The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[Peter Kirby]

The use of 'christ' does not appear in the Greek of Josephus outside of these two references in Ant. 20.9.1 and Ant. 18.3.3 (both probably spurious). Josephus nowhere else chooses to use such language to refer to the appointing of a high priest (or, indeed, at all).

[dewitness]

One of the versions of 'christ'/'christus' means "annointed" or "chosen one" - these passages are about high priests being appointed: ie. anointed or chosen

The end of Antiquities 20, Cap 9 says this

But king Agrippa, ... denied the petitioners their request about that matter; but he did not obstruct them when they desired the city might be paved with white stone. He also deprived Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, of the high priesthood, and gave it to Matthias, the son of Theophilus, under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

That chapter refers to priests being appointed/anointed and deposed on several occasions.

The use of 'christ' does not necessarily imply Jesus the Christ of Nazareth

Also, if Jesus the brother of James was not the son of Damneus then we have no idea who he was or when he died. Surely, there was no Jewish Messianic ruler of the Jews in the 1st century in all the writings of Josephus.

There is nothing in Antiquities of the Jews to presume the brother of James was already dead since the time of Pilate.

[spin]

The use of 'christ' does not appear in the Greek of Josephus outside of these two references in Ant. 20.9.1 and Ant. 18.3.3 (both probably spurious). Josephus nowhere else chooses to use such language to refer to the appointing of a high priest (or, indeed, at all).

I've tried to sell this fact for years to no avail. You point out that while the LXX uses the word χριστος over 40 times, and the first half of Josephus's work is an epitome of the Hebrew bible, he never uses the word there. It is only when we come to the two christian references.

Oh, and I forgot the stupidity of trying to force Jesus son of Damneus, who is introduced in 20.203, to be this Jesus who was called christ. Naturally, the form of the reference "Jesus son of Damneus" is a first reference. That should appear in 20.200 if Jesus called christ was in fact Jesus son of Damneus. However, that he was even "called" christ shows the attempt fails. A priest is not "called" christ. That is nonsense. A priest is anointed, ie is christ. Being called christ indicates a name type reference.

[dewitness]

If Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was interpolated with the words "called the ANOINTED" [called the christ] then it can easily be seen that Jesus the brother of James was most likely the son of Damneus.

[spin]

If Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was interpolated with the words "called the ANOINTED" [called the christ] then it can easily be seen that Jesus the brother of James was most likely the son of Damneus.

You don't talk of someone by their full familial name as a secondary reference. It's likely that the text originally read something like "a man named James and certain others". The passage is about the naughtiness of Ananus and overfilling it with extraneous facts shifts the focus.

[MrMacSon]

that he [Jesus in Antiquities 20.200] was even "called" christ shows the attempt fails. A priest is not "called" christ. That is nonsense.

A priest is anointed, ie. is christ. Being "called christ" indicates a name type reference.

Good point. perhaps a name deletion for insertion of "called christ"?

My understnd is the versions of these works of Josephus came via Origen/Pamphilus/eusebius, and the olders ducument is dated 11thC.

Oh, and I forgot the stupidity of trying to force Jesus son of Damneus, who is introduced in 20.203, to be this Jesus who was called christ. Naturally, the form of the reference "Jesus son of Damneus" is a first reference. That should appear in 20.200 if Jesus called christ was in fact Jesus son of Damneus.

Also, a good point.

As I said above, could "Jesus called [the] christ" have previously been another named Jesus? - (a somewhat rhetorical question ....)

such as - Jesus ben Ananius ??

[dewitness]

The passage with the words "who was called Christ" was interpolated some time AFTER at least the 2nd century.

All of a sudden, from out of the blue, a passage that is extremely significant evidence when arguing that the Jewish Messiah had already come surfaces at least 150 years after it was supposedly written by the well known writer Josephus.

No 2nd century Christian writer including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian used the most powerful evidence against the Jews to prove the Advent of the Predicted Messianic ruler or showed that Josephus knew James the brother of the Predicted Messianic ruler.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

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..

If the words "who was called Christ" was originally in AJ 20.9.1 then we would expect that NOT only Origen and Eusebius would have noticed its significance for over a 150 years.

[Peter Kirby]

So far, MrMacSon, nobody in this thread but arnoldo has said that the reference is to the NT James and Jesus. The most significant disagreement has been whether it is an interpolation of 'the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ' (as spin has suggested?) or merely of the words 'the one called Christ' (as I've suggested). Nothing need have stood there to be overwritten; the text makes sense as it stands, minus a handful of spurious words that connect this James to the New Testament story.

[dewitness]

Now, once it is understood that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was interpolated some time AFTER the writings of Tertullian then we get an idea when Galatians was composed or when Galatians 1.18-19 was interpolated.

Galatians 1:19 NIV

I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother

Galatians 1.19 only makes sense AFTER the interpolation of AJ 20.9.1

[Peter Kirby]

Balderdash!