Thanks for your posts....
I always find it interesting that ancient manuscripts are taken at face value even with scant evidence by non religious historians, but a biblical manuscript is always assumed false....
Mostly, neither one is -- but there's a bias toward Egyptian and Mesopotamian records in the ancient chronology of the eastern Med, even though the OT is heavily a sequential chronicle. * The surviving description(s?) of the Temple of the Oracle of Delphi (Apollo was the deity there) was "debunked" around 1900 by some French nimrod, and his ****ty work was taken at face value until the 1990s -- at that time a geologist mapped the site, without paying attention to the old work on it (it was outside his specialty) and found that it conformed, then a couple of American scientists / scholars got involved and verified the entire ancient description in detail.