I'm not persuaded by "consensus of scholarship"
Yes, apparently random websites are far more convincing.
But the majority doesn't rule here.
No, but the best way to find out what is likely to be the truth on a particular issue is the consensus of experts. If I have a cancer, I don't go and see a plumber. I consult with experts. If I want to know about evolution, I don't go to a bunch of Young Earth Creationist websites, I read about the consensus of scientists in relevant fields.
Likewise, if you want to know about whether a passage in Josephus is likely to be an interpolation, the best way to determine this short of learning greek, reading all of Josephus, studying the time period in question and reading all the literature on the matter, is to see what the consensus of scholarship is. And there is virtually no one with any expertise arguing that the shorter reference to James isn't authentic.
And I disagree. "Called Christ"....does give me reason to speculate it was inserted.
Why? What do you know of common christological titles? The line "called Christ" is almost completely absent from Christian literature. The whole point of "called Christ" is that he ISN'T Christ. Which is why Christians NEVER used this outside of specific contexts. To them, Jesus WAS Christ, or Lord, or whatever.
Josephus used the "called Christ" as a way to identify this Jesus from other, like the one mentioned shortly afterward. He uses Jesus himself to identify James. There is nothing Christian at all in the passage anywhere. Josephus says nothing positive about James or Jesus, merely that he was unjustly executed.
My personal view, even from the beginning, gives me reason to think the reference has nothing to do with a Jesus Christ but focuses on a Jesus, the brother of James who was executed, and after this James was executed his brother Jesus was crowned.
Why on earth would that make sense? Do you know anything about the opprobrium based culture of first century judaism and the problems with a family member being executed? More importantly, do you know anything about identification syntax in greek? Or how it was used?
Why would Josephus NOT identify which Jesus he was talking about when James is mentioned, and then specifically identify him a few lines later? The whole point of identification is to make it clear who you are talking about because so many people have the same names. When you are talking about the same person, you identify them at one point and then there isn't a need to identify them again unless you are talking about somebody else with the same name.
Yet you would have Josephus NOT identify Jesus the first time, so it isn't clear which Jesus he was talking about, and THEN indentify him later, the complete reverse of the how identification works. Identify FIRST, and then you don't have to, unless there is a need.
Moreover, you use the SAME way to identify people whenever possible to avoid confusion. Yet first the passage has Jesus as the brother of James, and then as the son of Damneus. Why not identify James as the son of Damneus? Why use Jesus to identify him? Why not indentify Jesus as the son of Damneus first, where it makes sense, and not later, making it unclear if who the first Jesus was?
The passage makes much more sense if James is identified as the brother of Jesus, who is identified as the one "called Christ" and the later Jesus is identified as the son of Damneus, a completely different Jesus.
Moreover, if it is an interpolation, why "called Christ?" Why not just Christ or Lord or a common christian title?