[Havoc]

Oh, yes, I'm well aware of the heresay that is oft injected into these arguments. I'm also aware of both the source and said source's history of manufacturing heresay to bolster it's claims when nothing else did. The litany is long and distinguished - or perhaps I should say infamous.
This is what makes such debates so contentious in the first place. This is to say nothing of Eusebius' reputation. This is why I largely ignore heresay evidence unless it can be backed up in a testable fashion. When Eusebius is put under the microscope, among others, the stories tend not to hold up. But then historians tend to view his works as romantic fictions.

[dsc]

"But then historians tend to view his works as romantic fictions."

Western Civilization's university history departments have for decades been enclaves of hard-core liberal, revisionist, deconstructionist malice and bigotry.

I consider a reputation such as you say Eusebius enjoys to be a recommendation, not an indictment.

[Claud]

This is why I largely ignore heresay evidence unless it can be backed up in a testable fashion. When Eusebius is put under the microscope, among others, the stories tend not to hold up...But then historians tend to view his works as romantic fictions.

Well, those historians are plain silly. People who write romantic fictive histories tend not to rely on long passages wholesale than can easily (or could have easily in the 4th century) been checked. Call Eusebius hearsay and untestable and you're dooming most of history--try working in my field: Native American history. You might as well say St. Luke's Gospel was hearsay.

Regardless, as the article showed there were plenty of other ancient authors saying the same thing about a "Hebrew" original. Unless anyone gives me a compelling reason NOT to believe it, I would prefer the word of someone much closer in time to the original source than some Johnny-come-lately skeptic today.