Dr. Carrier mentioned Avalos on this issue. You may find this useful.

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2016/01/patterns-of-poor-research-critique-of.html

You’re right, but this was already anticipated before the event. As all these features were fundamental to Christianity decades before the temple fell. That event only gave a catalyst to perhaps re-boost “sales” of the Christian mission when they had been flagging. But the need of doing away with the temple cult was already foreseen long before, and with good reason (I document this in Elements 23-28 in OHJ, Ch. 5).

Except that he makes several positive assertions about what is not in it that are false and positive assertions about what is in it that are false. There isn’t any way to do all that without not having read the book. This isn’t like a mere careless reading (I could point to many examples of critics doing that).

Thanks for catching that. The second is a misprint, based on my original draft, when I had thought he was confessing to that in an audio interview, but he was vague; now, in his reply, he is clear, and insists he read it, and thus it should so read. My published draft was meant to reflect this. I just missed that line later in the text. Now corrected.

You’re right, it’s not my area. I defer to leading experts for whom it is. Of which there are a great many (from Thompson and Dever to Finkelstein and Avalos).

I have one article on it, which is about someone else’s peer reviewed Bayesian analysis of how the new consensus arose against the likes of Hoffmeier and Kitchen. See A Test of Bayesian History: Efraim Wallach on Old Testament Studies.

Of course, were that the case, and he were honest, he would say “I don’t read English so I can’t really evaluate Dr. Carrier’s book or its thesis.” But he has chosen to go the other route and claim to have read it and understood it and makes numerous claims about what is and isn’t in it. Which would be an even starker case of lying than I imagined.

In truth, his book (and even his reply now) is so thoroughly dependent on his reliance on English-language scholarship, it would be a scandal if he were to admit he never read any of it because he can’t.

If not then maybe he simply can’t read a English.

James,

That’s far to generous! When Piñero details in many pages his dismissive criticism of an book as a major contribution to an academic field, he is putting on the mantle of the promise of academic quality and seriously-considered analysis of data. This is a holy task and assumes best efforts. When he publishes that critique any cursory reading without notes is patently no different, in practical academic standards to not reading the actual text. Furthermore he’s aware of what he’s doing. Being drunk with malice while reading is not an excuse for not acting as an honest reviewer.

Asher