In spite of a widespread public belief that O.J. Simpson did, in fact, murder his wife and Ron Goldman, jurors in the case applied a “tainted evidence” principle in voting for acquittal: If there were good reasons to think that the police mishandled or deliberately contaminated some of the evidence, then none of it could be trusted.

As I see it, Hinman’s pro-historicist case resembles the popular sense that Simpson was guilty, while Bowen’s case resembles that of the Simpson defense: If there are good reasons to think that early Christians falsified some of the texts, then none of those texts can be trusted. The evidence is all tainted.

Now, I align with the O.J.-was-guilty view. The quantity and nature of evidence seems too much for it all to have been due to coincidence or tampering. But I can still see how the jury could vote for acquittal: I don’t think the frame-up hypothesis was decisively ruled out.

I think I’m in an analogous situation with mythicism: I lean more toward the man-become-myth view than the myth-become-man view. But I also don’t see the latter as being decisively refuted.

So the relevance to the Bowen-Hinman debate is what each needs to do in order to “win”. Neither side can just say “here is what definitely happened…” but rather has to say, “here is what most likely happened given the nature and quality of the evidence available to us….” Does Hinman need to show only that mythicism is less probable than historicism, or that it is “greatly” less probably than historicism (and in that case, what does “greatly” mean)? I see this question as closely analogous to the question of what “reasonable doubt” means in a criminal trial, and it turns out that question is harder to answer than most people would think.

this is a debate about history but you are not thinking like historians,you re arguing from analogy ,My thing is not analogous to the Simpson trial or any trial historians eon't like attorneys in court

The problem is, there was a variety of different forms of evidence for OJ being guilty. You're also talking about a person (OJ) and a trial we remember ourselves so we can form an opinion. Not so for Jesus's historicity. There are only non-contemporary written accounts. If one written account was forged, the remaining few could be also.

If Bradley was attempting to say 'well, the written evidence was probably forged, so we can't trust the archaeological evidence either', then your argument would be valid. There is no archaeological evidence though.

If there is only really one piece of evidence, and that evidence is questionable, then you can dismiss the case outright. There are mythicist scholars attempting to do just that and meet the burden of proof.

stil argument from analogy

I think you overlooked my main point, which was not to try to demand the same kind of evidence for historicism as for criminal guilt, but rather to point out and raise questions about the scope and applicability of a general 'tainted evidence' principle, and also to raise the question of what standard of reasonability should be presupposed in your debate. It seems there is a stronger standard of 'reasonable doubt" in criminal trials than in popular opinions. It is therefore perfectly coherent for someone to say "I think Simpson was guilty, but the jury was right to vote for acquittal."

The function of the tainted evidence principle is to shift things from an "innocent until proven guilty" (IUPG) to a "guilty until proven innocent" (GUPI) perspective with respect to the quality of the evidence. We generally start off with IUPG, but once some evidence has been shown to be tainted, all subsequent evidence is treated as GUPI. But alternatively, we can maintain the IUPG perspective for each subsequent piece of evidence. What is the right approach, and why?

historians don't consider thev BP tainted that;'s why the vast majority still laugh at the mythers. It is not logical to assume that if TF is altered that the BP is as well even if you think so it would not be a Christian who says :so called messiah.

Most historians assume the BP is not tweaked. That's why I said Bradley is doing guilt by association.

Eric Sotnak said:

Does Hinman need to show only that mythicism is less probable than historicism, or that it is “greatly” less probably than historicism (and in that case, what does “greatly” mean)?
=============
Response:

Good question.

First of all, I don't think that "mythicism" and "historicism" cover all of the possibilities.

What about the view that the character "Jesus" in the Gospels represents historical information about two different people? or the view that the character "Jesus" in the Gospels is half historical and half fictional (perhaps Jesus the preacher was historical, but Jesus the crucified martyr was a fictional addition)? These two possibilities don't fit neatly into either of the two categories that you mention.

