Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents?
Setting aside the fact that most contemporary historians treat the New Testament as reliable historical information, I have no reason to think that the Bible isn't historically reliable. In fact, the more we learn from archaeology, the more the reliability of the Bible is affirmed.
What is historical about the flood
Oh, you mean the global flood that every freaking ancient civilization talked about from every continent? I'm guessing it happened.
What about Jonah's whale? Some interpret that verse to mean that Jonah died in the whale but that God resurrected him. Others say Jonah survived in the whale with the help of God's divine intervention.
The supernatural being/interdimensional being that talked through a donkey? What's the issue here?
Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other.
No they don't.
Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus?
Why don't you Google it? There's actually a Wikipedia article that specifically talks about what Tacitus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. It's crazy how lazy some of you are. A bunch of know-nothings who are too lazy to read anything.