Carrier has in fact done just this. But then look at all the scorn and derision heaped upon him in this thread (all by non-experts I might add) saying that his ideas are worthless and that we should all continue to trust these experts who have pretty much all arrived at different conclusions based on the same evidence.
That sort of scorn and derision is absolutely standard in every thread where anyone ever expresses doubt over the existence of Jesus. It happens every time, guaranteed, without exception.
In fact as I highlighted before - in his book published in 1996 (The Jesus Legend), G.A. Wells not only notes that precisely this type of scorn and derision has greeted every single thing he has ever written or said about doubting the existence of Jesus, but he lists at the start of that book 11 typical hostile remarks that he has experienced continuously.
I'm going to take the time and trouble to write out longhand those 11 examples recorded by Wells 20 years ago. See how many you and other sceptics recognise as going on these current HJ threads -
G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend, Open Court Publishing, 1996, pages 5-6.
1. Question his qualifications to say anything on the subject at all (“does this man know Greek?”)
2. Never give the impression of carefully rebutting a rational argument, but speak patronisingly, as of a crude and discredited theory which deserves no more that a brief mention (eg his book is “fun” and one must admire his mental agility and capacity for belief).
3. Affix distasteful labels to him, suggesting his adherence to discredited philosophical or other modes. (Dispose of Strauss and Baur by saying that the Tubingen School of critical theology was Hegelian. “Negative” is a useful label here, even though the Finish theologian Heikki Raisanen has noted that “the history of biblical study is full of examples from Galileo through to Strauss to Albert Schweitzer which demonstrate that is the “negative” results which have most forcefully driven research forwards.
4. Lump him together with discredited commentators, and if he himself has criticised these, make no mention of that fact.
5. Represent his minor errors and slips as indications of total incompetence.
6. Make plausible-sounding objections to his case as if he were himself unaware of them and had not attempted to answer them.
7. Say he relies on certain a priori dogmas; for instance, claim that he rejects the New testament miracles not because he gives grounds for finding the evidence for them in the documents inadequate, nor because he is able, additionally, to account for the narratives without recourse to the idea of supernatural intervention, but because he arbitrarily rules out in advance the idea of supernatural events.
8. Pick on a book he does not mention - the literature on his subject being illimitable - and call his failure to do so a “serious omission”.
9. Do not produce arguments, but appeal to “authorities”, alleging them to have settled all that is in question. At the same time, complain that he does no more than this, and also that the authorities on which he relies are out of date.
10. State his case in an elliptical way which while it would not mislead the few who already knew his work, will make others suppose that he is defending an untenable, even absurd, position,. Above all, do not quote him at any length if his arguments are difficult to answer: (“No purpose is served by questioning the maverick and ill-founded views of G.A. Wells”).
11. Adduce propositions which, while themselves true, are irrelevant to his case.
That is of course from the authors point of view of criticism attacking what he had written in books. Here on forums like this, and it was always absolutely identical 5 years ago on the old Richard Dawkins Forum, and then 3 years ago on rational scepticism, where a huge amount of that abuse and ridicule came from a person named Tim O’Neil, but also in smaller measure from almost every single person defending a belief in a HJ here in these threads, where those examples of absolutely standard use of ridicule, scorn and dismissive abuse, are typically such as -
A. Say, "Lies, Liar, and Lying ... and say it often.
B. Describe opponents as idiots, say they show themselves to be obsessed with irrational disbelief, dismiss them scornfully as ill-informed and repetitive fools.
C. Compare them to Creationists and other religious nut cases. As if implying that scientific rigour is on your side supporting belief in Jesus and the "evidence" of the bible, and not the other way around where sceptics asking for any proper objective rational evidence are thereby dismissed as being as unscientific as Creationists who would deny the evidence for evolution just as they deny the evidence for Jesus. Likewise, even try comparing sceptics to holocaust deniers.
D. Dismiss them with derogatory labels such as "Myther" and "Mythisicist", denying such labels are ever derogatory, but say they are just what these people are, and that its just standard terminology.
E. Say they are ignorant of the subject and unfit to question the views of expert scholars.
F. Ask them to explain what could have been meant by the most obscure and vague passages of religious copyist writing.
G. Assert that you yourself
do know what was meant by such vague and obscure religious writing ("it must mean so & so...").
H. Instead of writing detailed explanatory replies, keep making ultra brief demands for evidence (inc. evidence of non-existent people) and one-line remarks of ridicule and personalised abuse.
I. Never ever produce any evidence for a living Jesus, but instead appeal to authority saying "the evidence has been given, and every qualified person agrees upon it". If they suggest any disagreement, tell them they must publish their HJ objections in the biblical history journals, otherwise they must shut up.
J. Never admit that almost all the most frequently cited "historians" are in fact bible-studies scholars drowning in a mass of religious qualifications, and teaching religious studies from various institutes.
K. Compare Jesus to other poorly evidenced figures, inc. rulers and philosophers who were said to perform miracles, and say they were all just as real as one-another, regardless of whether there is evidence for any of them or not.
L. Claim that we must not expect evidence for Jesus because he was so little known, as if that was an excuse for having no evidence, or as if it itself constituted evidence for him.
M. Claim that certain things in the bible could be evidence of a real Jesus, because they are realistic as place names (eg Jerusalem) or common names (eg Peter or Mary), as if such realistic elements did not occur in absolutely every untrue fairy story (eg in Alice in Wonderland - girls do exist, Alice is a common name, Hares do exist, the month of March exists … etc).
N,O,P,Q …. X, Y, …
Z. Greet such as 1-11 and A-M above with a trite dismissal such as “me thinks thou doth protest too much” … but whilst still failing ever to provide any credible evidence whatsoever for a living human Jesus.
fiddly bits as Burke described them) By Occam's razor Heliocentrism should have been the go to theory...but it was ignored even when evidence that is made more sense was provided...in 1600. It took the "experts" in the Catholic Church until 1835 or 235 years later to admit that Heliocentrism ...even though the Catholic Church itself had used Heliocentrism as a mathematical convenience for calendar reform as a result of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). In short, Galileo Galilei was charged with teaching as idea that the Church itself has been teaching for at least 37 years!
