Though you may not care to know, the three passages concerning Christians (on James brother of Jesus, on John the Baptist, and on Jesus) are very likely interpolations. First there is no indication that Josephus was an Ebonite (page 7 of your edition, footnote);[1] and thus no indication that he embraced Christian belief--other than the 3 spurious lines. Second, I take Josephus at his word when he writes that he was a high priest among the Pharisees (p. 1), and there is nothing in his writing to indicate a modification of his faith or even sympathy for other religions.  The very project, along with his tone, shows an unwavering pride in his Jewish heritage.  Third, no historian writing an extensive history of a period and people would mention in passing--just 3 lines--the Messiah (p. 379) who was born of those people, not in a tone imply that Jesus was truly the Messiah.  Fourth, every unfortuitous event occurring to the Hebrews was, following the Old Testament (OT) example caused by a grievous sin of his people (p. 242, high priest John murders his brother Jesus in the temple is held to be cause of subsequent Greek conquest.)  But no calamity is laid upon the Jews for demanding the crucifixion of the true Christ.  Josephus, if he believed that his people had the Messiah executed, would have "reasoned" that his God manipulated attitudes of his people so as to set aside good sense and be slaughtered by the Romans during their revolt of 70 AD.  But he didn't.  Fifth other texts have a shorter passage concerning Christ, thus indicating that the commonly supplied longer lines on Christ are an expansion of an earlier interpolation.  Sixth, the lines of the 3 interpolations lack textual development: viz., they are not part of the developments of the topics in the sections they are found in.   Seventh Eusebius (260-ca 341 C.E.) was the first to refer to the passage concerning the death of Jesus.  That earlier Christians, such as Justin Martyr writing on the historical evidence and having made references to Josephus, that he missed this supports the conclusion of an interpolation.  Eight, the silence of Philo (15 BC to 50 AD) & Justin (see Josephus P. 18).  Ninth, the tone of those three questioned passage is that of a Christian.  Tenth, interpolations and the production of spurious documents was a common practice among Christians.  Thus the only reasonable conclusion to draw, based on all 10 of the above, is that those passages were added by a Christian scribe.  Only those of faith could miss these anomalies and fail to come to the skeptical conclusion.

       Other NT passages about historical events are different.  The account of Salome (p. 409) and the death of Herod the Great—found in a Christian letter.  Moreover counter to Mt 2:16, Josephus did not write of the massacre of the children under the age of 2, let alone that Herod feared that a Messiah would be born among his people.  Remember, "Messiah" means anointed one, thus one whom would be king, and Herod was then king of the Jews, under the Romans.  There is no record of a census to support the accounts of Matthew and Luke.  Moreover, there is no record of there ever being a census by the Romans which required the traveling of its subjugated populaces onto their towns of birth--a pointless hardship invented to fulfill OT prophecy.[4]  This and other parts of the Gospels fail to find support in the independent histories.

    This brings us back to the question of historical evidence concerning Jesus.  Tacitus, the best of the Roman historians, about 100 AD refers to Jesus, but he was merely repeating for his audience the commonly held beliefs about Christians. He goes on to mention one instance where Nero, desiring a scapegoat for the great fire in Rome, persecuted a few Christians.  (Nero might have been right given the use of saran gas in Japan, 9/11 and other recent act by religious zealots.).  Tacitus also writes in his Annals that:  "all things evil come to Rome" meaning various Eastern religions and especially Christianity.  Seutonius (born 69 AD), in his The Twelve Caesars, is silent about Jesus, though he too mentions briefly the persecution of the Christians under Nero.[5]  Josephus--once the interpolations are dropped--is silent.  Philo is silent.  Silence is only surprising when we take the Gospels as history.  But if we accept Paul's account, which is consistent with the silence of historians (and he wrote prior to the Gospels), then it follows that the God of the universe permitted his only son, who assumed the form of a mortal, to live and to die in obscurity.

SECOND PRONG:  THE SILENCE OF THE EPISTLES

     The most compelling reason to conclude that the Gospels are fictions is based upon the silence of the Epistles.[6]  They are placed first because unlike the Gospels, they do not allude to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and because the epistles totally lack familiarity with the content of the Gospels.  Paul admits to this silence (lack of teaching and stories concerning JC’s life) in I Corinthians 1:22:  "For the Jews require a sign, the Greeks seek after wisdom:  but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness."  If we assume[7] that Paul was a preacher who traveled extensively and communicated with many of the first Christian communities—supported by Acts and the content of the Epistles--then his silence is telling.  If the Gospels had already been written and circulated among the Christian communities, then Paul and the other authors would have been aware of these "eyewitness" accounts.  Even if the Gospels weren’t written, sayings, teachings, and stories of Christ’s life would have been circulating among the early communes, and the authors of the Epistles would be familiar with them.  Either way, the authors of the Epistles would have relied upon the authority of Christ to instruct the early Christian communities; but they don't.[8]  Moreover, there is nothing of Christ's life:  nothing about his birth, nothing about Mary and Joseph, nothing about the town he dwelled or the places he traveled to.  All we have is “Christ crucified”.  But even that is lacking in historical and place references, for there is no mention of Pilate, no mention of Jerusalem.  How is it that the later Gospels describe that which the Epistles don't?[9] 

THIRD PRONG:  THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES

     Two main arguments for the Bible as fiction come from the facts that the NT authors turned to the OT to create the life of JC, and secondly the way Mathew and Luke rewrote Mark.  These processes indicate that the Gospel author were lacking teachings and history; and lacking them, their beliefs sculptured their Gospels. 

