Quote:At least get your facts straight. there are two quotes of Jospehus which are considered credible and authentic.
Only by ignorant xtian shits who are desperate for some reference to their godboy that they willingly overlook the obvious forgery. NO XTIAN WRITER prior to Eusebius (and Josephus wrote over 200 years before Eusebius!) ever heard anything about this marvelous godboy passage (the long one.) Origen, writing a century before Eusebius made specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews but then specifically said that Josephus "did not know Christ." Why don't you strain your brain a little (it could use the exercise) and see if you can figure out why that might be?
As for the short reference in Book XX it is probably less a case of "forgery" than of xtian wishful thinking. Josephus, speaking of someone named Yaacov (James) refers to him as the brother of
a: the one-called christ, or
b: the so-called christ, or
c: the one known as christ
(Apparently, the Greek word in question works with all 3 translations).
But it appears in a paragraph in which Josephus is discussing the actions of the high priest: Well, here. Read it for yourself.
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.
"the king" in this case being Herod Agrippa II.
Josephus mentions a number of people and the one thing that kings and high priests had in common was that they were all "anointed" (which is the meaning of "christos" in Greek.) As a matter of fact, aside from the two Romans, almost everyone in this discussion was a christos at one time or another. However, ancient Greek was written without capital letters or even spaces between words. Could some xtian scribe have seen the word "Christos" in the text and shit his pants with joy thinking he had found his godboy? You bet your silly ass they could. There is way too much of that sort of behavior in xtian "theology." Note also that in the last line another "jesus" ends up as high priest (christos!) For all we know this is the same jesus as referred to above.
You see, Josephus belonged to a priestly family. To suggest that he would accord the title "christos" to some crucified criminal who had some WOMAN spill oil on his fucking feet is the height of lunacy. Josephus, and every other Jew doubtless, would have regarded such an "anointment" as a mockery of their traditions.
But xtians are easy to fool. You are living proof of that.