There are many degrees to which Jesus might be historical vs. fictional, and some of those degrees are such that the extent of Jesus' historicity could fail to confirm historicism and yet Jesus could be historical enough to fail to confirm mythicism.

Second, the question is (for me) focused on whether the probability of there being an historical Jesus acheives a certain threshold, and NOT on the probability of Jesus being a myth. It seems to me that the probability of both of those positions could be low, that the sum of the two probabilities is not equal to 1.0.. So, the question of which probability is greater is not relevant. What is relevant for this debate is whether the probability of the existence of Jesus is greater than .5, whether this view is more probable than not.

However, if the probability that Jesus existed was .6, it does follow that the probability that it is NOT the case that Jesus existed is .4 (the probability of a claim is equal to 1.0 minus the probability of the negation of that claim). So, even if Hinman wins the debate, and shows that the probability of Jesus' existence is .6, that still gives me a significant victory in relation to the question of the resurrection. I can start out with .6 as the maximum limit of the probability for the resurrection, and I could then easily whittle that down to something significantly less than .5 for the resurrection of Jesus.

"Jesus the preacher was historical, but Jesus the crucified martyr was a fictional addition"
.
Bingo!

Does Hinman need to show only that mythicism is less probable than historicism, or that it is “greatly” less probably than historicism

>>>I did show it's greatly less probable

that is totally unfair for a lot of reasons. first you are trying to examine textual evidence by the standards of forensics. secondly you are arguing from analogy, just because popular misconceptions dog one doesn't mean they do mine.

I am the only one with textual evidence in the case. that should mean by the standards of textual criticism and historiography I win. read my speech and see how.

I know textual critics do not look at it that way they. don't say any corruptionj of the text means the whoel thing is wroshiless,.if that were true no histoiran would the historicity of Jesuis and 99.9% stilldo.

If this reference to "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" is all the "proof" we have, then we have nothing. All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.

"All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called 'the Christ.'"

I don't think it proves that at all. That's much too strong a conclusion.

If anything, assuming the author wasn't outright lying or that someone else didn't write it in later, it suggests that he heard about someone named Jesus who had a brother named James and he wrote that.

I guess, depending on how a historian thinks, that might put the probability closer to the likely side. IOW, for the historian, the probability that someone (like Jesus) existed goes up if some source, this case independent of the NT, talks about some trivial life factoid like discussing his family relations or something like that. And I guess, the idea of Jesus having a brother James, which is also discussed in the NT, is considered adding weight to the conclusion the NT asserts, that a man named Jesus really lived.

But the real question in my mind would be how did Josephus come to say that? Does it really add weight to the question of the actual existence of Jesus or is it neutral? Let's say it's just based on hearsay from the same source as what the NT assertions were based on...or the NT itself. IF he's just repeating, for all intents and purposes, bits and pieces of the NT, then I don't think it adds much to the issue.

The "Christ" is simply a translation of "messiah". "messiah" to the Jews was a fully human leader/king who, in prophecy, would lead the Jewish people back to glory, just as David and Solomon (both messiahs) did. It doesn't signify a man god which is a pagan concept which is absent in Judaism. The messiah is to fulfil a number of prophecies during his lifetime which include casting out oppressors, bringing world peace and bringing back the diaspora - none of which Jesus accomplished, and was therefore relegated to the position of being a failed messianic candidate.

It's not exactly a "strong conclusion" to say that a historian admits hearing of a famous guy named Jesus and called "the Christ." It's pretty strong evidence that someone at least kind of like the Biblical Jesus really existed, got a noticeable following, and made himself well-known to a lot of people as a religious leader, whether or not any of the folktales about him are at all true.

all we need to prove. Two different guys same names, both claimed to be messiah,m both claimed to heal and clamied risen from the dead whose brother was head of jeruslaem church that;s crazy,

the link to his brother head of Jerusalem church has to be proof. there is no way it would not be, the same guy.no other James headed that church, the family was obviously famous

that's ludicrous.He's obviously not talking about some unknown person he;'s stalking that other Jesus of Nazareth who claimed who claimed to be messiah and whose brother James was head of Jerusalem church,

maybe that guy was the son of God. maybe it was another son of
god

Raging Bee said:

All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.
==================
Response:

Sorry about the length of the post; it is difficult to tackle this subject in short order and yet to be concise in my writing. When I discuss this issue in my books on Christianity, I will make an effort to be more concise.

