“Given the understanding of History as a science both ‘pre-christian’ and in the centuries immediately following Christ, Is there a document written parallel to these biblical documents which is more historically sound/accurate?”
If we answer Josephus, Thudydides and others…did they try to cover the breadth of history contained in the Old Testament as well as narrate the meaning of the God-man connection?

[record-scratch sound effect]
Say what?!
Not that the “meaning of the God-man connection” isn’t important, but since when has it ever been a criterion for judging the accuracy of historic narratives?
But even if we allow for the sake of discussion that the God-man connection ought to be considered here, comparing the entire Bible to the writings of Josephus Flavius is obviously going to put the latter at a severe disadvantage, since he was just one guy.
In the case of the Bible, believers and non-believers may disagree in their estimates of how many human authors were involved (e.g., was the Pentateuch written by Moses alone, or by multiple anonymous contributors?). But what both sides can agree on is that the Bible in its entirety is an anthology of writings by numerous authors who lived in different eras and who wrote in different genres.
Thus, if you want to talk about how Classical Latin literature compared with the Bible in terms of overall quality, it doesn’t really give you a meaningful picture if you simply contrast the Bible with, say, Vergil’s Aeneid. Rather, you should compare the Bible with an anthology of excerpts from Vergil, and Julius Caesar, and Cicero, and Juvenal, and Tacitus, and Catullus. (Note: My list includes some Roman writers whose primary genre was “history”, and some who represent other genres, like moral essays and love poetry.)
But conversely, if you wanted to focus on the historicity of the Aeneid alone, it would be a bit more meaningful to compare it with just the book of Exodus — after all, these two works belong to the same basic “literary genre”, namely, “A history of how our forefathers escaped perilous circumstances, wandered around for quite a long time, and eventually laid the foundations for what would become a mighty kingdom.”
(Mind you, Exodus might still come out well ahead of the Aeneid in terms of archeological validation, but at least you wouldn’t be “stacking the deck” quite so much from the get-go. Whereas if you compare the Aeneid with the whole Bible, some people on the “Bible side” will attempt to score easy points by saying, “Aha, they’ve found the tomb of Caiaphas!” — although demonstrating the historicity of Caiaphas doesn’t even prove the historicity of his own contemporary Jesus, much less have anything to do with the historicity of the “escaping-wandering-founding” narratives contained in Exodus and the Aeneid. )

Just as a matter of curiosity, when you personally compared me with Bahati and Sempa recently in an entire unprovoked attack, was that a needless, polarizing and hopelessly generalizing blunt act of aggression?

LOL

Timothy, the Bible is fairy stories

Indubitably — but I think Timothy’s position is that the fairytales in the Bible are not just any old fairytales — they are fairytales told to us by God Himself.
And to any believer who is offended by the fairytale comparison and objects “Well, why would God make up a bunch of lies?”, I would respond with the old Russian proverb:
Skazka — lozh,
Da v nei namiok,
Dobrym molodtsam urok!
Which literally translates more or less as:
“The fairytale is a lie,
Yet in it is a hint —
For kindhearted A+ students, a lesson!”
And a bit loosely, for the sake of rhyme:
“Fairytales are a mountain of lies…
…but with hinted-at lessons for the good and wise!”