Omissions or Additions

The modern textual critic asks the question ‘What did the original authors of the NT actually write?’ And presumes it can only be answered historically and empirically, when it actually cannot, as Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace (see 1:39:30 • How Badly Was the New Testament Corru... ) both demonstrate. How variant readings arose and how they were distributed through history is inevitably theory bound, and probability based (see 1:24:40, & 1:37:23 • Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the ... ).
The textual variants prove there was no controlled editing. But modern critics contend that if only the reformers had Textual Science and all the new discoveries (like scribal habits) they would not have needed to prematurely conclude that they had any ‘final authority’ like a Greek and Hebrew text (e.g. here- note #4-5, 8 https://www.apuritansmind.com/westmin...) before critics such as themselves brought more light on the issue.
Bart Ehrman and James White do agree (as in his KJVO book, pg.42, 152) that the earliest scribes were the worst because they were not professional, and the conditions were very stressful. So, the earliest known manuscripts were closer to the time when copyists made the most mistakes... (Here, starting at 1:10:00 min mark here- • Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P1 ; 18:30 min mark here • Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P2 . ; 31:25 min mark here- • Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the ... )
Christians can point to the Spirit inwardly compelling his people (see confessions - https://reformed.org/historic-confess...) as evidence of how the scriptures were preserved before papyrologists ‘graced the church’.