The whole issue of this debate is about the existence of an historical Jesus. I realize that there are bigger philosophical and theological questions about Jesus, but whether he actually existed is a very basic and important issue. If Jesus did NOT exist, then there is no point in discussing whether he was divine, or whether he was the savior of mankind, or whether he rose from the dead.

Furthermore, for me the question of the existence of Jesus is an important piece of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and that question is relevant to answering the theological question "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?". I doubt that anyone can prove that Jesus existed, or prove that Jesus did not exist. But I believe that one can provide a rational argument to show that there is a significant probability that Jesus did NOT exist, say .1 or .2.

If it can be shown that the probability that Jesus existed is no greater than .8, for example, then that places an upper limit on the probability that Jesus rose from the dead. If one can then show that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead GIVEN that Jesus existed is no greater than .5, then the combination of these two conclusions implies that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .8 x .5 = .4.

That would be a significant thing to prove in the philosophy of religion. If the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .4 , then that would put a significant dent in the Christian case for the divinity of Jesus.

So, the question of the existence of an historical Jesus is part of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and this latter question is clearly relevant to the main theological question at issue: "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?"

First, your probability calculation about Jesus having risen from the dead is bogus. Your figure about Jesus having been a real person isn't much better founded. And even if we can prove Jesus existed, that doesn't increase even one iota the probability that he rose from the dead. (Billions of people exist -- what's the probability that any of them rose from the dead?)

And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing. With superstition, all things are possible, at least in a theologian's mind.

Bradley was providing examples of how the probability of the existence of Jesus, among other claims, can drastically alter the probability that Christianity is true. He clearly was not actually using those estimates or arguing for them. They are just examples. As a general rule of thumb, Bradley did begin the probability passage with "If" which generally indicates that he is making a hypothetical point.

Raging Bee said:

And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing.
==============
Response:

To fail to "admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature" is to beg the main question at issue and to adopt a philosophical/theological position in an unthinking and dogmatic manner. I wish to base my views on facts and evidence, not on dogmatic presuppositions.

I don't agree that "allowing for supernatural factors" excludes the use of evidence and probability.

For example, in my view the hypothesis that "God exists" provides evidence (if true) that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. In other words, if God exists, then that makes the resurrection improbable. My reasoning goes like this:

Jesus was a false prophet. God, if God exists, is a perfectly morally good person. Thus, God, if God exists, would be very unlikely to raise a false prophet from the dead (because that would involve God in a great deception), and God would also be very unlikely to permit another supernatural being (e.g. Satan) to raise a false prophet from the dead. Therefore, if God exists, then it is very unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead.

This is reasoning based on probable inferences from assumptions that are "allowing for supernatural factors", but it is reasoning that leads to a skeptical conclusion about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

your reasoning is based entirely on question-begging as to the nature of God, and as to what "good" means WRT God's actions. Furthermore, yes, supernatural belief can indeed exclude the use of evidence and probability: once you let supernatural beings into the picture, then evidence and reason no longer work -- you can simply say "the spirits chose to do a certain thing and leave no evidence behind, so I don't have to prove my assertions about the spirits."

Do you know what begging the question means in logic? It's essentially using your conclusion or a logically equivalent proposition as a premise to prove said conclusion. Given that, I don't see Bradley begging the question. Perhaps you mean to say his argument is circular in the informal sense that the premises are just as sketchy as the conclusion they attempt to prove. But even then I don't see what you're getting at.

Just by listing a potential logical implication of the supernatural you essentially put it at risk of being falsified if it's implications can be falsified. A proposition being completely immune to refutation is either not making any claims "so it isn't true" or its implications could never be verified.

Raging Bee said:

Furthermore, yes, supernatural belief can indeed exclude the use of evidence and probability: once you let supernatural beings into the picture, then evidence and reason no longer work -- you can simply say "the spirits chose to do a certain thing and leave no evidence behind, so I don't have to prove my assertions about the spirits."
==============
Response:

Cool. An actual ARGUMENT for your claim. That is refreshing. Thank you.

My first task is to understand your argument.

Here is my first attempt to clarify your reasoning:

===================

1. If it is POSSIBLE that one or more supernatural beings exist, then it is POSSIBLE that a supernatural being does X but leaves no evidence behind of having done X.

2. If it is POSSIBLE that a supernatural being does X but leaves no evidence behind of having done X, then any person P can assert that a supernatural being did X but left no evidence behind of having done X and P would be under no rational obligation to provide evidence or reasons to support the claim that a supernatural being did X.

Thus:

3. If it is POSSIBLE that one or more supernatural beings exist, then any person P can assert that a supernatural being did X but left no evidence behind of having done X and P would be under no rational obligation to provide evidence or reasons to support the claim that a supernatural being did X.

However:

4. It is NOT the case that: any person P can assert that a supernatural being did X but left no evidence behind of having done X and P would be under no rational obligation to provide evidence or reasons to support the claim that a supernatural being did X.

Therefore:

5. It is NOT the case that: it is POSSIBLE that one or more supernatural beings exist.
==================

Did I capture your reasoning correctly?
Was it your intention to give an argument for naturalism?

All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ."

Isn't that just conceding the conclusion Hinman is arguing for in this debate?

ahahahaqhhahhhaha someone finally got it!

Somewhat of a shabby explanation for the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE Joe ! Indeed extremely underwhelming. Did Jesus the carpenter make the universe from wood ? Where did the trees grow ? As far as my meager knowledge goes "Christ" means the anointed one. Nothing more. How many humans have been 'anointed' Joe ? Thousands, millions ?

The carpenter still has a few joints yet to make to show his masterpiece.

Yep.

You should avoid using the Jesus of Nazareth namesake while talking about Josephus because that poor fella didn't even knew about any such town lol, Anyways like all the newfangled Christian Apologetic Hinman is way behind in his research because couple of years ago Louis Feldman, the czar of Josephian Scholarship came out in open and declared that he too thinks that TF is a blatant Christian forgery, and credibility of that Jamesian reference is thoroughly hinges on Testimonium Flavianum, so if TF is interpolated then its improbable that Josephus would have mentioned HJ out of the blue without ever Explaining what it means.

Also you didn’t seem to notice, that mention of that James of Jerusalem is completely out of context in that passage, I mean that whole passage is about some ancient turf war and how after the illegal stoning of that James, Jesus ben Damneus was made High Priest by King Agrippa so mention of that Christian James here doesn't fit at all, but If you drop the spurious clause about "who called the Christ", then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! And it perfectly fit the context too.

your understanding of the context is wromng

new info from the josephus homepage

n 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum.

"For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.

It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance.

Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.

For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator.

Read about this discovery here!

http://www.josephus.org/tes...

Nazareth is well proved to have been inhabited n Jesus' say. all historians know it,. Michel White of UT says it, the guy who did the excavation in the 90,sPfan say it,

Feldman didn't say the BP is forged, besides I don't believe you. quote him. quote him. show me the source

I s this Feldman's argumemt? this is from Peter Kirby early christian writings

"Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): "The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice..." I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn't get much attention."

http://www.earlychristianwr...

that argument is beaten by the Jerome versiomn from 400's.

Your Keyboard is broken or what? so many spelling errors, and do you realize Peter Kirby of that ECW.com support total interpolation of TF, look at the conclusion at the end of that Page...