     Of the 661 ones of Mark, over 600 are found in Matthew and over 350 in Luke.  The changes that Matthew and Luke made in the story of Mark served an assortment of purposes, such as the aggrandizement of Jesus.  For example in the story of how Jesus cured a blind man (Mk 8:23-25).  For in Mark, it is the traditional account[10]: "He sput on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, and asked whether he could see anything."  But for Luke and Matthew, the power of Jesus was such that he did not need any kind of ritual magic words or medicinal spittle, or even a time brief period of time to restore sight.  This is but one of dozens of such changes, all of which increase the prestige of Christ.  Other changes were for theological purposes.  The sum total of these changes, they prove that Matthew and Luke did not consider Mark's account to be historical, for how can one improve on the only historical source by changing it? 

     Even to the dying words of Jesus they freely make changes:  Mark chose one Psalm, Matthew a different Psalm, and Luke still yet another Psalm, and John yet another.[11]  The events of the crucifixion too are differently described.  Mark at 15: 21-22, has Simon form Cyrene carry for Christ the Cross. John eliminates Simon.[12]   Most of the differences with Mark suggest editing for the sake of the authors’ beliefs—rather than having other sources.

     The gospel authors believed that the life of Jesus happened "according to the Scriptures (OT)."  The Gospel authors—and other early Christians--were confident that in order for find out about JC they did not need to engage in historical research or consult witnesses (in our understanding of these two approaches); they found detailed history in the ancient oracle, the Hebrew Bible.[13]  Passage after passage parallel and fulfill the OT.  The NT shows Jesus to be greatest of prophets—greater than Abraham, Moses, and Ezekiel.  The work of Helms and other rational Biblical scholars is devastating upon the claim of the Gospels being founded upon history.  History doesn't happen for purposes (rather from causes), but fiction can be written so as to happen for purposes. 

     The Gospels are the works of different Christian communities, and thus each put in their particular prospective.  Over a dozen of them have come down to us, some in parts, other complete.  Only four are considered inspired by God, though to a rational person, all are on an equal footing.  Some of them had a wide circulation, and some such as the Gospels of Thomas are still widely read.   As products of different communities, they have the Christ behaving according to their values.  One such community, which produced the Gospel of Mark, accepts the Greek homosexuality[14].  The Bishop Clement of Alexandria in one of his letters not only writes of it, but quotes their passage.[15]  Unfortunately the Mark which has come down to us has those passages edited out.  This is just one example of how "the Gospel of Mark has gone through several stages in its compositional history. . . ."[16]  The foundation, the Gospel of Mark has undergone numerous changes; a work of history general comes without editing.

