One of the challenges that Jesus Mythicists have in claiming credibility for the idea that Jesus was never a historical figure is the lack of scholars who support their theory.
Traditionally, the Jesus Myth was presented by self-taught scholars or scholars with PhDs in fields not directly relevant to the topic. In order for there to be a chance for this theory to go mainstream, they will need scholars with the relevant education and university positions to develop credibility.
I am not saying that self-taught scholar or someone with a PhD in a different field cannot be correct in their research and their conclusions. It is indeed possible that those early Mythicists were right and the vast majority of scholars in relevant fields were wrong. But I doubt it.
Richard Carrier provides a list of historians who take Mythicism seriously at his website.
It should be noted that this list is not just those who have embraced Mythicism but also some scholars who hold to Historicism but who acknowledge that Mythicism is worth interacting with. Some of these scholars have written peer reviewed works on Mythicism, others have confessed their beliefs in private correspondence with Carrier.
There may be more active scholars who either embrace or are open to Mythicism than many Christian apologists realize. And yet in comparison to the thousands and thousands of historians who accept Jesus as historical, this list is only a tiny drop in the bucket.
What Carrier is trying to do here, and I do not criticize him for it, is actually no different than what Young Earth Creationists do with their lists. They too can compile lists of scholars who hold PhDs in relevant subjects, have papers published, and have taught at recognized universities. They too are also a tiny minority of recognized scholars in science.
Counting heads does not give us the final word on whether a theory is true or not. The fact that a position is on the fringe of scholarship says something but it does not say everything.
I do find the Jesus Myth Theory worth interacting with and that is why I have written on the topic. But I do not expect it to ever be widely held by scholars.
