rationalskepticism.org

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Ok, so, basically, let's assume the non-historicity of Jesus. What can we learn about early Christianity from this? What does it tell us about Christianity's early adherents? Was the idea of his historicity an intentional deception, or did they just accidentally fall headlong into believing he had existed?

If the latter, how did it happen? If the former, why, who were the deceivers and what did they hope to achieve, and why by this method? Did they know previous godmen had been likewise fabricated? If so, how was that knowledge available to them?

... the entire Greek manuscript tradition that has preserved Antiquities book 18 (ie. merely three late manuscripts, A M W, and the first printed edition) appears to have passed through redaction; either by Eusebius, or those influenced by Eusebius.

it provides a sort of ‘confirmation’ of the ‘testable predictions’ of a hypothesis ... one which is advanced by Ken Olson1 (among others), that Eusebius and the library at Caesarea may have specifically had a role to play in the origin and propagation of the Testimonium Flavianum, due to the fact that all the extant manuscripts of Antiquities 18 show an indication of alteration or addition by Eusebius-influenced Christian scribes.

http://peterkirby.com/table-of-contents-josephus.html

1 https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_A_Eusebian_Reading_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_2013