Contrast this with the Christian texts. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited political power that were lost and then rediscovered in modern times. Any intentional editing would easily be caught, as it is in the Koran, but textual critics don't find that. They find the usual spelling errors, word substitution, word order changes and the like that you find in any document from that pre-printing press age.
When the documents of the New Testament were compiled together into one volume, after circulating as independent documents before that, no effort was made to edit or harmonize the accounts. Many apparent contradictions exist to the casual reader that are only resolved with a little research into the cultural context, historic context, and standards of writing of the day. While this makes it easy for critics to invent contradictions out of whole cloth, it's also a data goldmine for historians. Eyewitness testimony virtually always agrees on the major details while differing on the minor details.
The benefit of these minor details added off the cuff can be shown to be true or false.
When Jesus is stabbed with a spear after death, blood and water poured out. Why would water pour out of such a wound? Well today we know why. Jesus was going into hypovolemic shock from the beating he sustained before being crucified. This causes fluids, but not blood, to build up in the body around the heart and lungs. So when stabbed through the heart and lungs, a mixture of blood and what would appear to be water would spill from the wound. In the 1st century the only way you would know that is if you saw it happen. You would have no idea WHY it happened of course.
In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?
The book of Acts is fascinating to read from the perspective of a historian because it has so many details.
The Gospels are also great reads because of the sheer incompetence of the disciples before the resurrection. If YOU were making up a religion would YOU put in your scriptures YOU committing even half of the screw-ups that the disciples got themselves into? They completely fail to understand major teachings on many occasions. Jesus calls Peter Satan. The male followers of Jesus hide in fear while the women followers go to and discover the empty tomb. They then fail to understand the meaning until he appears before them and verbally slaps them about. You have passages where large numbers of followers LEAVE after Jesus makes a statement. You have Peter denying that he was associated with Jesus during the trial. (Yea, that makes a great recruitment story, Peter is the leader of the church, the first pope, and right there you have him cowering and running away and in general being a complete incompetent.) That's not a good story to make up, but if it's what really happened then it is good history.
When I went through my period of doubt earlier in my life, looking at Islam and Christianity, the difference is that Islam depends on the text itself, while Christianity depends on the message contained in the text. If you get a text message that reads, "By moor chepz four tha perty" The message still makes it though 100%, even though the physical text itself has corruptions in it. That is one reason why the early church sought to translate the early scriptures into as many languages as possible, while Islam insists on only being "correctly" read in Arabic. Any coherent thought or concept can be expressed in any language, though some languages take more effort and others less. One religion claiming the truth has the Miracle of Pentecost and the other insists on sticking with Arabic. One has god who can compose a message that all can understand equally well, the other a message that is only "true form" in a foreign language to many.
Then there is Christianity's order to mourn those to leave the church while the other religion has an order to kill those who leave...
Believe what you think is true, but some philosiphies stand up better to scrutiny than others.