If you interested in the ongoing debate between the Mythers and Gnus vs. those who accept mainstream scholarship, you should be reading Albert McIlhenny’s series of postings that are systematically debunking the claims of Richard Carrier.
As a taste, here is the introductory paragraph from his latest entry:
It is always a bad sign in an academic dispute when one side resorts to criticizing irrelevant minutiae without having anything substantial to say to the actual core of their opponents’ thesis. As one works through the replies of Richard Carrier to Bart Ehrman, much of his objections are of this variety. That is, he is so desperate to demonstrate that Ehrman did a lousy job on the question of Jesus’ existence that he goes over every word of Ehrman’s in ridiculous detail even when they are not specifically related to the main point of the discussion. It only makes matters worse when, as in the case of Ehrman’s criticisms of Earl Doherty and Acharya S discussed in the last two posts of this series, Carrier gets the whole thing dead wrong.
I’m no expert on these matters, but four red flags immediately caused me to doubt Carrier was a genuine scholar:
1. His massive, bloated ego is most unscholarly and instead comes across as just another internet blowhard.
2, His massive 10,000 word postings that focus on matters of trivia are not scholarly and instead come across as an internet blowhard who needs to win every battle and have the last word on everything.
3. He has a history of advocating for atheism on the internet, which suggests he is more of an apologist than a true scholar.
4. Since getting his PhD, he hasn’t secured a position in academia and has not published a scholarly paper.
So it’s encouraging to realize people more knowledgeable than me on these matters see much the same thing in Carrier.
Anyway, here are all of McIlhenny’s postings thus far: