Actually this view is indefensible. To say that all post enlightenment historians wrote without bias or purpose is simply not true (the implication of only being able to trust post enlightenment history). Actually if we were to take this view we would know almost nothing about the ancient world. For example, by that argument we would have to say Julius Caesar didn't exist, we would have to disregard the writings of historians like Seutonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Plini because they are for the most part not "scientifically verifiable". No the historian is dependent on histories like the Old Testament to make sense of the Archaeological record. HOWEVER generally the Old Testament is frowned upon as a historical source because of it's religious context, again though this is poor scholarship for the simple reason that most of our sources from the ancient world have religious elements and without these texts we would know almost nothing about the civilisations they were written by. Hear me correctly here, I'm not saying these sources should be trusted without question however what I am saying is that it is poor scholarship to disregard them on the basis of their ideology. Another very large concern relevant to this discussion is that near eastern chronology is in no way a perfect science. Talking for example about Solomon's empire not existing is a bit of a leap, it takes only a little trip into archaeological scholarship and chronology to see this. Tools like radio carbon dating or dendrochronology are only now making an impact in chronology, for a long time and perhaps even now they were rejected in favour of the old methods of dating. There are many many very poor or circular arguments that are accepted as truth in the Archaeological world and espoused as fact to the public. One instructive example is the dating of Lachish (an Israelite city) level III. The dating of the destruction of this level of Lachish was originally based on the dating of a number of ostraca found in its ruins (a type of letter generally written on pottery). The date initially given for this level of Lachish was derived from analysis of these letters by a Hebrew specialist named Torczyner. However, these dates were revised by about 150 years by Hebrew specialists over a number of years of dissecting his arguments. The archaeological world seemed completely oblivious to this though and still continued to use the incorrect dates to peg the dating of Lachish III. Given that Lachish was used a reference date this had pretty big consequences. A very interesting book on this topic (near eastern chronology), though sadly out of print now, is "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James et al. My point is this: what we know about the ancient near east is a very large moving target and it is certainly not the perfect post enlightenment science it is made out to be. In my opinion basing the Hebrews off the O.T. would be reasonable.