One of the common arguments for the historicity of the Bible that apologists frequently use is that "We have hundreds of manuscripts of 'x' passage, therefore 'x' must be reliable, and it must have happened exactly as it was written in 'x'.
Unfortunately for the apologist, this is not how reality works. If we are to use this argument in another 2000 years time, and discover that we have millions of copies of Lord of the Rings, and that they are all in perfect agreement with each other about sequences of events and wording, are we then to assume that the events in Lord of the Rings actually happened as Tolkien wrote them? Before anyone mentions it, the events depicted in LotR are no more fantastical than events depicted in the Bible (both old and new testaments). Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, the NT talks about bodily resurrection of all believers (we're talking about skeletons and zombies here), Jesus died and came back to life (so did Gandalf kinda), people were turned into salt and entire cities were destroyed by fire from the sky, the walls of Jericho were knocked down by people playing trumpet, a burning tree talks, a snake talks, the entire world flooded.
I think you get the point.
It doesn't matter how accurate the various copies of a piece of fiction are when compared to each other, it's still fiction.
The battle of Troy no doubt really did happen, it was a real city. However, there is no reason for us to believe that it happened the way it was written in the Iliad. The same applies to most, if not all of the new testament. Some of the events possibly did happen, but the fantastical elements almost certainly did not occur, and most of the people described probably did not exist, or did not do what they were purported to have done.