>"The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I am inclined to regard both references as spurious. "

And Why don't you believe me on Feldman, not everybody is a habitual liar. Anyways as I said update your 'research' because in "New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations (2012)" he wrote a chapter on Authenticity of TF, and this is what he declared in Conclusion...

>"In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably dis-posed toward Jesus and may well have 'interpolated such a statement' as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum."

>http://imgur.com/DYqAMPF

Now remove his name from your 'List'.

Your Keyboard is broken or what? so many spelling errors, and do you realize Peter Kirby of that ECW.com support total interpolation of TF, look at the conclusion at the end of that Page...

ad hom. Your position has been distorted so self righteous spelling is all you have to cling to. I know all about hi Royal idiocy. he still documents they point I made, I've disproved his bull shit on Josephus but hie still documents about Lewis

>"The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I am inclined to regard both references as spurious. "

that argument is disproved by Josephus homepage page guy, Besides Eusebius would never say "co called Christ" so obviously there is a version he didn't corrupt, so he did only some if any tweaking.

And Why don't you believe me on Feldman, not everybody is a habitual liar.

cause this is a debate genius,this is not what you do in a debate, you make other guy prove his point that's debate;. Besides, not everyone is a liar but you are, How do i know? if you are calling me a lair merely because I disagree with you it probably means you lie a lot.that's why expect everyone else to lie.

Anyways as I said update your 'research' because in "New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations (2012)" he wrote a chapter on Authenticity of TF, and this is what he declared in Conclusion...

no your BS is disproved, you said Louis never did hold to the historical core idea i just proved he did, so it doesn't matter how long ago he ch hanged your claim is wrong,

>"In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably dis-posed toward Jesus and may well have 'interpolated such a

that's exactly how we know he did not get hold of the TF because had he don so he would have never said:so called messiah" not to mention the BP which is beyo9n reproach,

>ad hom. Your position has been distorted so self righteous spelling is all you have to cling to.

Read your comments so far, they contains so many spelling errors that its like written by a monkey on a broken keyboard.

>cause this is a debate genius,this is not what you do in a debate

Who said i am debating with you ? I just commented on Bowen's article and i am not at all interested in debates with dishonest blokes like you.

>you said Louis never did hold to the historical core idea i just proved he did

That's some stupid circular reasoning, I said 'Update' your research because Feldman used to hold that partial authenticity view but now he supports "total interpolation' hypothesis and that too by the hands of Eusebius.

Agapius’ Arabic Testimonium differs widely from the textus receptus. Pines translated it as follows:
at this time there was wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was
good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the
Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to
be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not
abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three
days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps
the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
.
By the way, a 'messiah' to the jews, was not a god man. He is to be a totally human leader/king who must fulfill a number of tasks during his lifetime to prove he is who he claims to be. Some of these tasks include casting oppressors out of Israel, bringing world peace and bringing back the diaspora. Jesus failed to do that and so would have been considered just another failed messianic candidate, one of many.

I know the domestication between Messiah and so called God-Man what you don't realize is Jews of Jesus day did understand Messiah as per mundane not a regular guy but special creationism fore angel than man, the Syboline oracles have messiah sitting on God's throne, he's closer to divine than human, This comes from Edershime who documents from Talmud bit the early material in Talmud which is widely believed to be from first century.

What YOU don't realize is that there was no concept of a messiah being anything more than a man. Joe. Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos, meaning “anointed one” or “chosen one.” This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Mashiach, or “Messiah. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest

explicating the epistemology pf the world does not disprove my point about the Talmud. your point is ignorant and wrong but it's also irrelevant because we are arguing historicity of Jesus only not his deity,

The Arabic Testimonium is not independent of the Greek one but is derived from it (via Syriac translations of Eusebius' works) by further elaboration; there is no evidence that Josephus' Antiquities was ever translated into Syriac itself.

The big problem in trying to argue from Josephus is that we have no surviving copy of the disputed passages that doesn't pass through Eusebius' hands—and Eusebius is one of the prime suspects for being the Christian forger who corrupted them in the first place.

