I'll make a distinction between two philosophies. One is a philosophy that scriptures must be infallible, divinely inspired, delivered from a God to a prophet in complete form. The other philosophy, which I adhere to is that the scriptures are man made work, sometimes with centuries of compilations, editing, and canonizations.
In this regard I don't believe there is right or wrong, corrupted or divine.
Neither do I, really, as it is pretty much impossible to tell which canon would be wholly 'correct', anyway
Ancient Jewish writings tell us how the leaders who canonized the Bible at times had difficulties deciding which books to include and which to exclude. For example, according to the Babylonian Talmud the Book of Ezekiel was very closed to being excluded from the Biblical canon had Rabbi Chanina ben Hezekiah did not lobby to include it.
Yes, I have read similar commentary, which I found quite interesting
Both the processes of writing and of editing the Bible took hundreds of years. During this time span, many books were written. Some of these books are very important but still ended up being extra-biblical. For example it is possible that the Book of Enoch could have ended up in the Jewish canon, or that the Apocalypse of Peter would have ended in a Christian canon. But they did not.
In general, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there is a relative consistency between the Masoretic text and ancient Biblical scrolls.
To me that is a testimony to at least the intellectual accuracy of scripture, for the religious, theological accuracy
However for those people who demand a one archetype, which has been a in a single divine version... they would never find it. The Dead Sea Scrolls show several Biblical versions. Not in narrative content, but in writing style. Some versions were written in a more popular language which is accessible to commoners, others were written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.