The First Century Void

[Amarok]

Let's recap Roads lame defense

1.It's not a forgery. Though fits every textual definition of such as (Quoted)

Reliance on the Arabic version of the Testimonium must be discarded.
Attempts to invent a pared-down version of what Josephus wrote are untenable.
The Testimonium derives from the New Testament.
The Testimonium doesn’t match Josephan narrative practice or context.
The Testimonium matches Eusebian more than Josephan style.

And

The TF doesn’t fit the context of JA 18.62 and 65 (e.g. it does not describe “a disaster befalling the Jews” nor explain the rising tensions between Jews and Romans leading to war).
The TF is implausible from a Pharisaic Jew (e.g. calling Jesus the messiah; saying he fulfilled prophecy).
The TF is improbably brief (just contrast it with the religious controversy immediately following in the JA, covered in eight times more length, yet on a far more trivial incident).
The TF is improbably obscure (contrast how Josephus writes about other sects, teachings, and actions, and how he always explains obscure terms like “Christ” or “Christian”).
The TF was unknown to Origen (despite his explicit search of Josephus for Jesus material in his answer to Celsus) and all other Christian authors before the 4th century.
Rewriting the TF to ‘solve’

And

The content, concepts, and sequence of the TF matches the gospel summary in Luke 24 (Goldberg 1995).
The style of the TF is more Eusebian than Josephan (Olson 2013; Feldman 2012).
And the narrative structure of the TF is not even remotely Josephan, but is a perfect match for Christian creedal statements (in respect to the treatment of time, story, emplotment, and apologetic: Hopper 2014).

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

But what the hell it's just conspiracy theory because Christians would have pointed this out because... Or again referring to Carrier

Unlike most other questions in history, the evidence for Jesus is among the most compromised bodies of evidence in the whole of ancient history. It cannot be said that this has no effect on its reliability. This does not entail or require any particular ‘conspiracy theory’, however. Of course, the fact of it is so firmly in evidence it cannot be disputed (only its degree); so even if a conspiracy theory were required, it would be more than amply established by the evidence we have. But it isn’t needed, because all that one does need is a sect of fanatical believers who (a) have a common dogma to promote (e.g. that Jesus really lived and really said and did certain things conducive to the doctrines they wanted to promote), as we know the ‘orthodox’ sect did, and (b) have no qualms against destroying evidence (or just not mentioning or preserving it), forging evidence and doctoring evidence, as we again know the ‘orthodox’ sect did (i.e. these are not mere hypotheses, but established facts in our background knowledge). Any such community will organically produce the same effect as a conspiracy, without ever having to conspire to do anything. They do not require any top-down instructions or orders to follow, nor any collusion. If each independently did what made sense to him, each on his own initiative, the effect on the evidence that survives for us now will have been the same. (OHJ, p. 276)

[T]he epistles do reveal the constant vexation of novel dogmas; the devastating events of the 60s did occur; the history of the church is completely silent from then until the mid-90s or later; a historicist sect did later gain supreme power and did decide which texts to preserve, and it did doctor and meddle with numerous manuscripts and even produced wholesale forgeries to that same end—and not as a result of any organized conspiracy, but simply from independent scribes and authors widely sharing similar assumptions and motives. (OHJ, p. 609)

[T]here was no organized conspiracy to doctor the record (except when it came to controlling faith literature, for which we have clear evidence of Christians actively eliminating disapproved Gospels, for example), but this along with all the other cases (above and below) indicates a common trend among individual Christians to act as gatekeepers of information, suppressing what they didn’t like. Which collectively destroyed a lot of information. (OHJ, p. 303)

2.There have to be many imaged copies of the TF that would have to be destroyed .And it can't be the fact there were few and most were lost or destroyed or forgotten .And Origen does not mention it despite having every reason too. And no motivation not too considering he founded the library at Caesarea.( and the documents he did has came from Hegesippus and totally  contradicts  Josephus's account ) . And Eusebius or even more likely his teacher Pamphilus did the deed . And no one either knew the text well enough to counter it. Or didn't have a copy to prove it. So his became the default account and no one question it because why would they?

3. Bart Ehrman. can make good points but when it comes Myth he's proven over and over to be dishonest and happy to engage in slander look at his debate with Robert Price seriously Ehrman.  So Price is a Trump supporter so he can't be believed . Poisoning the Well much

4. As for the Bible was not questioned before this see above. Not mention yeah i'm sure Christians were eager to allow there critics text to survive   .And no that does not make it a conspiracy. No matter how much road tries to hand wave  it as such so he does not have to deal with the evidence.