A lot of Christian Universities openly admit having no interest in pursuing non-biased study.

B. Ehrman and many other scholars are their products.

These institutions are perfect examples of sclerose and resistance to change.

Knowing all the facts above, it is not a surprise to learn that the Myth hypothesis is, besides very rare exceptions, largely ignored by the profession! Almost none of the hundred of books every year on Jesus mention it! B. Ehrman confessed himself in Did Jesus Exist? that in thirty years of study of the New Testament, he had no idea that a complete literature of mythicism even existed.

G.A. Wells's views are never discussed in the theological literature on the historical Jesus. He is not even mentioned in the lists of recent introductions to the New Testament designed for the use of students of theology in the universities (Koester 1982, 1990, Kümmel 1964, 1984). Burton Mack says after briefly explaining Wells's position, "scholars with theological interests have scarcely taken note of this literature" (Mack 1990 p. 24, note 2). A scholarly paradigm shift is naturally hardest to accept for the already established generation of scholars. But the almost complete absence of serious discussion is disturbing: it appears like a conspiracy of silence on the part of the theologians, who are, after all, the scholarly specialists as regards the history of Christianity. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the main reason for the stand taken by the theologians is that they feel their religion is threatened.

The assumptions implied reflect a serious problem regarding the historical quality of scholarship in biblical studies—not least that which presents itself as self-evidently historical-critical.

From there it is mainly circular reasoning. B. Mack puts it as a 'catch-22':

As usual, Catholics lag behind. For a long time, HJ studies were forbidden by the Catholic Church. See Vatican

The first major book of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, was published in 1977, while it was written 2 years earlier but had difficulty to be published due to its controversial nature.

This website already displays many quotes from scholars resorting on the Argument of Authority, even provocation and insults. Their book reviews are also frankly dishonest, see for example the one on Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth that N. Godfrey criticizes.

There, it is even more toxic. No need to spend much time on it, a couple of examples below on IMDb will be enough.

Knowing that everything in Christianity can be found elsewhere, there is no reason to believe there is more God behind it than elsewhere. What is the point of coming to earth if it is to repeat what everybody says in your neighborhood? ;-)