Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

Try as they might, Roman history prevents the jesus freaks from moving their boy up in time to make it line up with the rest of their happy horseshit.

It's not just the Jesus freaks but so-called "historists" as well.

I can understand why the apologists are desperate to move all the dates back a decade. They have to in order to preserve Matthew, who features a bullshit story about Herod's massacre of all the male infants around Jerusalem in a story lifted out of Exodus (which in turn was ripped off from Sargon). When it's "The Word of God", you're stuck with it.

Lies have a way of tripping up a larger fabrication and Matthew's whopper about "The Slaughter of The Innocents" means apologists are stuck with Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Sucks to be them. What I don't understand is why "secular historists" are so reluctant to admit the obvious, that whoever wrote Matthew was a bald-faced liar and throw the whole Gospel out.

If I were to argue the "secular historist" stance, say in a high school debate team assignment, I'd use the dates provided by Luke. Jesus was born in 6 CE, started his ministry in 34 CE and died in 36 CE. It's a tight squeeze and you need to fudge what "about 30" means ("meh, 28, close enough") but it works for every historical landmark I can see. Just ditch the bullshit about Mary's virgin conception under Herod the Great and, AFIAK, you're good to go.

Feel free to rip me apart there. It's not what I actually believe but what I would argue in an assigned debate.

Now supposedly, the "secular historist" has the advantage of being selective about what parts of the Bible can be used. Bart Ehrman (a theologian, not a historian) himself has ripped apart the contaminations in scripture, so why not? Why not just toss out Matthew and the virgin conception in Luke? You're already tossing out all the miralces, divinity and woo, which is 90% of the story anyway.

Supposedly, the "secular historist" is arguing for some mortal guy who inspired the myths and legends. In practice, the lines between them and the very apologists they deride like McDowell, Habermas, et al, are fuzzy at best. They cling to the 4 BCE timeline and carry the water for the apologists on other issues of the picture they construct, when they construct anything coherent at all. They call themselves secular but howl with indignation when you take their precious Bible away from them.

It honestly makes me wonder about their motivation. Why are historical scholars so reluctant to admit what obviously can't be reconciled with a basic reading of scripture? Are they either Christians or former Christians who can't fully let go? Or are they terrified of reprisal, that their careers may suffer if they incur the wrath of Jesus Inc.?