“Begging this eminent scholar’s pardon, we must again contradict him. Laying aside his cautious “if”, we will merely show that though the short paragraph may possibly be genuine, and “perfectly in the style of Josephus”, its several parenthesis are most palpably later forgeries; and, “if”, Josephus had made any mention of Christ at all, it is not thus that he would “have spoken of him.” The whole paragraph consists of but a few lines, and reads:
“At this time was Iasous, a ‘WISE MAN’, if, at least, it is right to call him a man! (ανδρα) For he was a doer of surprising works, and a teacher of such men as receive ‘the truths’ with pleasure. This was the ANOINTED (!!). And, on an accusation by the first men among us, having been condemned by Pilate to the cross, they did not stop loving him who loved them. For he appeared to them on the third day alive, and the divine prophets having said these and many other wonderful things concerning him.”
This paragraph (of sixteen lines in the original) has two unequivocal assertions and one qualification. The latter is expressed in the following sentence: “If, at least, it is right to call him a man.” The unequivocal assertions are contained in “This is the ANOINTED”, and in that Jesus “appeared to them on the third day alive.” History shows us Josephus as a thorough, uncompromising, stiff-necked, orthodox Jew, though he wrote for “the Pagans”.
It is well to observe the false position in which these sentences would have placed a true-born Jew, if they had really emanated from him. Their “Messiah” was then and is still expected. The Messiah is the Anointed, and vice versa. And Josephus is made to admit that the “first men” among them have accused and crucified their Messiah and Anointed!! No need to comment any further upon such a preposterous incongruity, even though supported by so ripe a scholar as Renan.”
H. P. Blavatsky
The Mark Of God: Understanding Your "I AM Presence" 