Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

So far, your only support for interpolation is that in your translation the line could be removed and the passage still make sense. That isn't an argument for interpolation. Textual critics don't search through texts to find which lines COULD be removed and have the passage still make sense. That is possibly the worst approach to textual criticism I have ever seen, but of course you aren't a textual critic, and no textual critic agrees with you, so it is hardly suprising.

What an absurd argument, your comprehension skills are non existent. If that is what you think I base my argument on then all I can say is that you are a complete waste of time. The line in question appears to be an interpolation because it makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't follow, the story continues as if it wasn't there, and it causes confusion by being there. It appears completely out of context on a number of levels. Can you understand that? It's really not rocket science, it's really self explanatory so try to think about what you're reading for a moment and see if you can't at least make an attempt to apply reason. Thank you.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not persuaded by "consensus of scholarship"




But the majority doesn't rule here. And I disagree. "Called Christ"....does give me reason to speculate it was inserted. My personal view, even from the beginning, gives me reason to think the reference has nothing to do with a Jesus Christ but focuses on a Jesus, the brother of James who was executed, and after this James was executed his brother Jesus was crowned.

That's a most reasonable view. And you're right, the majority doesn't rule here, it's merely mob rule. Whether minority or majority, views need to stand on their own merits.

 

[Oberon]

The line in question appears to be an interpolation because it makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't follow, the story continues as if it wasn't there, and it causes confusion by being there. It appears completely out of context on a number of levels.

Only you are completely wrong on every point. The passage begins with an intro that Herod persecuted the sect. It then specifies that this began with James being executed. James execution is linked in the next clause to Peter being arrested, and the story continues with Peter. Nothing is out of place, even in your translation.

How is that so hard for you to understand? What doesn't make sense? Let me make this very simple.

Herod persecutes church. James is killed. Peter is arrested. Story goes on. James the brother of John never mentioned again because he is dead.

Not very complex.

 

[Oberon]

I'm not persuaded by "consensus of scholarship"

Yes, apparently random websites are far more convincing.

But the majority doesn't rule here.

No, but the best way to find out what is likely to be the truth on a particular issue is the consensus of experts. If I have a cancer, I don't go and see a plumber. I consult with experts. If I want to know about evolution, I don't go to a bunch of Young Earth Creationist websites, I read about the consensus of scientists in relevant fields.

Likewise, if you want to know about whether a passage in Josephus is likely to be an interpolation, the best way to determine this short of learning greek, reading all of Josephus, studying the time period in question and reading all the literature on the matter, is to see what the consensus of scholarship is. And there is virtually no one with any expertise arguing that the shorter reference to James isn't authentic.

And I disagree. "Called Christ"....does give me reason to speculate it was inserted.

Why? What do you know of common christological titles? The line "called Christ" is almost completely absent from Christian literature. The whole point of "called Christ" is that he ISN'T Christ. Which is why Christians NEVER used this outside of specific contexts. To them, Jesus WAS Christ, or Lord, or whatever.

Josephus used the "called Christ" as a way to identify this Jesus from other, like the one mentioned shortly afterward. He uses Jesus himself to identify James. There is nothing Christian at all in the passage anywhere. Josephus says nothing positive about James or Jesus, merely that he was unjustly executed.

My personal view, even from the beginning, gives me reason to think the reference has nothing to do with a Jesus Christ but focuses on a Jesus, the brother of James who was executed, and after this James was executed his brother Jesus was crowned.

Why on earth would that make sense? Do you know anything about the opprobrium based culture of first century judaism and the problems with a family member being executed? More importantly, do you know anything about identification syntax in greek? Or how it was used?

Why would Josephus NOT identify which Jesus he was talking about when James is mentioned, and then specifically identify him a few lines later? The whole point of identification is to make it clear who you are talking about because so many people have the same names. When you are talking about the same person, you identify them at one point and then there isn't a need to identify them again unless you are talking about somebody else with the same name.

Yet you would have Josephus NOT identify Jesus the first time, so it isn't clear which Jesus he was talking about, and THEN indentify him later, the complete reverse of the how identification works. Identify FIRST, and then you don't have to, unless there is a need.

Moreover, you use the SAME way to identify people whenever possible to avoid confusion. Yet first the passage has Jesus as the brother of James, and then as the son of Damneus. Why not identify James as the son of Damneus? Why use Jesus to identify him? Why not indentify Jesus as the son of Damneus first, where it makes sense, and not later, making it unclear if who the first Jesus was?

