Flavius Josephus' "Histories" are often quoted to 'prove' that the events described in the Gospels are either fiction or not historically accurate. Often cited as 'proof' of this are the rather obvious and clumsy additions made by late copyists to some versions of the 'Histories' covering the period roughly 6 BC to 30 AD. These are often claimed to be 'proof' that the references to which they are appended are also false, but that is not true, since other copies show the text, less the additions' is accurate.
Who was Flavius Josephus, and why did he write the 'Histories' in the first place? The who is a slightly tangled story, since he was a Jew, and more importantly, was a leader of the insurrection against Roman rule in 70AD. For reasons of his own, he changed sides, probably because, being both a highly intelligent man and a soldier, he realised that the fight was a futile one which could have only one outcome. History proved him right. We live with the result even now.
His 'Histories make interesting reading to any student of that period. They were written for his Roman patron and they are essentially a history of the Jewish people. Some theologians have criticised him for 'departing from the facts as set out in Genesis in his history, falling into the trap of criticising a Jew for knowing more about his own people's writings than they do. In his 'Histories' he explains the Jewish understanding of some of the early stories, which even today, some more conservative and fundamentalist theologians try to interpret and understand in western terms. You simply cannot do that. Even parts of the New Testament cannot be fully understood from a western perspective alone, one has to understand how a Jew would look at the same event.
So what exactly does Flavius Josephus say about Christ? He certainly doesn't describe him or name him, but he does mention the trial and the crucifixion and goes on the mention "James, the brother of the so-called Messiah" as the leader of the movement Jesus began (Antiquities 20). Even this reference is seized on by some to 'prove' that Jesus wasn't what Christians believe him to be, but that is to ignore the Jewish beliefs of the period and Josephus' own belief and understanding as a Jew.
Rereading parts of the Histories (thanks to a PDF file the Josephus who posts here sent me) I was reminded once again of how dangerous it is to try to read historic documents of this type without understanding at least something of the culture and background of the author. That is why, I believe, so much of the revisionist history produced since the 1930s is so far adrift from the truth. Perhaps, one day, someone, somewhere, will admit this and institute a thorough debunking of all the 20th Century revisionism.