Greetings,
if we are talking about the same man, it has been suggested that he had 'interests' and that those 'interests' tainted some of his accounts. Self preservation was one of those interests, if i remember correctly. [he also was not a believer but, like many today, had his roots in a more culturual upbringing form of religion, that being for him, Judaism {of the day... which was, in itself rather messed up as were the common allegiances both internal and external for or against one another (including towards the roman rule of the day - which was always changing) for much the same reason that such things have always happened, that being for satisfying the flesh, the carnal mind and vanity, both of the spirit and the ego} ]
Not too dissimilar to what we might get today with reporters/journalists, etc, who want to keep their job and then some, who thrive on (are paid to?) dish out 'information' that is given for intent, rather than because it is totally true.
I know i would not really want to be in his shoes, apart from the fact that they probably wouldn't fit. I can't say most of us would want to swap places with anyone back then. It was a very messy time for all, the Romans also, for whom this 'historian' 'worked' and had to keep happy/amused/appeased.
A lot of the ill treatment of the masses was somewhat due to the crumbling financial situation the empire was facing, through over spending and bad choices. It was a dog eat dog world and Jewish folk were caught up in it, whether they wanted to be or not [that in itself may well be brought out through prophecy given beforehand].
Being a historian had it's price, as what people were conveyed was vital to the security of state and then added to that was the megalomaniac tendencies of some of the rulers both high up and down through the masses, a lot having to answer to the 'higher' authorities, almost similar to the recent communist style terror that kept seeing 'staff' replaced out of power struggles and general purging of any that might either know too much or be a slight risk to one's own position. People liked the idea of certain things to be recorded a certain way and other things to be left out, please (or else!).
Having said all that [written it], the historian in question does need to be read with those things in mind. While many like to quote the man, they often do so to support a particular line of what they are trying to persuade others to believe, as if the Scripture is not enough with the Spirit bearing witness.
Bless you ....><>