The First Century Void

[RoadRunner79]

To a large extent, I think that it is fairly extraordinary that we have what we do.

I agree, especially since in large part we are dependent on propagandizing monks to have saved these documents which is Carrier's point.  It was jesus freaks - and not even ancient jesus freaks but medieval jesus freaks - who determined what was copied and what was not.  We have one manuscript of Annales, torn in half with extensive loss at the division on both sides.  But that does not apply to the first half where, as Carrier says, the period when your boy should have been wowing the ANE with all his fucking miracles is surgically removed.  Once might be an accident.  But when the same thing is repeated several times a pattern develops.  So you have to ask yourself why medieval xtians would excise information about the very time when the godboy was supposed to be alive?  Like Justus of Tiberias, Carrier's answer is that he did not mention your boy and that really pissed off the jesus freaks.

Well let's look at the facts.

We have a group of manuscripts, which are missing certain information, and as mentioned are also missing large parts of other portions (not unusual for ancient documents). 

You are assuming the contents of those documents, and information, that wasn't contained in them.   (except for Justus of Tiberias, where we do have one quote that states as much) and I would still like to see the quote in context by the way.
You are assuming that multiple people/groups across different periods of time removed these documents or portions of them to cover up the information that as to the above you are assuming wasn't there.
You are making an appeal to motive, based on these facts and assumptions.

I think that this is built on assumptions much more than facts.  The facts of the matter, do not even show that the mythers arguments where even really present or much of a concern until about the 19th century.  No one was arguing about the historicity of Jesus until much later.  Now I would say, that you have very little evidence for these conclusions (other than perhaps just offering them as a possibility) You can tell this, because given the facts of the case, one can easily change the assumptions, and thus the conclusion of the narrative.

Now I did do some research for this torn manuscript and "surgical removal" of information (that curiously is argued wasn't there to begin with).  I didn't find much.  I also didn't find much to corroborate the argument or to refute it.  Even from Carrier himself, there is very little on the internet that I found on this.  It doesn't appear to be much of a concern among professional historians, that there is much talk about it.