Did Josephus write about Jesus?

Did Josephus write about Jesus?

Yes.

Now, before all you non-believers start shouting "but those were proven to be Christian forgeries!", let me just say that while, yes, some of what Josephus wrote about Jesus WAS forged, He still wrote about Jesus. Twice in fact.

Okay, let's deal with the problematic one first.

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Now, clearly whoever wrote this was a Christian, right? And Josephus was not a Christian, right? Therefore Josephus didn't write this, right? However, a closer look at this passage shows us that it was written by TWO people, one a Christian, and one not a Christian. For example, it starts out calling Jesus 'a wise man' and then says 'if it be lawful to call him a man'. If the writer didn't think Jesus should be called a 'man', then why did the writer call him one? The most obvious solution is that these two phrases were written by two different people, one of whom called Jesus a 'man' and the other of whom took offense to this and noted his offense. The second writer, who noted his offense, was clearly a Christian. So who was the first writer? Our most obvious choice is Josephus himself, since the phrase 'now there was about this time' is one common to his writings. Also, the ending phrase 'and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day' also doesn't appear to be the work of a Christian writer. Some claim that the word used for 'tribe' is a derogatory one, and no Christian would have used it to describe His brethren. Also, the 'not extinct at this day' seems to be foreseeing a day when they would be extinct. Why would a Christian predict the extinction of his own faith?

Let's look at the other passage:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

It's obvious that whoever wrote this passage was not a Christian. No Christian would refer to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ', nor would they add a chapter about Jesus and only give Him a brief mention. Jesus is only in this passage because it's about His brother, James. It makes no claims of Jesus' divinity, nor does it really attach any importance to Him. This is clearly part of the original text, not a Christian addition.