Why did these historians, contemporaries of jesus, not write of him?

Question

We are talking about a "miracle working son of god" so don't bother comparing his historicity to any other historical figure.

Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a very short period after his death, yet not a one of them mentio jesus, his "miracles", his birth or ressurection.

Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus

Hell I know he didn't exist, I am just trying to see what the christians think

Go look up the Josephus writings, he did mention christians but the rest of the quote has been proved to be a fake.

Brother Micheal do you write anything of your own or just copy and paste. What you pasted does not in any way answer the question I asked, you are just providing what you see as evidence. You say all jewish sources wrote of him but this is untrue.

detailgirl-again, the Josephus quote has been shown to have been fakes about 150 years after his original writings

Answer 1

Josephus Flavius DID refer to Christ if you are looking for a specific name fit for your list. I am not particularly knowledgeable about apologetics, yet I can find this reference with a momentary web search.

The writers of the New Testament were, in many instances, martyrs for their faith. Their prolific writings exist although you appear to be able to completely disregard the Bible as a historical source. Why would these eye witness observers die for fiction? These writers also took the subversive actions of writing to women and slaves rather than pandering only to men which would hardly have made their writings popular according to the culture. Yet we still have these writings preserved and available.

I cannot prove the existence of my ancestors. I can document their existence, but I cannot PROVE it. The ability to unequivocally prove or disprove anyone's existence throughout history is based primarily upon surviving information and our ability to interpret that information.

Answer 2

The following contemporaries of Jesus did not write about his virgin birth, his crucifixion, his life saving miracles, or his resurrection. Apollonius of Tyana
Appian
Arrian
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Damis
Dio Chrysostum
Dion
Epictetus
Favorius
Florus Lucius
Hermogones
Josephus
Justis of Tiberius
Juvenal
Lucian Lysias
Martiai
Paterclus
Persius
Peternius
Phaedrus
Phio Judaeus
Phiegon [Phyegon?]\
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the younger
Projeus Plutarch
Pompon Mela
Ptolemy
Quintius Curtis
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Tacitus
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Fauclus
Valerius Manimus.

Answer 3

There are no longer any contemporaneous historic bills of a few guy strolling on water and raising the lifeless. What you will locate are texts which have been written some years later who often do no longer point out Jesus, yet incredibly a king. that's a laugh that a guy who healed the ill, raised from the lifeless and created relatively a insurrection interior the temple during Passover gets no point out in any respect from any of the handfuls of historians of his time. Historians who've talked a pair of king: Pliney the greater youthful, Tactitus, and Setonious are some. sometime Josphus Flavis is suggested although his point out of Christ has been shown to be a forgery.

Answer 4

Katz has carried out research on these writers.

Ptolemy was a geographer, astronomer, and astrologer, not a historian. Silius Italicus was was a Latin epic poet. Epictetus was a stoic philosopher. Apollonius -- which one? Plutarch is indeed one of the rare genuine historians in the list, but his main focus were biographies of famous Greeks and Romans, and none of his works were focused on Israel. Seneca was a Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist / playwright, but not a historian. Aulus Gellius was a grammarian but wrote on many things. Yet, a history of Israel is not among them. Lucanus was a celebrated Roman poet, but not a historian. Theon of Smyrna was a philosopher and mathematician who wrote about number theory, music, and astronomy. How did he make it into Smith's list? Appian, was a historian but none of his surviving works deals with Israel/Palestine, so why would Smith expect him to mention Jesus in any of these books? Although Arrian was a historian, his works dealt mainly with military tactics and the life of Alexander the Great. These are hardly natural contexts to write about Jesus. Martial was a satirical poet, not a historian of any kind. Philo was a philosopher. Looking over the Works of Philo, I wonder in which of these he really should have mentioned Jesus, according to the learned opinion of Mr. Smith.


Hmm I wonder how many knew o f an abscure underground cult....Remember there was no internet

Answer 5

Josephus the historian DID write about Jesus.

The Romans wrote about this man who upset the Roman "apple cart", so to speak.

Others have written about Jesus as well.

Just one example, the author of the book, "Ben Hur" began writing his novel as yet another expose of the lies of Christianity. He planned on incorporating the facts that would demonstrate that Jesus was not who he claimed to be, but rather just another deluded figure in history that was cut short in the prime of life.

As he did the necessary research for his novel, his opinions slowly turned around. He could not, in all honesty, write the book he had first intended and still feel that he had been intellectually honest. The more he studied and dug into the facts surrounding this man Jesus, the more convinced he became that Jesus truly WAS whom he claimed to be. The end results was the novel as we have it today, "Ben Hur".

There are so many others who wrote about Jesus, and the fact that many have tried so hard to discredit the account, but were all unsuccessful, says volumes.

Two books I would HIGHLY recommend include "Who Moved the Stone?" and "Evidence That Demands a Verdict."

There are MANY others, such as C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", and just about ANY thing by Francis Schaeffer, but if you can get through just these few I would be amazed.

Answer 6

Because the Roman authority was paid to tell lies that Jesus's body was snatched by His followers.

Josephus, a known Jewish historian wrote about Jesus.

If you're going to study the life of Christians in the first century, you will found out that they were a minority religious sect. Upon growth persecutions came so they all went underground and people hardly notice them.

At that time there was no typewritter to type news everyday. The mere existence of Christians today can be traced its historicity way back to first generation Christian and it is very difficult to convince you for you do not believe the Bible as the 'Word of God'...

Answer 7

"Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus , even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian] "

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

For further reading from this piece, go to this link:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

Answer 8

Good question. Maybe none of them witnessed any of the miracles. Also I've read that there were many many people who claimed the power to do all the things Christ did. One more thought. In fact, didn't Jesus Himself ask the ones that were healed not to broadcast what had happened? Did He want to everyone to know? Was the world ready for the Son of God?

Answer 9

These all sound like they are Roman or Greek and although the Roman Empire had overtaken the Holy Land, they were more concerned with the history of their own countries and those at their borders. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not even introduced into these lands until well after His death.

You will, however find reference to Jesus and Mary in the writings of the Islamic nations.

Answer 10

Wow. You know your ancient writers! Probably a lot of those guys didn't believe in Jesus, didn't want to ruin their credibility by writing about a man who was at that time considered a rebel and troublemaker among the Jewish people. Looks like alot of those guys were Roman. How would it have looked for them to write about someone like Jesus if they didn't even believe in Him? Their Caesar's probably wouldn't care too much for any unrest their writings would cause.