Evidence for Jesus Christ?

[Doubting Thomas]

From the very Wikipedia article quoted:

However some scholars have argued that the very identification of James the Just with the "brother of Jesus" is highly dubious, mainly because there is no corroborating evidence that James the Just was Jesus's actual brother (see Relationship to Jesus), and because the word "Christ" doesn't appear anywhere else in Josephus's works, aside from the Testimonium Flavium which they dismiss in its entirety as a blatant forgery (although many scholars maintain it was only partially forged). So to those scholars who admit that the Testimonium is in its entirety a forgery, a Christian interpolation, it makes no sense that Josephus would introduce James the Just as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", since he doesn't mention this man anywhere else in his writings. Moreover, they say, James the Just was an important figure on his own, whereas "Jesus who called Christ" wasn't, at least not for Josephus, or his roman audience, and therefore it is unlikely that the Jewish historian would have felt the urge to appeal to his so called brother's credentials in order to identify him (as if Jesus was the more important character, and James could only be identified in relation to Jesus, about whom otherwise Josephus is completely silent). Instead, they argue, the original text which read "and brought before them a man who was called The Brother of the Lord, who's name was James", was altered by a Christian copist from the 2nd or 3d century into "and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, who's name was James", who simply regarded that "the Lord" in James title was referring to his lord Jesus Christ, and wanted to make that thing clear to anyone who read that fragment.

Even if Josephus' writings weren't forged, why are there no Roman records of Jesus? After all, he was a pretty big troublemaker according to them, and would have been written about.