There are over 5000 copies of the new testament in Greek alone. Many more thousands in Latin, coptic, Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavic. There is no other work from antiquity that is attested as the new testament. Besides errors from copying, spelling etc they all agree. They have the same details etc. We have papyrus from the gospel of John that dates to around 125 ad. For anyone to suggest that the new testament isn't well attested is just plain dishonest or uniformed. The new testament is solid.
When Christianity started the gospels went out into the world. It was never in the hands of a certain group. It's been copied and recopied down through the centuries in multiple languages. Yet they overwhelmingly agree. Textual criticism is something that I have personally studied and am confident that if you study Erhman you will see that he stands on shaky ground.
I doubt that you have seriously studied this issue and probably aren't familiar with Koine Greek or textual criticism. Textual criticism allows us to compare all of the thousands of copies to one another and from that process we feel confident that we have what Matthew, Mark and Luke etc wrote.
You mentioned the vatican. The Catholic Church looks nothing like it did in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. I'm not Catholic but I think keeping everything in context is important.