jhine:
yes I was ,in my original post, paraphrasing because I was quoting from the book that i am reading , the author of which is is well versed in all of the ancient writings , he is an ex bishop , So I wondered why he would take the reference to James as to mean the brother of Jesus Christ when these objections of yours would obviously negate that meaning . So I have just read the passages concerned from Antiquities 20.1 onward . It seems that you did a bit of a hatchet job and the parts you left out put a different spin on the whole thing .
mP:
I am inclluding the entire paragraph with the original omission in bold. Questions follow...
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 first deletion hardly contains vital information that makes the paragraph a perfect match for the jesus of the gospels. If anything it is another example of the poor records in the gospels. Albinus etc is never mentioned in the Bible.
What deleted text makes my assertion wrong in any way. If one reads the entire text its quite clear that none of it refers to the Jesus of the gospels. At best the text mentions many jesus's. No miracles, no 12 apostles, no virgin birth, no nazareth, no bethlehem, kids being killed and all the other favourite jesus memories are ever metnioned here.
