The authentic beliefs, customs and concepts of Christianity were immensely different from what they're today. The Christian Dilemmas, a three part series, discerns the changes and analyzes the disagreements that have caused anxiety among religious scholars and advocates of the faith.
The dictionary says that faith is a belief without any evidence to support it. And blind faith is a belief not only without evidence but in spite of evidence to the contrary. "God made men but, men made religions. And all religions are mythology, except mine which is history." - this arrogance caused so much human misery from recorded history to present.
It seems there is no good definition of a biblical scholar because they come in one of two forms. One is the apologist and the other is neutral scholar, one without an agenda. The apologist is the one who can take almost anything that comes up in any aspect of life and turn it into such a way that suits his agenda, his beliefs.
A critical scholar without an institutional axe to grind very likely began as an apologist. That happened with many people. You get interested in the Bible because you're an avid Christian and you just can't know that Bible well enough. But the further you delve into it you begin to realize that it would make a lot more sense without the creed behind it. Because the more you understand the Bible more of a clash you see and you may have to make a choice. Eventually you follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The neutral scholar is somebody without any axe to grind, somebody without an agenda, somebody that can painstakingly rid himself of the previous biases and prejudices and just try to get out the truth for what it is.