Biblical History?

Two of the most important questions in the study of history are:
1. What historical sources are accurate?
2. How do we determine the historical accuracy of each source?

This question is used to determine whether or not a source is useful for determining the actual events of the past. All sources are inherently biased in some fashion, because history is always written from a specific point of view. The question a historian wants to ascertain is whether or not the source is useful for examining the past.

I am always intrigued, however, that Biblical scholars systematically reject the historical accuracy of the Bible offhand. Every detail is open to argument and speculation:
David never existed (and any reference to David, i.e. the Tell Dan inscription) must be a forgery or the result of the Davidic myth of Israel

The Israelites were not a pastoral society that broke away from Egypt and moved north, conquering Canaan; instead, they were Canaanites who moved from the coast into the interior. Everything else written about them is a myth used to promulgate the “Davidic” monarchy.

The people of Israel were never absolute followers of YHWH; they followed dozens of other gods and didn’t become strict monotheists until after the Exile, although some scholars argue that THAT event never happened either. (Actually, even the Bible supports the fact that Israel wasn’t very good at monotheism!)

The timing of Jesus’ birth is simply off; astrological events from 7BC, random events from 6-4BC, Herod never kills baby boys in Bethlehem; etc.

The Biblical “Historians” are minimalists; they don’t believe much of it ever happened. They believe you can trust the most basic facts: there are a people called Israel living in Canaan who thought that they were chosen by God and placed in a specific location. And… well, that’s about it. Biblical historians take more of the NT at face value, but they negate any possible ideas of miraculous works, strange events, or the resurrection. Jesus was simply a great rabbinic teacher who taught that the tenets of Judaism were being misapplied. Everything else was made up by the disciples.

The problem is, no one else tries this with other teachings. No one attacks the Quran from an historical point of view; they don’t doubt Mohammed’s existence, even if they doubt things written in it. No one attacks the Buddhist writings for their historical accuracy; they don’t argue that Sidharta Guatama once existed. As for other historical writings: No one doubts the overall accuracy of Julius Caesar’s Gaelic Wars, the writings of Suetonius, the histories of Egypt. No one thinks that Plato never lied, even though he never wrote for himself, his teachings were simply passed down through Socrates and Aristotle. Although we might dispute numbers and smaller events from their statements, we never dismiss them offhandedly or question the authenticity of the individuals they are describing. Even in those religious books we don’t agree with!

Yet this is systematically done to Christianity and the Bible. Even biblical “scholars” like John Dominic Crossan, Michael Borg, Bart Ehrman, etc, argue that the events in the bible are not meant to be taken literally or even historically. Instead, they form a parabolic sequence that describes the growth of Christianity (and Judaism). In The Birth Narrative, Crossan and Borg’s most recent book together, they deny the authenticity of either biblical account of the birth of Jesus. They dismiss not only the virgin birth, but the accounts of Jesus in Bethlehem, the shepherds, the star, the stable, the presence of Joseph… You name it, they discount it.

Where do we start, in a world that sees supposed “biblical” scholars discount the very thing they chose to study?