The passage makes much more sense if James is identified as the brother of Jesus, who is identified as the one "called Christ" and the later Jesus is identified as the son of Damneus, a completely different Jesus.

Moreover, if it is an interpolation, why "called Christ?" Why not just Christ or Lord or a common christian title?

 

[dogsgod]

Only you are completely wrong on every point. The passage begins with an intro that Herod persecuted the sect. It then specifies that this began with James being executed. James execution is linked in the next clause to Peter being arrested, and the story continues with Peter. Nothing is out of place, even in your translation.

How is that so hard for you to understand? What doesn't make sense? Let me make this very simple.

Herod persecutes church. James is killed. Peter is arrested. Story goes on. James the brother of John never mentioned again because he is dead.

Not very complex.

You have to be comatose not to see James mentioned again as soon as Peter gets out of jail, so to say that James is not mentioned again is asinine. And no, James execution is not necessarily linked to Peter's arrest.


We can see that the third verse could just as well be linked to the 1st:

1Now about that time, King Herod stretched out his hands to oppress some of the assembly.
3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Killing James is out of place because it clearly states that King Herod wished to oppress some of the assembly, not outright kill them. Peter also is taken and was to be put on public trial. Again, the outright killing is out of place. This story is about Peter and his miraculous escape and the first thing he does when he gets out is to have James informed of this. But James was supposedly just killed so who is this James that he refers to this time? Confused? Well we should be.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, apparently random websites are far more convincing.

No, D P applies reasoning skills, something you lack. Attacking websites rather than the reasoning presented exposes your lack of skill when confronted with a line of reasoning. You fool no one and it's difficult to take anyone that uses this tactic seriously. Websites make use of an electronic format for transmitting information, to argue against websites is to argue against a format, which is silly, not to mention incredibly amateurish. To appeal to a majority consensus of scholarship that is dominated by Christians requires the reasoning skill of a gnat.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, apparently random websites are far more convincing.

Come on now. You can't have the same argument with me like the ones you carried with Logician. I never said I don't acknowledge or don't even consider "scholarship"...I do. I happen to not be persuaded by a (Consensus Of Opinion) tis all.

No, but the best way to find out what is likely to be the truth on a particular issue is the consensus of experts. If I have a cancer, I don't go and see a plumber. I consult with experts.

.......No you wouldn't see a plumber but even in cases like this sometimes one needs to consult and get a second opinion.

Consider this from a blogger who actually was misdiagnosed. misdiagnosis of cancer or biopsy? - WrongDiagnosis.com. So while I understand your attempt at an analogy the fact is it's a misleading one because even the experts in the field make mistakes.

I'm not necessarily claiming your scholarly sources are wrong or have made a mistake but simply showing that there is ample reason to think the works of Josephus (the shorter quote) may not be as genuine as you claim.

If I want to know about evolution, I don't go to a bunch of Young Earth Creationist websites, I read about the consensus of scientists in relevant fields.

Again, this is a bad analogy. If one knows anything about a YEC they'd already know they they don't except the TOE so there would be no reason to ask any of them about it at all.

Likewise, if you want to know about whether a passage in Josephus is likely to be an interpolation, the best way to determine this short of learning greek

Hardly. We suspect that some or all......I suspect ALL, of the longer quote is an interpolation. I don't need to read greek to understand that and everyone looking at that quote, who cand and can't read greek, feels that is has been tampered with. For me, the mention of "called christ" seems out of place considering the context and the climate of the cituation. So what...James was to be killed. What Jews or Romans would have been upset at the death of a christian?

Why? What do you know of common christological titles? The line "called Christ" is almost completely absent from Christian literature. The whole point of "called Christ" is that he ISN'T Christ. Which is why Christians NEVER used this outside of specific contexts. To them, Jesus WAS Christ, or Lord, or whatever.

Then what purpose/motif did a supposed christian have for inserting what he did in the longer quote? Remove that whole quote and the story makes sense so remove the "who was called christ" in the shorter reference and the story flows much better.

Josephus used the "called Christ" as a way to identify this Jesus from other, like the one mentioned shortly afterward. He uses Jesus himself to identify James. There is nothing Christian at all in the passage anywhere. Josephus says nothing positive about James or Jesus, merely that he was unjustly executed.

Nor does he say anything negative. I don't think the Jesus and James mentioned are the ones of the bible.

