Reliable history in the Bible

That I doubt.The problem with the passage in the Testimonium is that Josephus was Jewish.So could he really have written: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 wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. 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 THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.Nope. The passages in CAPITALS are the beliefs of a Christian rather than a Jew. Ergo they, at least, are an interpolation, a gloss, or what have you.On the other hand, I do not agree with arachnophilia that the passage in the Antiquities is "highly suspect". To see why some people claim that it is, we need to read the whole passage: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, 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 sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, 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 sanhedrin without his consent. 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.Now the objection raised to this is that the two Jesuses (Jesi?) referred to in this passage were one and the same, and that that "who was called Christ" must be a gloss or interpolation.But there is no reason to think this. The passage makes perfect sense if we read it as exactly as it stands above; the only reason a textual critic would wish to amend it is if he already knew that there never was a Jesus who was called Christ. At this point the reasoning becomes circular: "There never was a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ, therefore any reference to him is a forgery, therefore there are no extra-Biblical references to a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ, therefore there never was a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ."---More information here on early non-Biblical references to Jesus. Discussion of Jesus son of Damneus is presently missing, but I have editing privileges there and will stick it in by and by.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.