It's a modern problem

The problem of differentiating between the historical and literary prophet did not trouble ancient scribes as it has troubled modern scholarship since the Enlightenment and the emergence of historical-critical research on the Bible. For the ancient scribes, the prophet and the prophetic book were one. Yet, for them the most important thing about the prophet was not his biography but rather the word of God that was present in the person of the prophet and is still present in his book. Thus, the prophet and his book give access to comprehensive knowledge about God’s plan, which he had made known to his prophets (Isa 44:26; Jer 23:18; 29:11; Amos 3:7) .—The Prophets of Israel, page 30

<idle musing>
Yep. I couldn't have put it better myself. It boils down to why we read the Bible. Is it for information? Or is it in hopes of encountering the living God who alone can animate the words on the page?
</idle musing>