Why would Josephus NOT identify which Jesus he was talking about when James is mentioned, and then specifically identify him a few lines later? The whole point of identification is to make it clear who you are talking about because so many people have the same names. When you are talking about the same person, you identify them at one point and then there isn't a need to identify them again unless you are talking about somebody else with the same name.

Yet you would have Josephus NOT identify Jesus the first time, so it isn't clear which Jesus he was talking about, and THEN indentify him later, the complete reverse of the how identification works. Identify FIRST, and then you don't have to, unless there is a need.

Moreover, you use the SAME way to identify people whenever possible to avoid confusion. Yet first the passage has Jesus as the brother of James, and then as the son of Damneus. Why not identify James as the son of Damneus? Why use Jesus to identify him? Why not indentify Jesus as the son of Damneus first, where it makes sense, and not later, making it unclear if who the first Jesus was?

The passage makes much more sense if James is identified as the brother of Jesus, who is identified as the one "called Christ" and the later Jesus is identified as the son of Damneus, a completely different Jesus.

Because it looks to me that the link to James was Jesus and that's what's setting the tone. This rush to kill James angered a lot of people...those knowledgeable in the law....WHY? What was a dead christian law breaker to these Jews? I don't think the story has anything to do with the Jesus and the James in the bible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, D P applies reasoning skills, something you lack. Attacking websites rather than the reasoning presented exposes your lack of skill when confronted with a line of reasoning. You fool no one and it's difficult to take anyone that uses this tactic seriously. Websites make use of an electronic format for transmitting information, to argue against websites is to argue against a format, which is silly, not to mention incredibly amateurish. To appeal to a majority consensus of scholarship that is dominated by Christians requires the reasoning skill of a gnat.

Yes....then what is there to debate if one wants us to simply agree with them because a majority says they should?

"consensus of scholarship"...but not all....

"virtually all"...but not all

And the ones that are left get put down and considered hacks or even not educated enough to have their own opinion because they don't meet some sort of academic criteria...

 

[Oberon]

You have to be comatose not to see James mentioned again as soon as Peter gets out of jail, so to say that James is not mentioned again is asinine.

What part of James the brother of John is not mentioned again is difficult for you? Show me where "james the brother of John" is mentioned again after Acts. He isn't. Acts BEGINS by mentioning more than one James. One dies. It doesn't take a genius to realize that any reference to a James after this is a different one.

And no, James execution is not necessarily linked to Peter's arrest.

In the text we have, even in translation, it is linked. In the text we have, Peter is arrested because James' execution went over so well. The fact that you can take this line out and a translation still makes sense is no reason to suppose interpolation. We can do that in numerous places in any given text.

The point is, even in translation, the text links the two events together. You can take one out, and it might make sense in translation, but why would you ever approach textual criticism that way?

We can see that the third verse could just as well be linked to the 1st:

1Now about that time, King Herod stretched out his hands to oppress some of the assembly.
3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

In a translation, yes. However, so what? Let us ignore the greek syntax for a moment. If line three is linked to line two in the text, but it could be linked to line 1 if removed, why is that a good reason to suppose interpolation? The fact is that as we have it James' execution IS linked with Peter's arrest, and makes perfect sense in the context in which it exists. Herod oppresses the church, kills James, and arrests Peter. Perfect fit. Why suppose interpolation?

Killing James is out of place because it clearly states that King Herod wished to oppress some of the assembly, not outright kill them.

No, the verb is kakosai. It means to do harm/evil. This includes killing. It fits perfectly. James is killed, Peter is arrested.

Peter also is taken and was to be put on public trial. Again, the outright killing is out of place.

Why?

This story is about Peter and his miraculous escape and the first thing he does when he gets out is to have James informed of this. But James was supposedly just killed so who is this James that he refers to this time? Confused? Well we should be.

Only Acts BEGINS by mentioning more than one James. If one is dead, it doesn't take a genius to realize that it can't be the same James.

 

[Oberon]

Yes....then what is there to debate if one wants us to simply agree with them because a majority says they should?

I remember reading about a biologist being fired because he didn't believe in evolution. The whole point of consensus is that it is the best way for an outsider who ISN'T an expert to know what the truth is.

And in the case of the reference to James, it isn't simply a consensus. I can think of only one expert out of hundreds or more who has come down against the James reference. Not quite a biologist denying evolution, but then this is history not science.

There simply is no reason to suppose interpolation. The passage doesn't sympathize with Christians, and it reads better with Jesus called christ than without.

