What irrational force has overwhelmed Susan Jacoby?

I mean that facetiously. Unlike Jacoby, I would not characterize an opponent's honest difference of opinion about whether the first Christians worshipped a mythical Christ instead of a human Christ as the result of an emotional problem.

Susan Jacoby isn't quite so even-handed (emphasis added):

Unlike some atheists--whose dislike of religion has overwhelmed what ought to be every rationalist's commitment to unbiased inquiry--I think that there is ample evidence suggesting that Jesus was a historical figure.

And with that, Jacoby seemingly dismisses, for example, churchgoer Robert M. Price's painstaking analysis of primary evidence as the product of a "dislike of religion" (I'm sure it will be news to Bob that he dislikes the church he attends every week). Jacoby apparently believes that nobody could be persuaded by evidence and argument that Jesus most likely began as a mythical savior god. No, those who disagree with her position must be "overwhelmed" by "dislike of religion."

If I were unreasonable, it would be tempting to dismiss Susan Jacoby's commitment to a human Jesus as an uninformed political calculation designed to position herself as a "moderate" and sell books. Maybe her desire to curry favor with the moderate middle, regardless of the facts, has led her to ignore the work of Price, Doherty and Carrier and "overwhelmed what ought to be every rationalist's commitment to unbiased inquiry."

But it sure would be unfair to attribute to her such a corrupt motivation given that she may actually have good reasons for her position.

I invite Jacoby to demonstrate that she's read Price, Doherty and Carrier on the subject (would that be too much to expect given her strong and unequivocal public stance?) and nonetheless come to her conclusion that Jesus existed. And I invite her to demonstrate where in their arguments those three authors in particular become blinded by their "dislike of religion" and stop drawing their conclusions from the facts.

I'm sure Jacoby could easily do this. Because she'd never have come to her conclusion by reading some crazies on the internet and pretending they represent the most credible arguments on this topic. Would she?