I’m sorry, but your premise, if I’m understanding it correctly, doesn’t make any sense. Your proposing that Spirit-inspired scripture, by definition, has no historical reason for being written? Why can’t it be both?
Can’t scripture be God-inspired, AND have a historical context? Studying the scripture strongly indicates Luke wrote Acts, an orderly account of the past 30 years of Christian history, to Theophilus, a Roman official, with the express purpose of legitimizing Christianity to the Roman government in the face of the impending Neronic persecution.
But how does that contradict divine inspiration? How do you know the Holy Spirit didn’t move on Theophilus to request the acccount, then whisper what to write to Luke?
1) because why would you read/learn from a letter written for historical reasons to someone other then modern day Christians? If it’s just the observations and musings of a man, why is it special?
2) Creeds and Confessions of Christianity over 1900 years have proclaimed the Spirit led formation of the scriptures.
I am betting on #2. You can have #1.