And the ones that are left get put down and considered hacks or even not educated enough to have their own opinion because they don't meet some sort of academic criteria...

If you can't read greek and haven't studied the literature or the area then you aren't really qualified to comment.

 

[Oberon]

.......No you wouldn't see a plumber but even in cases like this sometimes one needs to consult and get a second opinion.

So where is your second opinion? Which Josephus scholar are you going to for it?

Hardly. We suspect that some or all......I suspect ALL, of the longer quote is an interpolation. I don't need to read greek to understand that and everyone looking at that quote, who cand and can't read greek, feels that is has been tampered with.

Not everyone. Most. And I agree that it has. But the reason we think this is because the passage is so blatantly christian.

For me, the mention of "called christ" seems out of place considering the context and the climate of the cituation

Why? Called christ means "he was only called christ." In fact, it CAN mean specifically that he isn't christ, he is only called that. It certainly isn't a typical christian way of referring to Jesus.

So what...James was killed. What Jews or Romans would have been upset at the death of a christian?

You are missing the point of the passage, which is to decry the actions of the high priest. James is peripheral to Josephus' goal, and Jesus even more so. James is mentioned only because he was the one on trial, and the point was how the high priest was bad. Jesus is mentioned only to identify James, and the "called Christ" identifies Jesus.

I think the context has nothing to do with the biblical James or Jesus but rather a Jesus who was crowned ruler after the wrongful death of his brother.

Only this doesn't make any sense. If James was Jesus' brother, than he would also be identified as the son of Damneus. There would be no reason to mention Jesus as an identifier at all.

Then what purpose/motif did a supposed christian have for inserting what he did in the longer quote?

The longer quote is blatantly christian. Josephus says "if indeed on ought to call him a man" and he says "this one was the christ." Notice the difference: in the alteration, Jesus IS christ, in the genuine, he is CALLED christ.

Remove that whole quote and the story makes sense so remove the "called christ" in the shorter reference and the story flows much better.

It doesn't, because we have no idea who Jesus is. He is used to indentify James, but who is he? If you add "called Christ" then we know who he is talking about.

 

[Oberon]

No, D P applies reasoning skills, something you lack. Attacking websites rather than the reasoning presented exposes your lack of skill when confronted with a line of reasoning.

Only I have addressed the arguments. The passage fits fine, as a standard identifying technique. It isn't christian, so there is no reason to suppose interpolation. And all the texts attest to it.

The whole point of assuming the longer reference to Jesus is a forgery is because of lines like ho christos outos en/this one was the christ, not "the one CALLED christ"

Websites make use of an electronic format for transmitting information, to argue against websites is to argue against a format, which is silly, not to mention incredibly amateurish. To appeal to a majority consensus of scholarship that is dominated by Christians requires the reasoning skill of a gnat.

Josephan scholarship isn't "dominated" by christians. And your continued appeal to deny centuries of critical scholarship by writing it all of as "christian" so you can appeal to one scholar of german, one classicist, and one actual expert, is pitiful.

 

[dogsgod]

What part of James the brother of John is not mentioned again is difficult for you? Show me where "james the brother of John" is mentioned again after Acts. He isn't. Acts BEGINS by mentioning more than one James. One dies. It doesn't take a genius to realize that any reference to a James after this is a different one.



In the text we have, even in translation, it is linked. In the text we have, Peter is arrested because James' execution went over so well. The fact that you can take this line out and a translation still makes sense is no reason to suppose interpolation. We can do that in numerous places in any given text.

How can anyone be so incredibly dense? It's not a reason and I explained that to you already. You are not worth wasting anymore time on.

The point is, even in translation, the text links the two events together. You can take one out, and it might make sense in translation, but why would you ever approach textual criticism that way?




In a translation, yes. However, so what? Let us ignore the greek syntax for a moment. If line three is linked to line two in the text, but it could be linked to line 1 if removed, why is that a good reason to suppose interpolation? The fact is that as we have it James' execution IS linked with Peter's arrest, and makes perfect sense in the context in which it exists. Herod oppresses the church, kills James, and arrests Peter. Perfect fit. Why suppose interpolation?



No, the verb is kakosai. It means to do harm/evil. This includes killing. It fits perfectly. James is killed, Peter is arrested.



Why?



Only Acts BEGINS by mentioning more than one James. If one is dead, it doesn't take a genius to realize that it can't be the same James.

