Well, I wasn't really seeking to dismiss him. The Commentaries are quite historically significant, albeit there is a strong propaganda aspect to them. The point I'm making is that we can be more historically certain that the words in the New Testatment are reliable than we can Caesar's.
is not a process of what written accountis ealiest
Caesar's work was written before the Bible.
but which written account is more reliable and authoritive.
These things are determined by scholarship. The Bible holds up better than any other work of antiquity. I'll provide links to the Kenyon quote and others below.
By your logic then we must take the Sumerian writings on Gods and Godhood as actually fact because it is more ancient.
What we are discussing isn't the religious teachings found in the New Testament but their historical context. By the traditional means of scholarship, the Gospels are exactly what they purport to be.
Tribune 7 wrote "for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the N.T." . . .
I didn't write that. Sir Frederic Kenyon of the British Museum wrote that. Here is a link to attributing that view to him. And another. And here is a another link with an extenstive quote from Kenyon made during a internet debate over Islam.
Concerning archaeology, it was his research in that field that led an unbelieving William M. Ramsay to become a Christian.