As far as we know, Y'shua/Joshua/Jesus never wrote a book himself. So everything we know about him is from others.
The question then becomes which sources are trustworthy and which sources are untrustworthy.
It seems every time an older fragment of a book of the New Testament is found, it confirms the existing New Testament that we already have, strengthening it.
The versions of the Bible do vary somewhat, yes. And sometimes this or that version will say something about the translator's view. But the texts are remarkably consistent.
If we apply the attacks against the New Testament of "changed" or "written later" or "of dubious origin" to any other text, we might conclude that we can't know anything about history at all, because all the other texts are more changed, written more later, or of more dubious origin.
For example, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Plymouth_Plantation
"the most authoritative account of the Pilgrims"
Timeline:
* Events described start in 1608
* Writing started 1630, 22 years after the first events described
* Published 1897(?), 267 years after the first events described