 

[Oberon]

How can anyone be so incredibly dense? It's not a reason and I explained that to you already. You are not worth wasting anymore time on.

That's true. As your crowning reason you have a differenat james being mentioned later. Genius! Why did no one think of this before you?

Oh, that's right. Because the passage fits fine, even in translation (without arguing from greek syntax), and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume interpolation.

Herod does evil to church. James is executed. Peter arrested.

How is this so complicated?

[/

Translation: my ridiculously absurd argument of interpolation which no one has ever made and I made on the basis of a translation and zero knowledge of textual criticism has now been aptly demonstrated to be completely baseless.


Acts begins with more than one James. Acts has one James die in Acts 12, in a line linked well into the overall passage. Act then later mentions a James. Obviously it is interpolation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not everyone. Most. And I agree that it has. But the reason we think this is because the passage is so blatantly christian.

Yep, I have no problem with declaring 18 an interpolation. In fact...it's obvious it disturbs the flow. Taking that one out does make sense.

Why? Called christ means "he was only called christ." In fact, it CAN mean specifically that he isn't christ, he is only called that. It certainly isn't a typical christian way of referring to Jesus.

I suspect a copyist inserted (who was called christ) into the paragraph to make a distinction where he felt one was needed but it wasn't because had he left it alone Josephus explains Jesus had a supposed law breaking brother named James who was charged with such and executed. Agrippa removes the priesthood position from Ananus and gives it to Jesus.

Only this doesn't make any sense. If James was Jesus' brother, than he would also be identified as the son of Damneus. There would be no reason to mention Jesus as an identifier at all.

Not sure. I have some quotes from the OT laid out like that....where they list one person, then the brother and then list the father. The only thing I can think of is Josephus lays it out like this to show that the succesorship of priesthood would be going from Ananus to James but Ananus launches this trial, without hast, knowing Albinus was on his way. Thinking he would get James out of the way on some trupmped up charges and retain his priestly title/position he moves forwarded. He didn't Know it would be taken away and given to the brother.

It doesn't, because we have no idea who Jesus is. He is used to indentify James, but who is he? If you add "called Christ" then we know who he is talking about.

He's Jesus, brother of James, son of Damneus.....removing christ makes sense....

 

[dogsgod]

Yep, I have no problem with declaring 18 an interpolation. In fact...it's obvious it disturbs the flow. Taking that one out does make sense.




I suspect a copyist inserted (who was called christ) into the paragraph to make a distinction where he felt one was needed but it wasn't because had he left it alone Josephus explains Jesus had a supposed law breaking brother named James who was charged with such and executed. Agrippa removes the priesthood position from Ananus and gives it to Jesus.




Not sure. I have some quotes from the OT laid out like that....where they list one person, then the brother and then list the father. The only thing I can think of is Josephus lays it out like this to show that the succesorship of priesthood would be going from Ananus to James but Ananus launches this trial, without hast, knowing Albinus was on his way. Thinking he would get James out of the way on some trupmped up charges and retain his priestly title/position he moves forwarded. He didn't Know it would be taken away and given to the brother.





He's Jesus, brother of James, son of Damneus.....removing christ makes sense....

Pride of place is questionable as well. Why would Josephus place "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" before "James" rather than after? The more natural way would be "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ." It's understandable that a Christian scribe would favour this placement.

But then again Doherty notes "This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Pride of place is questionable as well. Why would Josephus place "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" before "James" rather than after? The more natural way would be "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ." It's understandable that a Christian scribe would favour this placement.

But then again Doherty notes "This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus.

I agree. This is why I said there is reason to think this paragraph has nothing to do with a biblical Jesus or James.

With so many Jameses in the gospels we have to determine which James is supposed to be alive and which one is dead. Additionally we have to figure out the manner of death because there seems to be some conflicting reports from "primary sources"....

Regardless of who thinks it authentic there simply isn't enough info to conclude that. I find there to be reason to think (who was called christ) was an insert by some scribe under the impression this James and Jesus was from their understanding from existings scrolls (i.e. Mark).....but without the reference it shows this James to be the brother of Jesus. James was rushed to trial because it appeared Ananus made a charge, most likely to secure his position as High Priest.....because when Albinus arrived he probably was going to take the posistion away from him and give it to James. Well James is dealt with before Albinus arrives but instead of Ananus keeping the position King Agrippa strips it from him and gives it to Jesus, the brother of James, son of Damneus.

