I don’t see what all the fuss is about. No thinking person has ever asserted that the Bible is devoid of factual history. The question is how much of it is factual, given that its various books have been transmitted by a combination of oral tradition and hand-copied text, with most books undergoing plenty of rounds of both.
Insignificant and non-controversial details like the one mentioned here are the least likely to be changed to accommodate the political or religious agenda of the re-teller or re-copier. Many such details were no doubt dropped or mistakenly changed along the way, but it’s hardly surprising that some made it through the process unchanged.
Your reply is proof positive that you have never read the first article on textual criticism. If you had, you would know that your assumptions about the transmission of documents simply do not square with the number of documents, and historical periods from which they came. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
The Jews made sure that they were copied correctly. They were extremely strict about that. Every jot and every tittle had to be just so. It seems I recall that if they made a mistake, it was their last one—get what I mean?