This is what I've got saved: "Origen, published a book Contra Celsum circa 254 CE, over 150 years after Josephus' book Antiquities of the Jews. In it, Origen wrote that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ:
.
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ..."
.
Origin also published a book Commentary on Matthew which also contained a reference to Josephus rejecting Jesus as Christ. He wrote:
.
"And the wonderful thing is, that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and ..."
.
Both of these references confirm that Josephus' writing in Antiquities of the Jews did not include a reference to Jesus being the Christ, at least in the middle of the 3rd century CE. It is probable that the Christian forgery was done after that time.'
.
Good article here: http://www.bede.org.uk/Jose...

that tally's with Jerome's version of TF "so called" Christ.

There are a number of weaknesses in that article, especially concerning the Arabic version.

read my argument, I quote a scholar saying the Jerome version of TF which is backed by Syriac versiomn says "alleged messiah" thus no Christian would have said that, that version predates the Arabic.

From Whealey "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic":

It has already been shown that Michael’s Testimonium was clearly based on a version of the text taken from the Syriac translation of Historia Ecclesiastica. It is highly likely, although less certain, that Jerome’s translation of the Testimonium was taken from the Greek Historia Ecclesiastica, rather than directly from a copy of Josephus’ Antiquities. For Jerome’s De viris illustribus is elsewhere highly dependent on Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica.

The key point here is that Agapius' source and Michael the Syrian's source are both derived from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica (which was originally in Greek, and was translated into Syriac), and not some Syriac copy of Josephus' Antiquities (for which no evidence of a Syriac translation exists). If Jerome was also quoting from Eusebius rather than directly from Josephus, then all that this means is that there may have existed a text of Historia Ecclesiastica, notAntiquities, with the "alleged" reading.

she says agrees with Jerome, she also says Jermoe's version is probably the original,.she prefaces all of that saying the version she calls Syriac is more important for this reason (agree with Jerome) than Pine;'s parabolic version, because it may be the original.

I think you're missing the point here (and Whealey certainly is too). As long as Jerome, Michael the Syrian and Agapius are quoting from Historia Ecclesiastica and not from Antiquities, then their versions can only be "more authentic" than whatever text Eusebius had if they also had access to independent copies of Antiquities and checked the legitimacy and wording of Eusebius' quotation (which we have strong reason to believe they did not do).

Imagine a chain of transmission A→B→C→D where each writer makes changes to A's original text. It's obviously possible for D's version to be coincidentally closer to A's than B's is to A's, if C's and D's changes happen to undo B's, but unless C or D have independent evidence about A's text or about B's possible changes, it is impossible for D's version to be more authentic than B's, in the sense of "is a better predictor of what A would say if we discovered a copy", without violating laws of probability. And more importantly, as long as C and D have no independent source for A, it is completely impossible for anything in C or D's texts to refute the hypothesis that B falsely attributed the text to A; the only kind of evidence that can do that would be evidence that does not include B in its chain of transmission.

there is no evidence Jerome is not quoting from antiquities just because the other agrees with that phrase,

Origen speaks of Jo not believing Jesus was messiah to say that he has to know Jo talked abouit jesus. that pre dates Eusebius.

there is a Syriac does not quote Eusebius,

Alice Whealy

"...but the literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium that is quoted in a twelfth century chronicle compiled by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199)." That suggests it's a direct translation. Hey if Eusebius doesn't say "so called" why would Jerome stick it in? Why would both Jerome and about 400 years latter the Syriac guy stick it in?

there is a Syriac does not quote Eusebius,

"the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199)." - this is Michael the Syrian, as referred to above as quoting Eusebius.

Whealey calls it "highly likely" (as quoted above) that Jerome is quoting from Eusebius. You need to show evidence to the contrary.

history is about likelihood

btw I'm quoting some of these exchanges om the comments at CADRE or paraphraising

https://www.blogger.com/com...