Often commenters here say the Old Testament accounts of history are “largely accurate”. What is meant by, “largely accurate”, is, of course, up to the individual.
It is true some of the historical leaders mentioned in the Bible were people also mentioned in non religious documents. This could be someone’s definition of “largely accurate”.
When we do a literary review of the Bible, it’s like what scholars do with Shakespeare or Herman Melville. They compare how a story is told with other story tellers at the time and discuss the social/political values reflected in the writing.
If we do this with the Bible’s story of the founding of Israel we find one unmistakeable pattern. The unknown writers of those chapters were not interested in how many innocent people were slaughtered nor the injustice done by those who “founded” Israel.
Instead, the authors of the stories divided leaders into those who were faithful to God and those who were not. Those who followed God and God’s instructions won battles and ruled successfully. If they had character flaws, like taking the wives of others, God forgave them and they were considered successful anyway. Those who strayed from God were regarded as unsuccessful.
The authors were aiming their message at people of that time. They wanted readers to know there was a company line and to not follow it was to be a failure.
I don’t agree this story telling account of history is what we can call, “largely accurate.”