Were not all societies of that epoch equally convinced of the need to appease their gods? It is this general consideration to which the original question referred.
Yes, they were which was my point. It would be unrealistic to conclude the image of God, which is a different thing to understanding of God, held by the Israelites was not to and extent influenced by nations of people around them.
Is it not possible that God might reveal himself to any number of individuals today, many of whom might take it upon themselves to write such inspiration in a book or other work?
It’s not only possible it happens. Many write books on theology, prayers or engage in acts because they are inspired. However, inspiration and Revelation are not the same. Aquinas wrote how humans can come to a knowledge of God purely by their own reasoning. However, he reasoned human knowledge of God has limitations. Gaining insight into what Aquinas termed, ‘higher truths’ - for example the Trinity - cannot be understood purely by human reasoning alone, but can only be known through Divine Revelation - in other words, revealed by God Himself - and the only way we can develop any understanding of these Divine truths are through engagement with the Holy Spirit, as it is the Holy Spirit that gives understanding. Catholics believe the bible contains Divinely Revealed truths - truths revealed by God himself and these truths would not have been known if God had not revealed them. The bible is both Revelation and inspiration. Revelation by God which inspired authors to write about this Revelation.
Why then is it that the Church does not pursue these same narratives with the same certainty with which they ascribe God’s involvement in the Bible?
I don’t really understand this.
Is it not possibly because the Bible is more ancient and therefore closer to mankind’s origins? Is not most ancient lore esteemed for this reason?
Not to my knowledge. Maybe you’ve read something or heard something I haven’t. There are writings that are much older than the bible which would be closer to the origins of human life. The writings of OT were recognized as inspired prior to the birth of the Church.
The Apostles, as Jews, would have believed they were inspired, and they were always recognized as inspired. The Church didn’t decide they were inspired at a later time. The books of the NT were also always considered to be inspired. Two reasons they were placed in the Canon of Scripture, (not the only reasons) is because they were always believed to be inspired, and were written either by those who were closest to the Apostles, - their disciples who would have heard the message of the Gospel from the Apostles, eg. Mark, - or the Apostles themselves, who were closest to Christ and heard the Gospel directly from him, eg: Matthew .
Was not your position that many of the stories in the Bible were not real?
No it wasn’t. Shows how easy it is to attribute a meaning to written words the author did not intend.
What I was eluding to is certain details may have an allegorical meaning, and may exaggerated or colorfully elaborated for effect, as any good story teller would do, and the finer details of the story are not intended to be taken literally. When reading scripture it is important to ascertain the literary form of the particular passage we are reading. For example, did Jesus intend his parables to be taken literally? I would say he didn’t as it wasn’t the purpose of teaching in parables. I’m sure you’ve heard of Aesop’s fables. In the story of the tortoise and the hare, does Aesop want the audience to believe a tortoise can run faster than a hare? Of course not. The moral of that story is, ‘slow and steady wins the race.’
I would be of the opinion the book of Jonah is a literary work. There are many ‘morals of story’ in Jonah, and this is the purpose of telling the story, and these morals are what the author wants the audience to understand -not, ‘it scientifically possible for a man to survive in the stomach of a big fish.’ The story of Jonah may be based on a real person and actual events, or they may not. It’s not important to the author or the audience of the time, any more than it was important to author and audience if Androcles was a real person who really pulled a thorn out of lions paw. However, my position is also there is no such thing as a true story. Jack and the Beanstalk is reputed to be the only true story in existence as it is based on pure imagination. All other stories are based on real life. To illustrate, while Dickens works and characters are fictional, they are based on the realities of the world he lived in, and give us great insight into what the world of Dickens was like.
) it could be argued the person you have encountered on the internet does not in fact exist. Therefore, you are free to believe I am not a real person. By the same token, I am free to believe you don’t exist. 
:irish3:
In fairness though, you raised the money issue; I was just putting it in perspective!
Admittedly, not the most reliable source, but here’s what I found -