Jan
yes, I think we have been here once or twice. Deja vue all over agian, huh?
Let's talk about this statement concerning Gaius Marius.
Now you are really comparing apples and oranges, or, rather, raisins and pumpkins. It is equivalent to saying that the absense of any extraordinary supernatural claim outside e.g. writings by Heaven's Gate (or, for that matter, early Bible Students) is equivalent to there being no sources outside the Western world (or, if you restrict it to native Romans, equivalent to Americans).
The point of my statement is only those concerned with religion wrote about Jesus, otherwise, he didn't attract much attention, I readily admit that. There are supernatural claims made about Marius as well, supposedly it was prophecied that he would be Consul of Rome 7 times, and so he was. Was it really prophecied, who knows, but, there are no outside sources stating that Marius actually existed.
The question to ask is, "Why would anyone outside the small circle of Jews who knew him write about Jesus?" His execution wouldn't have been recorded, his preaching would only have been noticed by those interested in such things. For a rabble rouser Jesus was pretty much a nobody. Had he been a king like Herod, caused a major revolt, or been accepted along the lines of a Rabbi like Hillel or Gameliel he might have been squeezed in somewhere in the histories.
I guess then, to get back to square one, is it your contention that there was not an historical Jesus? Is it your contention that scholars view the existence of an historical Jesus with skepticism? If so, who are these scholars as I've never read any of them.
You acknowledge the Pauline letters as acceptable, wouldn't that argue in favor of an historical Jesus? Paul is closest to the source of the stories we have on Jesus if we reject the rest of the NT works. If Paul wrote when we think he did he would have been alive during the time of Jesus. If Jesus was a complete myth, to what was it that Paul was converted, wouldn't he have known that Jesus was a myth?
Finally, if your contention is that we can't know much about the historical Jesus, I won't argue the point with you, the NT is written through the eyes of faith not scholarship. If you out of hand reject that Jesus was an historical person altogether, I ask, on what basis?
What do you know about "acceptable norms of historical scholarship"? As we have seen above, very little.
While I may not be as well written as you, I've studied history more than your average bear. Seems like a personal attack and quite out of place in this discussion. While I did forget about Josephus' reference to Pilate, are there OTHER references to Pilate? Let's also remember in the debate about Josephus reference to Jesus, part of the debate revolves around what was added. What I've read on the subject is that some scholars think there is a reference to Jesus in his works, but that it was embellished by later "christian" influences. I concur with this, and with the idea that Josephus, as a nominal Jew, would not have refered to Christ as Messiah. I need to get out my "Works of Josephus" again and look at this.
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]