From an untrained student of the Bible, there are so many other distinctions as well. The historical writings differ from typical extrabibilical accounts in a couple other important aspects.

One is the relative integration of the history of the writing of the OT (and the NT as well) with the vast history it contains. I observe that other religious writings are of a relatively narrow historical scope with which to reference theological claims.

The other is something I noticed recently in observing some of the historical accounts of various kings writen on artifacts found at the British Museum. Kings would order favorable accounts of their activities etched into lasting mateirals to leave as a legacy of their “godlike” reign. However, the historical accounts found in the OT are often anything but favorable with regard to the reigns of various kings. Even today rulers and government leaders desire to create written histories that reflect favorably on their governance. However, the historical account of the OT reads almost as a tabloid account of the REAL story behind the kings. Today this tends to be sensationalistic, but in those days such accounts had no other purpose than to preserve truth for future generations. Where most peoples had their patron gods, often embodied in their kings, the God of Israel was decidedly NOT embodied in the kings and the history written by recognized prophets often blatantly critical of the kings where they strayed from the law established by God through Moses before there was a king. Such a biblical history remained amazingly ideologicaly homogenous where one would expect disparate ideologies from one king to the next if the historical writings were compiled merely of political criticism of the current king.

It’s a striking distinction that lends credibility to the divine claims of the OT writings rather than to simply write the historical accounts off as mere myth.