While there seems to be a belief that the Christ Myth (i.e. there was no historical Jesus) is an idea that is gradually gaining acceptance among Biblical scholars and historians, as far as I know, the opposite is true. The Christ Myth was taken a lot more seriously a hundred years ago, but nowadays the only Biblical scholars and historians who take it seriously are Robert Price and Richard Carrier, and neither have published anything on the topic in peer-reviewed publication. (A number of amateurs have written books on both sides of the issue, of course)

Here are some comments detailing what scholars believe about the Christ Myth and the question of historicity that I've found:
___________________________

Professor Graham Stanton of New Testament Studies at Cambridge University:

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
___________________________

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, atheist historian Michael Grant writes:

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.
___________________________

Secular scholar Will Durant:

Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross... After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.
___________________________

Robert Van Voosrt, professor of New Testament studies, writes in his book "Jesus Outside the New Testament":

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [Christ Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.
___________________________

The editor of "Fourth R", the peer-reviewed journal of the Jesus Seminar, recently wrote:

"If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind... [T]he existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present."

The "Fourth R" regularly publish articles denying the historicity of events in the NT, so isn't a conservative journal by any means.
___________________________

You will notice the same claim being repeated: that the Christ Myth is simply not accepted by Jesus scholars, both secular and non-secular.

So, is there evidence to the contrary? Can we have a list of articles in peer-reviewed journals that support the idea that there was no historical Jesus written in the last 30 years?