peacefulpete you might be write about the Joseph passage (and of Jesus not having had a brother named James) and I might end up believing it. But if I I do come to believe such, it likely won't be in haste. I would think about it quite about and consider how compatible the idea is with a number of ideas I already hold and think about if those ideas of mine have problems.
Regarding the account in Josephus which refers to Jesus as "called Christ" instead of saing "son of Joseph" or "of Nazareth", perhaps it was because that when he wrote the account (in the late 1 century CE), Christians were much more often referring to Jesus as "Christ" than as "of Nazareth" or "son of Joseph". We see such usage in the NT letters, including in Paul's.
A number of years ago, I read claims that James was both the brother of the Jesus and leader/bishop of the Jerusalem congregation of Christianity, was righteous/just in the minds of non-Christian Jews, and according to Josephus was killed (but with many non-Christian Jews saddened by his death). When I first learned learned that a great many non-Christians Jews were saddened by such a James I thought such was had to believe (due to the portrayal in the gospels of the Jews demanding the death of Jesus). But a few years ago (or so) I was wasn't, because I came to a different view about Jesus (and his likely teachings) and of the views and practices of his earliest Jewish non-Hellenistic followers, as a result of reading various articles.
I learned there were Torah keeping Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus as the Messiah (not just the ones referred to in some of Paul's letters and in the book of Acts), but who did not believe that Jesus is God (or even literally the son of God), and who also didn't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. [As you know, the earliest gospel account of the NT has no virgin birth account for Jesus, and as you know the book called Matthew portrays Jesus as being Torah keeping and urging fellow Jews to keep the Torah law.] Some groups with at least some of those ideas were ones called Nazarenes, Ebionites, and some other names (I don't remember right now the names of the other groups). I read claims that Jesus the brother of Jesus was a righteous man who was also a Torah keeping Jew (even after his brother Jesus died), and that he was very influential among Jewish Christians largely because he was the fleshly brother of Jesus. He would have known that Jesus had a biological father (one likely named Joseph). The Christianity of that kind of Jew was much more mainstream Jewish (though of a messianic type) than the gentile Christian type. It thus would have been much more acceptable to non-Christian Jews than Paul's type of Christianity would have been to them. I thus think that such a Jewish follower of Jesus, who was known as keeping the Mosaic law faithfully and for being righteous, and for not saying that Jesus was God, and for saying that the literal father of Jesus was a Jewish man, would be respected by many non-Christian Jews, and that his death (by murder) would be mourned by many of them.
I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews, nor the account of the Jewish religious leaders plotting to have Jesus killed, and the Jewish religious leaders had a sham trial conducted in a manner which broke many of their own rules. I have learned (from Jewish web sites) that throughout over 1,000 years the Jews have been saying they did not do the horrible things to Jesus which the gospels say they did. I remember that they say the accounts in the gospels slander the Jewish people (including the religions leaders) and has influenced many people over nearly 2,000 years to persecute them as a result. I read that the Jewish people have long had various rules about how a Jewish suspect is to be tried and that the rules forbid doing things the way the gospels accuse them of having done to Jesus. They give details of the rules, including going down the street asking is there is anyone who wishes to come forward and say something in defense of the accused. They also say that their courts would never condemn a fellow Jew to become crucified! According to their law back them, even if they had a Jew hung (such as upon a tree or a stake), he would not be executed that way, but would be killed some other way instead, and only after he was already dead would he be hanged/hung.
The NT gospel accounts portray Pilate as kind just ruler who tried to avoid having Jesus executed, but history shows that he was ruthless instead. The gospels try to make it appear that the Romans were not really guilty for the death of Jesus, by claiming that the Jews insisted upon his death instead. That scenario is unlikely.
Consider what is said at the following sites:
- https://outreachjudaism.org/who-killed-jesus/ which says the following (among making many other good points).
'In contrast to the gracious, benign caricature of Pontius Pilate
conveyed in the Gospels, according to noted historians, including Philo
and Josephus, the Roman Governor was renowned for “his violence, thefts,
assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, and savage ferocity”15 and
as a “cruel despot who executed troublemakers without a trial and
ordered his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill scores of Jews.”16 Not
surprisingly, this record of Pilate’s brutality is mentioned nowhere in
the New Testament. A cruel tyrant such as Pilate would not have
hesitated to execute any leader whose followers posed a potential threat
to Roman rule. The notion that the Jews would or could demand of Pilate
to crucify Jesus is preposterous.'
- https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/ which says in part the following.
"This narrative is patently false. While certain leaders in the local
Jewish community felt that Jesus’ teachings were politically subversive,
experts have gathered that Jesus was not perceived as particularly
threatening or enraging to the Jews around him.4
Modern readers misinterpret the trial of Jesus as a conflict between
Jews and Christians, but this does not square with the Jewish origins of
Christianity or with the fact that Christianity emerged years after
Jesus’ death. The only non-Jews present in the story of Jesus’
crucifixion were the Romans."
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jesus-the-crucifixion-pontius-pilate-and-the-new-testament is a Jewish source presenting a Jewish view. It says in part the following.
'Concerning Jesus’ executioner, Pontius Pilate,*
we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely
sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long
line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a
notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a
group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would
only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of
the New Testament—who in his “heart of hearts” really did not want to
harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a
purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by
Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity’s
founder—indeed the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman
historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New
Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation.
Christianity’s only hope for gaining legitimacy was to “prove” to Rome
that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only
come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New
Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only
to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, “Crucify him.” The account
ignores one simple fact. Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute. Had he
wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not
have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing
someone whom he admired.
Crucifixion
itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because
it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by
the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have
historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought
about Jesus’ crucifixion.'
