These are the sources historians reference when they're discussing Jesus' historicity. That's how they got in my database.
I gave him what was available. The context is there when he looks up the sources (especially if he picks up a commentary, many translations include commentaries--by Josephus stuff does, for example). I preferred to not bias his reading experience a priori.
Owning copies of books does not make anyone authoritative. It makes that person an owner of books. Being a professor of this branch of history does make one authoritative, or being a long standing professional in this are historian does. Are you either of those?
I've done PhD work in a field fairly close to this and I'm not claiming expertise. I'm calling for people to actually read the material--something you apparently have done and I applaud your effort. My position is not unreasonable and Ninja and Chora are just making absolute asses out of themselves on this one. They'll try to make it personal or respond by pulling a snide comment out of the air but their unwillingness to actually read what experts in the field have to say on this subject reveals them for what they are--people who aren't really interested in knowledge.