Imagine you are trying to assemble a history of Ancient Rome. You have inscriptions, 5% of the literature (a patchy mix of non-fiction and fiction, and the non-fiction is open to a lot of interpretation), and various secondary sources that summarize and write about primary sources that are lost to time. You also have archeological digs.
Now apply that same scientific mind to the Bible. A group of people decided what was in and what was out. If you can prove what they thought was valid because so-and-so apostle or a related person wrote it, and we can determine they did not, it’s certainly interesting even without the religious element.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Imagine you are trying to assemble a history of Ancient Rome. You have inscriptions, 5% of the literature (a patchy mix of non-fiction and fiction, and the non-fiction is open to a lot of interpretation), and various secondary sources that summarize and write about primary sources that are lost to time. You also have archeological digs.
Now apply that same scientific mind to the Bible. A group of people decided what was in and what was out. If you can prove what they thought was valid because so-and-so apostle or a related person wrote it, and we can determine they did not, it’s certainly interesting even without the religious element.