Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Secular Elf]

"the experts say"

I don't think considering what "the experts say" is wrong because - Duh - They're experts. Sometimes there is an appeal to authority fallacy involved ("Someone is right because they're X") but I take opinions of specialists more seriously than the common citizen. I'm a law student - Not the best one in the world - But I expect people to take my opinion more in consideration than the guy in the coffee shop chatting about how much he thinks the law is unfair. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't trust anyone for anything.

Appeals to authority is not always negative nor untrustworthy.  I would trust the writings and words of an Oscar Handlin or David McCullough as opposed to a David Barna, as the first two are or were prominently known and degreed historians and the latter is a geologist who fancies himself as a historian and is a revisionist fundie at best.  And though I am yet extensively or well-read in D.M Murdoch's material, I know she is a degreed archaeologist who is trained in the Classical World and as such her realm of expertise is in ancient Greek and Roman culture, of which Palestine was once part, and since she is a mythicist, I have a certain amount of trust that I think she has earned of me as a person interested in what she has to say.  She has even gone so far as to learn how to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, which as far as I am aware not many Classical archaeologists do unless their point of expertise is Roman Egypt (and I think that particular line of study is geared to demotic and Coptic writing).

Murdock herself has spoken on her own credentials: http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html