Well yes and no. In reality, it doesn't require reevaluating ancient peoples and history because ancient people and history have been saying the same thing all along. What we would need to do is reevaluate the way we are interpreting information because we have been considering the Bible to be an accurate presentation of history.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing the link that you are recommending to me. I would like to point out how there are no external sources to reevaluate regarding this event. This whole account that is considered history is solely taken from the Biblical account or a published study of the Biblical account, as many similar articles are. Therefore, reevaluation of ancient peoples connected to Jewish history is necessary because they have essentially been excluded from the way history has been recorded up to this point.
The only reference in this article that is not taken from the Bible is the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle and if you click on this link for more information, you will see that this chronicle never mentions the name of the king of Israel during the time of the siege and only vaguely makes a reference that you could assume was intended to mean Judah.
In some ways, this absence of recognition supports the theory presented by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman in their book
David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. In this book, they suggest that archeological evidence only supports the possibility that Israel was a much smaller kingdom than we would imagine. Therefore, neglecting to the name the king in the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle suggests that this king was not well known and that this was not a large and well-known kingdom the way it is described in scripture.
You could follow this by trying to support that this is somehow irrelevant because of stories like the ones from the book of Judges or the story of David and Goliath. You could say that being a small kingdom makes sense in some way according to this information. However, accepting this would still require reshaping the ways these stories are absorbed spiritually. Without the grandeur attributed to Solomon, there will be changes in the ways the Bible influences history in the future.
In addition to this, even using this to defend the small scale that is demonstrated in The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles and demonstrated by the archeological evidence available, this will still mean that large portions of the Bible are not historically accurate. Solomon was never widely known for his wealth because there is no external reference to this anywhere outside of the Bible. This is a fact that is admitted on more than one occasion in the book by Finklestein and Silberman. So like I was saying, we don't really need to reexamine the history of ancient people that were external to Israel. These references basically have never been examined in the first place.
This is a partial direct quote from the book by Finklestein and Silberman that I have summarized briefly already in my response. I have bolded the most significant section.
I bolded the last part because I think this is a reasonable goal for the future of our faith. What we basically have right now is a function that creates the pattern. The Bible is the function. Reading the Bible is like the input and the change it creates is the output that creates this pattern. So essentially, we could hypothetically determine the shape that is being created by the Bible. Does it create a parabola? Does this create a wave pattern?
If we did this, I think what we would see is that what the Bible creates is a pattern of division. We are divided over different versions of the Bible. We are divided over different verses. We are divided over different prophecies. So for as many ways as this creates an effective method to pattern society in a certain way, it is still just about as effective as trying to find the area of a circle using the Archimedes method.
So I hope you will bear with me while I compare the Bible to this image of trying to find the area of a circle using the Archimedes method.
So our understanding of spiritual things is similar to the veiled understanding Archimedes had of pi long ago. Consequently, archeology is essentially the same thing as being able to find the area of a circle the way we are familiar with today, and using this could create a new pattern that could better facilitate following the teachings of Christ for one very significant reason, and this is the struggle with doubt. Living by faith means wrestling with doubt. Wrestling with doubt means wrestling with fear and you can hear this fear on a board like this frequently for an example. I am not saying that you should not have faith or don't need faith. What I am saying is similar to the arguments we are familiar with about faith and works. There is a combined effect that is lacking without historical evidence that is creating doubt that causes many people to stumble.
This is demonstrated by the division that is present throughout the church. Something is creating this division. Something is making it easy to use curse words like I see people who say they are Christians using. Something makes it easy to basically tell people they are going to hell on a regular occasion and justify this by using different words to describe the same phenomenon like saying "you aren't born again" or "you aren't saved" or "you aren't really a Christian". Something is creating these problems no matter how we try to use the teachings of Christ to find the fruit of the Spirit using the same method we claim to agree is the valid source to use.
I would just like you to consider what I am saying in light of Hebrew 8:11 "And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them."
The biggest problem that is facing the church today is the assumption that each person makes when they read this verse and assume that they know how this will look in reality. Then, they will use this assumption to justify rejecting the things that could make something like this possible in theory.
We are within a few years of being able to prove that the Bible is not historically accurate, the only question is what will the church do with this information in the future. I am not optimistic. If any part of this is beneficial to something like operation Bluebeam, it will be to use something like this to continue injecting artificial history because of the absence of validation from archeological efforts. That is what the church wants. They want signs and wonders to prove the Bible when archeology can't. That is a recipe for disaster. Belief is God is not the absence of common sense.