The first comment is served only to enumerate his enormous knowledge etc. And that he has read entirely the book of Carrier. It was a good start.
But then what has impressed me is this point:
Translation:Y a propósito: otro dato, salvo error por mi parte, de la existencia real de Jesús es la noticia de que Domiciano condenó a muerte a hijos de primos del Nazareno (los denominados “Desposyni”) por miedo a que pudieran incitar (¡eran parientes de un sedicioso contra Roma = Jesús!) a una rebelión contra el Imperio. Según Carrier, Domiciano se habría dejado llevar también por el mito.
It is real folly!And by the way: another information, if not my mistake, on the real existence of Jesus is the news that Domitian condamned to death the children of the cousins of the Nazarene (the so-called "Desposyni") for fear that they would incite (they were relatives of a seditious man against Rome = Jesus!) to a rebellion against the Empire. According to Carrier, even Domitian would have let himself be carried away by the myth.
Who has read really Carrier on this point can't never say something of this kind!
Whatever the case may be, Hegesippus tips his hand when we learn from Eusebius that he told all these narratives in order to 'prove' that there had been no heresy before the reign of Trajan, because up until then the family of Jesus and his disciples had everywhere ensured a faithful adherence to the 'virgin' gospel, and only after they had passed away did false sects arise. Such a fantasy is not only certainly false (the Epistles of Paul already attest to numerous schisms, including his own, and there had surely been countless further splits all through the first century), it is also an obvious motive for inventing tales of family and eyewitnesses to Jesus. And from the details we find in the stories he told, we can tell they are unbelievable. Nor is any source given for them. So no reliable support for historicity can be had here. The probability of there being such tales is the same on either theory.
(OHJ, p. 331, my bold)