The first problem with apologetics(*) is an assumption. But I don't mean logical, theological or historical assumptions - which are also problems, at times. I mean one particular assumption, namely, that any plausible explanation provides reason enough for believing the claims of a text. It may. It may not.
The second problem with apologetics(*) is an inconsistency. But I don't mean logical, academic or argumentative inconsistencies - which are also problems, at times. I mean one overarching inconsistency, namely, that many apologists work to support claims of historicity, but they do not focus on reconstructing an actual history. In most cases, once the objection's been covered, they stop.
Plausible explanations nearly always get considered by historians, if the suggestion is properly qualified. We don't have evidence to support every claim of most ancient texts, that can be reasonably verified. But any thoroughly historical analysis of the past can contribute towards historians' attempts at reconstructing that past, even if the analysis may be somewhat uncritical.
In contrast to all this, apologetics(*) is almost purely defensive, and very rarely constructive.
Here's my suggested alternative: Christian scholars, believe that the scripture is trustworthy and affirm that its historical content is accurate. But, don't make proving that your objective. Begin there. Assume historicity, and then go on further to reconstruct actual history.
I think that what most people want is not extra reasons to believe that it happened. More than that, we want a scenario to suggest how it happened. So flesh it out, scholars! Just as the writing process forces stray thoughts into discipline, so can a four-dimensional reconstruction illuminate both strong and weak points in one's historical supposings.
Of course, that makes affirming the scriptural Jesus and the scriptural Church a bit more "leap of faith" than a defensible goal - but that's not just a more Christian strategy for dealing with things. That also happens to be the chief distinction between "apologetics" and good historical work.
(*) It should be clear that I'm referring to a particular strand of Christian Apologetics, often practiced by leading Christian Scholars, ostensibly focused on defending the historical reliability of scripture, but primarily aimed at shoring up traditional interpretation and practice.