I can hear the responding claim that scholars in the field are uninterested in new discoveries and/or even that they conspire to keep new ideas from gaining acceptance. But any such claim only further reveals the lack of familiarity with scholarly processes.
I used to repeat claims like this a lot, and certainly charges of a vast conspiracy can be readily dismissed as the ranting of a nutter. But I'm always reminded now of Thomas Thompson's powerful memoir.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Ideology is certainly a factor, as I'd be surprised if Larry hadn't experienced in his long career, and can limit options for publication. But equally important is the role of academic inertia. These two factors eliminate the need for a conspiracy.
To be sure, this doesn't eliminate the simple fact that most material not submitted for peer-review is by crackpots. But if Thompson had written Historicity today, when self-publication is much easier, we have to assume he would have given it serious thought.
Hurtado's advice is nonetheless solid. Expertise is important, especially for the non-specialist, and as a general rule worth following.