If we are going to apply historical criticism equally then we must reject 100% of history prior to the birth of Christ. I am always amazed how people treat the Bible as one book and one source and not the 66 documents that it is.
73
And Amen to that. I wonder if the atheists and skeptics realize there are no autographs from Julius Caesar and scant if any manuscripts. What we know today of the Roman emperors was transcribed by the same monks who transcribed the Scriptures. Yet when they find a small fragment of pottery of some lost civilization they take it as 'gospel' truth. So by their standard we don't have real 'proof' of Caesar existing except for a sculpture here or there and some coins.
And their other laughable standard is the 'neutral' source or contemporaneous sources. As if CNN, BBC or Sky News were around to be an "independent" or "unbiased" source of information.
They would also have to throw out the history of the Peloponnesian War. As Thucydides was not an unbiased or neutral observer of history.