One of the things it does show is that the people who "late date" the books of the Bible are incorrect.
Some of the things they have verified are bits that are far too boring or small to have been part of oral tradition. When you are a story teller you go for excitement. Obscure little wars by obscure little kings that you lost are generally not included. But they are included in official court records.
So if you find outside evidence of one of those things then you don't have oral tradition that was written down a couple of hundreds of years after the fact but official court records that were written down as the events took place.
Two very different things from an historical point of view.
One of the things it does show is that the people who "late date" the books of the Bible are incorrect....."
Concur. When I was in law school, I had a professor who spent a lot of time having us read ancient history, written by the ancients. Because the ancient people would only tell the story form the perspective most favorable to them. The objective of his lessons was to learn how to state situation most favorable to your position in a persuasive manner.
Someone asked him why we did not study Bible. He said that the Bible wasn't written that way. He said the Bible was written more objectively than any history book he had ever read, e.g. King David committed adultery and had the husband killed.