But it is possible to teach the bible in a way that is totally objective, and I think that it would be a valuable class if taught so.
But Mnem, there is literally noone who could "teach the bible in an objective way", and yes, you and I could find someone who we could agree on, but there would be some sect out there who would disagree with our definition of "objective", because again, their interpretation of the Bible would be too different than to be compatible with our definition of "objective".
Also, there isn't a whole lot of actual history surrounding the bible. Most of the "history" that does exist is speculation as to who exactly were the editors who decided what would be included in the Bible and what would not be included. There is still alot of debate as to exactly who these people were. It is believed that they voted on which parts to keep and which parts to leave out, but it is not known exactly how this was done, and certainly not how much of a majority was needed to keep a certain section in, nor how these people were selected for the Bible editors committee, etc.
The great majority of the content of the Bible itself were merely coincidences of what was being preached in the centers of Christianity at the same time period. The similarities in the stories were eventually edited down into one version and then of that material, some of it made it into the bible, and some was voted out.
But that's really it for the history. Now I suppose you could look at what lead to certain things being preached at given times, but that becomes even more speculative, and lesser known. I do however think the most interesting thing would be to go through and discuss what was left out of the Bible, and really think about why it was left out. Keep in mind, this group of editors were very successful from a results standpoint (roughly 2 Billion Christians on the planet) and so there was definitely some serious forethought into what should stay in the Bible and what should go. Studying what was voted out would be a fascinating look at fashioning a successful religion.
As far as the content of the Bible containing history, really, there's no significant historic events with dates or references, so it's not like the Bible is ever used as a historic reference. The people who try to take it literally as a historic record and claim that Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon (because the Colorado certainly could not carve it in the mere 6,000 years of earth's existence) really aren't taken seriously by any of the mainstream religious community, and certainly not by anyone who is educated. Again, the "grand canyon" crazies are just the "Intelligent Design" morons who see "Intelligent Design" as a way of getting religion back into the classroom and therefore save their religion. But again, they are the extreme minority of those who are religious. I still to this day have never met anyone who would argue that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood, and that includes my Priest in rural Wi.
And to bring this back to the original point. The above description would be someone who would, in my opinion, be teaching the history of the Bible objectively, with no religious slant whatsoever. Again, I'm sure alot of religious people would disagree that this person was being objective.
