Well, you'll have to find evidence of editing by the early church to back your contention. But since the ante-nicene fathers quoted extensively from the same texts we know you'd be better off trying a different tack.
Julius Caesar undoubtedly wrote his Commentaries. But the manuscripts we have of that work are fewer and more recent than the numerous and much older copies of the New Testament writings that exist. My Loeb edition of Caesar's The Gallic War states that there are 6 manuscripts extant, which date from the ninth to the twelth century, and that fall into two manuscript camps.
As for thinking Caesar an historian, you're in the minority there, as the introduction to the Loeb edition indicates:
The Commentaries, as the title implies, were regarded by Cicero and Hirtius as materials for the historian rather than as history proper. By critics of his own and later days, Cicero, Asinius Pollio, Suetonius, Tacitus, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Caesar was considered a master of Latin speech. As an orator he was second to Cicero alone; and the literary style of the Commentaries, simple, straightforward, unadorned, found great favor with Cicero himself. Even Asinius Pollio, characteristically finding fault with the inaccuracy of the Commentaries, which, as he thought, would have been revised by their author, has nothing to say against the style. The popular character of the work is seen in the occasional touches of rhetoric, excellent of their kind, and the rarity of technical details. |
