No, it's the Gospels. The primary source for the Gallic Wars is Caesar himself. The Gospels have several sources who clearly did not collaborate or agree on everything.
Which had statues made from life? Caesar.
How about shrouds :-) And why would a statue of Caesar make authenticate his writing?
Which was written at the time, not decades later? Caesar.
The first books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the events possibly less that two decades after the crucifixion.
Which did not claim miracles, but merely mundane events? Caesar.
Caesar was writing about mundane events, not miracles. Why discount miracles?
>> Which has more contemporary backup in the form of testimonies from numerous others?
> No, it's the Gospels.
Sorry, wrong. Quite a few other individuals wrote of Julius Caesar.
>> Which had statues made from life? Caesar.
> How about shrouds :-)
In that case, none.
> The first books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the events possibly less that two decades after the crucifixion.
Maybe.
> Why discount miracles?
Consider:
1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."
Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?
You want me to believe miracles, you're going to have to do better than hearsay and decades-old memories of cult leaders.