Yeah, ok. I never understood either the mathematics of Bayesian theory or the need to drag it into the process. So those articles are wasted on me. I did get grade A in A level maths, but you have to be really into maths to get a grip with articles such as that. My surprise that Carrier was using maths was the reason why I made the point re: him being the first historian I know who has done so. Note I stressed it was the 'historical and linguistic analysis' that impressed me, and only mentioned the maths as an afterthought.
But, in terms of his studies of the texts, then unless he is basically lying outright about what they say and what words mean/meant (and he references everything very carefully) then he has some very interesting points that leave one wondering whether we can even assume there was a historical Jesus, never mind anything more. There's just so little to go on, and no 'evidence' that isn't problematic re: dating, sources, language, ideas, context ... etc. All we seem to be able to say for certainty is that Christianity as we know it derived from a process we can't pin down or know much about at all, and thus may well have begun with an original conception that was significantly different to what eventually emerged as Christianity.
I recommend you read the book rather than articles about the book. Or, and it is fun, watch his lectures / debates on YouTube, such as the Skepticon ones. It is fascinating stuff and has me quite gripped!