(Dude...the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming (more than 5,000 complete manuscripts). Compare this with about 10 copies of the Iliad.)
The authorship and origin of The Iliad (homer) is undisputed. The supposed "original" versions of the four gospels have NEVER, I repeat NEVER discovered and the authorship is unknown (the historical St. Matthew most likely did not write it). The fact is, all we have are copies of copies of copies (of the gospels).
(The four gospels were all written in the 1st century A.D. Matthew or Mark within 20 years (not 200) of Jesus' death; Luke very soon thereafter; John probably around 85-95 A.D.)
You're right, the earliest date agreed by historians is around 60 - 65 A.D. but the first actual documents come much later.
How do you account for the similarity of the story of Jesus to many other OLDER ancient myths?
(They would never have been able to gain the circulation and credibility they did, if they were fabrications.)
Do you seriously want to use this as an argument? What about the dozens of other "Gospels" that were just as popular as the four included in the Bible?
(On your last point...suffice to say that while many religious leaders have risen to greatness, only One has risen from the grave. The resurrection of Christ authenticates His divinity.)
There is no extra-biblical evidence that the historical Jesus rose from the dead. And yes, resurrection from the dead is a common theme across many religions.
Remember the tower of Babel?
The LANGUAGES were mixed up; NOT the collective memories of the people speaking them.
How do you account for the DIS-similarity of the languages on Earth today?