 

[dogsgod]

I agree. This is why I said there is reason to think this paragraph has nothing to do with a biblical Jesus or James.

With so many Jameses in the gospels we have to determine which James is supposed to be alive and which one is dead. Additionally we have to figure out the manner of death because there seems to be some conflicting reports from "primary sources"....

Regardless of who thinks it authentic there simply isn't enough info to conclude that. I find there to be reason to think (who was called christ) was an insert by some scribe under the impression this James and Jesus was from their understanding from existings scrolls (i.e. Mark).....but without the reference it shows this James to be the brother of Jesus. James was rushed to trial because it appeared Ananus made a charge, most likely to secure his position as High Priest.....because when Albinus arrived he probably was going to take the posistion away from him and give it to James. Well James is dealt with before Albinus arrives but instead of Ananus keeping the position King Agrippa strips it from him and gives it to Jesus, the brother of James, son of Damneus.

I view it the same way that you do. For the time being the historical brother of Jesus remains as allusive as Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Yep, I have no problem with declaring 18 an interpolation. In fact...it's obvious it disturbs the flow. Taking that one out does make sense.

That's one approach, and it certainly has its proponents, but a wide consensus of scholarship is against it, for several reasons. To quote Gerd Theissen and Anne Merz, "
Weder die Argumente für die weitgehende Authentizität noch diejenigen für eine Interpolation sind überzeugend. …werden der Tatsache nicht gerecht, daß deutliche Anklänge an den Sprachgebrauch des Josephus vorhanden sind.

Neither the arguments for the complete authenticity nor the those who [who argue] for an interpolation are convincing…[those who argue for interpolation] fall short with respect to evidence, that clearly echoes of the typical language usage of Josephus are present.

Die Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. P. 78

The authors go on to note that removing a few lines makes the passage flow completely in text. Furthermore, the rabbi Vermes the noted scholar of Judaism has studied the matter in great deal and points out that with a few lines the removed the Passage completely resembles Josephus, fits well into the context, and contains typical Jospehan vocabulary and style.

suspect a copyist inserted (who was called christ) into the paragraph to make a distinction where he felt one was needed but it wasn't because had he left it alone Josephus explains Jesus had a supposed law breaking brother named James who was charged with such and executed. Agrippa removes the priesthood position from Ananus and gives it to Jesus.

More on this later, but a few points.

Why throw Jesus into the picture first, and then identify him AFTER the fact? Moever, if a scribe interpolated the passage why doesn't it look christan?
It is not a chistian way of referring to Jesus, and moreoever it can easily be interpreted as anti-christian. A christian would have said "Jesus, the christ." The fact thtat Jesus in only called christ, but is not christ, isn't very christian. In ther larger reference, it is just this sort of statement which makes alteration likely.

Not sure. I have some quotes from the OT laid out like that....where they list one person, then the brother and then list the father. The only thing I can think of is Josephus lays it out like this to show that the succesorship of priesthood would be going from Ananus to James but Ananus launches this trial, without hast, knowing Albinus was on his way. Thinking he would get James out of the way on some trupmped up charges and retain his priestly title/position he moves forwarded. He didn't Know it would be taken away and given to the brother.

1. It would be nice to provide your sources to support the claims you made at the beginning for comparison
2. In identification clauses, the point is to make it clear who you are talking about. The standard way is to give titles or fathers, but occasionally a brother of teacher is better. In this case, if the Jesus son of Damneus is identified by his father, so should his brother, as the father is clearly the best identifier.
3. James being executed is would not result in the promotion of his brother. The opprobrium based culture and the kin networks meant that if a brother was executed it would reflect on the whole family.

He's Jesus, brother of James, son of Damneus.....removing christ makes sense....

You don't seem to be familiar with how identification worked. No last names, so generally people were identified by fathers. Other times, a brother or a teacher is more well known, and this is used. However, if "son of Damneus" is good enough to identify the later Jesus, it most certainly be good enough to identify James, if he as the brother of this Jesus. There is no reason to identify Jesus as the son of Damneus, but not his brother.
Additionally, if we remove "the one called christ" then Jesus is NOT identified until later, completely turning around the standard identification proceudres. Makes no sense.

 

[Oberon]

Pride of place is questionable as well. Why would Josephus place "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" before "James" rather than after? The more natural way would be "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ." It's understandable that a Christian scribe would favour this placement.

Only you know nothing about greek syntax or about indentifaction constructions in greek. Greek word order was much more free.