As Tony Bath says in his thorough and entertaining Hannibal's Campaigns:
There is no lack of books on the period, but most of them are derived from the same original sources. One would expect this to make things easier and that most accounts of events would tally. In fact the reverse is the case; on almost every important point throughout the period there are disagreements on geography, numbers and many other things.
He continues by noting what basically all scholars of ancient times struggle with:
Even when original sources are available, they cannot always be taken on trust. As already stated, most historians are liable to bias of some sort, and very often trying to put their own country or countrymen in a better light. The modern historian thus has to chart his course through a good number of reefs, balancing one source against another and adding a good dose of common-sense plus a feeling of what is...likely. Where I have followed other writers I have said so, where not, if I am in error, the fault is mine alone. All the opinions expressed are mine, but I do not claim to have thrown any particularly new light on the subject. (pp.6-7 of the 1992 Barnes&Noble edition)
My feelings could not be more similar, though much better stated by a man who, as Dionysius of Alexandria put it regarding John, has "the gift of both knowledge and expression." This perfectly describes the state of affairs of biblical scholarship so much so that the Anglican, famous New Testament scholar, John Arthur Thomas Robinson remarked on New Testament studies and that, "the layman can be excused for thinking they were more or less settled."
The menu on the left has topics in mainly early Christian history ranging from the nature of the early church to historical investigations into the epistles and letters of the New Testament regarding authorship and date.
Here is an up-to-date analysis of arguments regarding different positions on various topics.