The entire section (Antiquities Book XX, Chapter 9, 1 ) and xtians hate to be told to read the whole section. They far prefer to pick out one word and shout "Yup...THERE'S JESUS!!!!"
Josephus, writing in Greek, used the word xριστός (christos) meaning 'the anointed.' Josephus would have understood that all high priests ( and the king) were "anointed." It was customary and he was from a priestly family. Almost everyone in the passage above ( except the two Romans ) was a christos at one time or another. For a xtian scribe copying several centuries after the fact suddenly seeing the word "xριστός" in the text may well have caused him to wet his pants. This may be less a "forgery" ( which implies an intent to deceive ) than a simple mistake as the scribe sought to explain the text in his terms. As is seen at the end the proper format is So and So, son of So and So. Had Josephus wanted to describe "James" he would have written "James" son of Whoever. "Jesus" may have been a big hairy deal when the scribe wrote but he wasn't shit to Josephus.
Quote:1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Josephus, writing in Greek, used the word xριστός (christos) meaning 'the anointed.' Josephus would have understood that all high priests ( and the king) were "anointed." It was customary and he was from a priestly family. Almost everyone in the passage above ( except the two Romans ) was a christos at one time or another. For a xtian scribe copying several centuries after the fact suddenly seeing the word "xριστός" in the text may well have caused him to wet his pants. This may be less a "forgery" ( which implies an intent to deceive ) than a simple mistake as the scribe sought to explain the text in his terms. As is seen at the end the proper format is So and So, son of So and So. Had Josephus wanted to describe "James" he would have written "James" son of Whoever. "Jesus" may have been a big hairy deal when the scribe wrote but he wasn't shit to Josephus.
