I have, I think, written a review of RIchard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus that not only refutes that book, but turns the facts Carrier misfocuses on into premises towards a very different (and for Carrier distasteful) conflusion: that the gospels are actually pretty believable records. I own scholarly credentials as relevant to the subject as Carrier's own. I described ten concrete and major errors with his book, in concrete detail. Most people who have read my review on Amazon have agreed it is helpful -- 89 of 144 votes, so far. As a former debate partner, one would think Richard Carrier would want to answer my critique of his long-awaited epic argument.
But no, apparently he's too busy with other things, such as critiquing an Amazon review by one Ramos, to be distracted.