Your comment is unintelligible.

I cannot discern whose argument you are responding to, or what you mean by any of your apparent premises, or how your conclusion follows from them.

Please be more clear.

Here is the big problem with this methodology, he has NOT analysed other verses or books to see of this pattern is the same, ie he had just focused on the testimonium and pilate passages and found linguistic difference,but if he did the same with other verses, books he would find the same differences,ergo the pattern is not unique to pilate and TF but to all verses,by focusing on the most famous verses and neglecting all others, bad research,does not prove anything, and actually proves the TF is more genuine.

Interesting point offered is that “Pseudo-Hegesippus version would indicate that the Eusebius source was already a modification introduced by the early Messianic/Christian followers of Jesus “, supporting your possibilitier that Pampulas could have been responsible for the TF interpolation.

I didn’t find a bibliography for your “The End of the Arabic Testimonium” post summarizing Alice Whealey’s (2008) article: “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic” . I think this is it:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f6af/9df7a4668bf26f8a78c2ac5cf57cc88fcf2a.pdf.

That’s funny. Because it is your statement just now that is by definition “unprofessional” and establishes you are a “joke.” I answered professionally and with factual accuracy. You responded with no argument at all but mere baseless name calling. And that’s now the story of you.

Your answer for the second point is so unprofessional. You are a joke ?

Please identify any argument in it that I have not already refuted and then I’ll address those argument(s). Otherwise, it has already been refuted thereat.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

He argues that it was Josephus, not Luke, who misdated Quirinius’s census. It’s from 2011, but I couldn’t find any critic review, just a few apologist ones.

That’s how probability works: we have all presented abundant evidence it’s very unlikely Josephus would write this, ergo it’s unlikely he did. Ample peer reviewed scholarship concurs. The alternative argument has zero evidence in its support and contradicts obvious probabilities. That is what Christians do. They don’t argue from demonstrable probabilities, but try to pass off possibilities as probabilities. Which is the opposite of logical.

And yet James is given no patronymic. Nor Jesus here. IMO, this would sooner argue that Josephus did give the patronymic: Damneus. And that this was dropped to be replaced with “called Christ” by a scribe mistaking the marginal note for a correction.