JEWISH  SOURCES

         Fictional biographies have been written to either to damage or enhance the position:  the Christians had their goals, the Jews theirs.  Jewish writings between the 2nd & 4th centuries--based upon much older sources--create a much more realistic tale, one possible drawn from the well of truth.  A Mishnah source points out that Miriam (Mary) “has been false to her husband;” (Shabbath 104b); thus Joseph was not the sire of Jesus.  Another source even names the soldier who had seduced Mary.  Another source places Christ a century before Herod, “When Jannai the King[17] killed our rabbis, R. Jehoshua ben Perabjah and Jeshu fled to Alexandria of Egypt . . . . The Jesus went out and hung a tile and worshipped it. . . . Thus a teacher had said, Jesus the Narzrene practiced magic and led astray and deceived Israel (b. Sanh. ₁₀₇b).  “He [Jeshu] that cuts marks on his flesh, Rabbi Eliezer condemns. . . .”[18] You will not have a son or disciple who burns his food in public like Jesus of Nazareth (b. Sanh. 103a).  "Rabi Abahu said, 'If a man say to you, I am God, he is a liar.  If he says, I am the Son of Man, people in the end, laugh at him.  And he says, I will go up to heaven, he will not carry, though he says it. (j. Tannith 65b).[19]    Similarly in Jalq. Shim. Paragraph 766:  "He looked forth and behold that there was a man, son of a woman, who should rise and seek to make himself God and to cause the whole world to go astray."[20]   The Jews gave Jesus an appellation meaning "mocked the word of the wise."  Matthew (at 5:20, 15:7, and 12) and Paul (1Cor 1:21) seem to be aware of this.  For his violations of law, a lawful end occurred according to J. Sanh. 7.16, 25c.d):  "And thus they did to Jeshu ben Stada in Lud; two disciples of the wise [Pharisees] were chosen for him, and they brought him to Beth Din and stoned him."[21]   Another source quoted and condensed by Hoffman tells us that  "Yeshu fled to Jerusalem.  In the Temple he learned the Ineffable Name.  And to thwart the brass dogs who guarded the place of sacrifice and barked at those who had learned the name, making them forget, Yeshu wrote the name on a piece of leather and sewed in the flesh of his thigh.  He gather around him in Bethlehem a group of young Jews and proclaimed himself the Messiah[22] and Son of God. . . . He healed a lame man and a leper by the power of the Ineffable Name.  For this, he was summoned before Queen Shalminon [or Helena], who found him guilty of acts of sorcery and beguilement. . . .  The Sages of Israel recognized him and arrested him.  They took him out and hanged him on a cabbage stem.[23]   The body was taken down while it was the eve of the Sabbath--in order not to violate the prohibition.  ‘His body shall not remain there for the night’--and immediately buried.  A gardener, Yehuda, removed the body from the tomb and cast it into a ditch and let the water flow over it.  The disciples, discovering that the body was not in the tomb, announced to the Queen that Yeshu had been restored to life.  The Queen, believing the story, was tempted to put to death the Sages for having killed the Messiah.  Indeed, all of the Jews mourned, wept and fasted, until Rabbi Tanchuma, with the help of God, found the body in a garden. The Sages of Israel removed it, tied it to the tail of a horse and paraded it in front of the Queen so that she could see the deception."[24]  The Rabbis wrote an interesting account.  

One can only wonder which account (Gospels, Rabbi, or Epistles) is closest to the truth.  The Jews were biased against the Christians for their for their claim of godhood, a violation of the Torah law; and the Christians are biased for their founder.    However, in parts the Gospels seems to be written in part as a rebuttal to this account.  Without a neutral source, each account is on the same footing.

     Father Crespo, I find the Gospels being treated as containing history to be a gross deception; moreover, I find the Gospels being treated as a book full of wisdom another deception.  Even the OT has some worth while homilies for the simple and common people, as in the Wisdom Books.[25]  There are a few lofty moral ideas, such as the Sermon on the Mount.[26]  But the Bible contains many things that offend a person full of the wisdom of science, the wisdom of ethics, and methods of critical analysis.  One of many examples is the absurdity of the tale of Yahweh, the all-powerful god, having to torture his son to redeem man from the original sin.  In other words, to get back at Satan for getting man to sin, the son of God is turned into a mortal who must be nailed to the cross, and only by this "sacrifice" will the all powerful God then remove his curse over man's original sin.  And of original, would not you squawk if the government punished you for a crime done by your grandfather?[27]  The absurdities of faith are an embarrassment to those who apply the tools of philosophy.  Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23:  "And Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentile."[28]  But the foolishness is in the logic of Paul and those of faith, for God is not foolish, or the One who gave us reason has confounded it and commits us to damnation for its usages.  Paul continues and admits his position is illogical:  "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom." 

       Are not the Gospels naked, and are by not using the power of philosophy obsequious in our polite silence?  Though we cannot hope to persuade those by reason who are without reason, we can expose those who still have an open mind to the truth about the Gospels and JC. 

CAN ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS BE SALVAGED?       Being familiar with critics like Thomas Paine, Randel Helms and G. A. Wells, a number of Christian scholars (an oxymoron) have acknowledge that the Gospels are too unreliable to be taken as history.  A number of Christian “scholars:” believe that they can divine the actual saying of Jesus from the fictional.   They go on to claim that the authors of the Gospels relied upon a book of saying "Q', (quelle, German for missing.).  Their work is an act of faith. 

       As for my own opinion, I find that the Essence pre-stage the Christians and Gnostics, and were the most likely seed for the JC myth.  There was a gradual evolutionary process starting with certain esoteric Hebrew sects, such as those that gave us parts of Daniel, The Book of Enoch (earliest sections dated about 175 BC), The Sibylline Oracle (c. 150 BC), The Apocalypse of Ezra, and such.  These Hebrew[29] sects and other similar mystery religions produced offshoots of which one came to be known as the Christians (including the Gnostics).  Moreover, there was a very revered leader of the Essences who was executed around 90 BC.  The rabbis make reference--see footnote 15.  He was called The Teacher of Righteousness.  Possible he was the seed for the Jesus myth as known by Paul and the other authors of the Epistles.  In the Gnostic teachings was a giver of insight, a high prophet whom they called Jesus, possible the first name of the Teacher of Righteousness.  Given the lack of life of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, it resembles the Epistles, possible they were the earliest Christians.  There are references to their “false Knowledge” (see 1 Timothy 6:20, and elsewhere).    That is where the trail ends.