***

His name would have been something like Yeshua/Yohua bar Yusuf, mother, Miriam; all common Hebrew names at the time. "Jesus' is romanised version of the greek "Iesous" . As far a s I know ,Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, not Greek..Not sure if any of them had enough Greek to write the gospels. It is unsurprising his contemporaries, Jews and gentiles ,wrote nothing about him; he was a minor figure. His arrest and execution was not a significant event except for him and his disciples

Most of what eventually became the Newt Testament is myth and has little to do with the figure of Jesus..


Based on everything I've been taught and have read, I think it likely even probable that Jesus existed.I'm unable to make a claim either way due to the lack of contemporary evidence .

Brian, I agree with much of your basic position. I've posted this in support and to suggest only make claims you can actually prove. That helps keep your credibility, which I think generally high.


**The name 'Christian' to describe the new faith only came into common use after being used by the emperor Theodosius


Recommended reference; "Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman, who is a former Christian, but still renowned biblical scholar. (predictably no longer by Christians )

[Jehanne]

Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person; he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, one of many of his day. That is why no pagan author took notice of him or even considered him worth mentioning; they recognized him as being just another crank.

[fredd bear]

Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person; he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, one of many of his day.  That is why no pagan author took notice of him or even considered him worth mentioning; they recognized him as being just another crank.

The crank bit, agreed.

I did a bit of searching:

 Scholars tend to agree the the historicity of Jesus is 'effectively certain'. I'm perhaps being a bit pedantic to claim otherwise.

I post the quote below for Brian37


The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Jackalope]

They aren't exactly talking about a miracle working godman, though.

[Anomalocaris]

Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person; he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, one of many of his day.  That is why no pagan author took notice of him or even considered him worth mentioning; they recognized him as being just another crank.

I think it is impossible to say whether Jesus of Nazareth is really traceable to any single historic person, or if he is mainly a fictional amalgamation of traits already in individual circulation to overawe the gullible.

[Jehanne]

Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person; he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, one of many of his day.  That is why no pagan author took notice of him or even considered him worth mentioning; they recognized him as being just another crank.

I think it is impossible to say whether Jesus of Nazareth is really traceable to any single historic person, or if he is mainly a fictional amalgamation of traits already in individual circulation to overawe the gullible.

I think that he existed for the following reasons:

1)  His existence is documented by Paul within a decade to two after his death; Paul records a few things that he said.

2)  Ditto for Mark, Q, M ("Matthew's material"), L ("Luke") and the Gospel of Thomas.

3)  Josephus and Tacitus clearly document his existence, especially, Josephus' reference to Jesus' brother James.

[bennyboy]

Mentioning someone means they wanted that figure to be known. It doesn't mean it was a real figure.

It's possible that early Christians were Jews who sat around and said, "How can we personify our religion in a way that makes it accessible to Romans?"

[Jehanne]

Mentioning someone means they wanted that figure to be known.  It doesn't mean it was a real figure.

It's possible that early Christians were Jews who sat around and said, "How can we personify our religion in a way that makes it accessible to Romans?"

The early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus.  Your thesis that Jews were interested in converting non-Jews to Judaism is, I believe, supported by no one.  Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion.