If you are going to prove that the Bible story about Christ being crucified at a certain place and on a certain time is true, you can't just say its true because the Bible says so and still claim it's a scientific argument, or a logical argument. It's not an argument at all when posed that way, it's a statement of faith.
But then why accept any other contemporary evidence? Just because a stone has a name carved on it from that time is no better evidence.
My point is there doesn’t seem to be the same overt cynicism about, say Hammurapi’s code or Socrates. They always seem to put a qualifier in when talking about the Bible, though.
It’s a bias that seems mostly directed one way.