Well, pseudo-history is booming among rabbis, imams, as well as Buddhist monks or Hindu brahmins, and I would say they all are on par with Christian theologians and apologists. On the other hand, academic Bible studies and archeology, whether Christian or Judaic (I'm not exactly familiar with Islam and the rest), are rather levelheaded and more or less objective.

I mean, the Christian linguistic studies are not utterly off and are rather usable even though they exist on a large scale from critical to apologetic (but seldom totally unhinged) and your criticism does not apply to a large chunk of them, which is also the exact case with Biblical archeology in Israel -- e.g. there is no physical evidence for Mosaic exodus and existence of house of David is still practically unconfirmed, but both are considered a fact by some renown archeologists in Israel exactly for ideological and state-propaganda reasons, however, I must add that both are also intensely contested (see e.g. work of Mazar family, Israel Finkelstein, etc.).

As I see it, for some reason Christians in particular rub you the wrong way. I can say the same about all religionists and spiritualists, but also about atheists and essentially all ideologues.