Extraordinary. I'm sure you are aware that the original gospel texts don't exist anymore - the oldest complete manuscripts (in Greek) date from around 350 AD: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts. The surviving canonical gospels, supposedly dating from the late 1st to early 2nd century, vary not only in time, they also vary significantly in content. (For instance, the dictum where Jesus refers to Peter as the rock upon which his church will be built is only present in Matthew - where it is followed by a reference to Peter as Satan -, does not appear in the older text of Mark, nor in the other gospels.) I'm sure you are also aware that before bookprinting copying of texts by hand automatically leads to errors being made. (But this apart, the Vaticanus text for example has been altered by at least 3 correctors.) Furthermore, the modern text version(s) of the New Testament are actually a composition of Greek manuscripts, old translations and New Testament quotes of the Church Fathers. Seeing as the source texts (the original gospel texts, which only after the 2nd century became canonized in any way) are missing, I think the statement that these texts are corrupted is not only an undeniable truth, but common knowledge among modern theologians and church historians alike. I'd like to add that since - by your own admission - the apostles were illiterates (I believe you called them simple fishermen and such) it must be clear that from a historiographic point of view even the original texts cannot be viewed as eyewitness accounts and must be viewed very critically indeed - which, by the way, only has been the case in post-medieval times and notably from the 19th century onwards.