Crazycharlie, et al:

The accuracy of Josephus has often been questioned, and, in the most important subject, proved wrong, as it is now clear that the later Christians retrojected the part about Jesus doing mircles. He may have mentioned Jesus, but the mention comes from over two generations away and just as likely is the same legend from which the gospels were written.

More importantly, Ehrman is good, but John Dominic Crossan is even more insightful. Look for Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography (from memory).

I have always believed that there is an abundance of evidence that the Jesus miracles were retrojected. In the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the oldest two extant bibles, the resurrection story is missing in Mark, the oldest of the gospels. If you stop to think about that for a second, you wonder: why would the first writer of the story leave out the most important part (and also the virgin birth). If you can think of any other reason than "they hadn't invented it yet, I would love to hear it.

And with regard to the dating, remember that 70 AD was the year that the Jew's rebellion against Rome was brutally crushed and the temple destroyed. They sure needed a hero about that time who couldn't be killed by those nasty Romans. Hmmmmm . . .

BTW, I have no idea, and don't think we will ever establish whether there was a real figure upon who the legend of Jesus was predicated, but Zorro is more likely to be true to life.

JHJ