There have been a couple of observations, including this one (bypassing the theological and philosophical objections to HJ studies), that less people are interested in historical Jesus studies than in previous years. The halcyon days of Sanders, Wright, Crossan et al seem to be over. So why might this be? Are people not that taken by memory and HJ studies? Has the use of memory, nuances aside, been replaying old form critical arguments in modern guise? Has the developing awareness that the construction of different quests as being largely fake, and that scholars are actually repeating and repeating old arguments, led to greater reluctance to reconstruct the HJ? We could say the same about Pauline studies but people still believe in what Paul says whereas, ultimately, HJ isn’t canonical and his word can’t carry the same weight, unlike the ‘final form’ of the Gospel. And is there a probelm with the (probably implicit) impact of various recent ideological critiques of contemporary quests which suggest that HJ scholarship might not be quite as morally upright as we once thought? Are there other cultural factors at play not mentioned here?
And are we waiting for that messianic book which will boost HJ studies?