Mad Yes, you're right regarding the manuscripts relating to Julius Caesar. The thing is though, if all we had demonstrating an historical Caesar were these fragments of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts, no historian could make a conclusive case that he existed at all. It's by looking beyond this to see what else we may have in the way of supplementary evidence that we find everything else - busts of his likeness made within his lifetime, coins with his face on, eyewitness accounts from both friends & foes, endless mentions in contemporary histories of the era, a system of government inspired by him & a calendar bearing his name. This all adds up to a pretty darn conclusive case that he did indeed exist.
But when we look beyond the similar, fragmentary "evidence" of Jesus - we find nothing. So, there's really no comparison that can be made between the two.
The problem remains, that everything we think we know about early Christianity comes from one source and one source alone......Christians. Christians who were, obviously, believers and who wanted to spread the word. Christians with an agenda, a bias, an unshakeable faith. This is why it is always imperative that, when trying to establish the facts of something historically, we must, must, must look beyond the say-so of those who might want us to believe what they are saying, for their own reasons. And when we do we find nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada., And this is a very big problem.
Hi Holo Yes - I agree with everything you've written. But what it demonstrates is the evolution of a religion. A movement that grew & changed over successive generations - with new interpretations, edits of existing manuscripts, new & important adherents (Constantine), the dismissal of whole gospels in order to bring coherence & consistency. All true & all to be expected.
But it is massively at odds with the central message of Christianity, surely? Even if we dismiss most of the miracle stories of the NT (and I know most well read Christians do, for all of the same reasons that I do) surely it is necessary to believe that God gave his only son to save us from sin & to demonstrate his love etc and, hopefully, to prevent us from going to hell (whether that's a literal or metaphorical hell).
If this is true, then it's a tremendously important message for the whole of humanity. My immortal soul & that of my grumpy, messy beloved DS rests entirely on my willingness to accept Jesus & love Yahweh. And these highly contentious, fragmentary, inconsistent, mistake-ridden bits of bronze age literature are expected to convince me? This was the best God/Jesus could manage?
Tell you what, Holo - recommend to me the one book to read that best represents your point of view, and I'll order it on Amazon today. I want to get a more well rounded view of things.; My interest is more piqued than ever now - so thank you for that 
.