That establishing which I speak of, was backed up by the evidence in view at the links which I provided to you.
Go back and look. And read the information at the links, then you may be able to see what I mean.
Meanwhile, to one of those notes which I supplied much background and links within -- your own initial response was
leading me to believe you did not read a single word.
And now, it seems that you still refuse to acknowledge that the RCC did indeed tamper with the Scripture (thus changing it, before changing it back in 1979 or so) in their own Latin Vulgate -- seeming to pretend that not matter a whit for it did not change some set of fantasy "originals" which you kept mentioning -- but have never *quite* identified.
For NT Greek texts, there are variations beyond the few which we have already discussed, which leads me to conclude that the additional word, phrase, or even full sentence or two here and there among the Byzantine miniscules are additions, rather than the differences as seen in the older Uncial texts have been recension.
But I will be consistent here, and just as I do not place or award majority credit to the Roman Catholic Church ecclesiastical body for having established Scripture in much of any significant way, I also do not blame that ecclesiastical body foremost for many or most of the possible additions, even as they (the RCC) are as "guilty as sin" as that saying goes, for having monkeyed around with the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) within their own Latin texts.
you still refuse to acknowledge that the RCC did indeed tamper with the Scripture (thus changing it, before changing it back in 1979 or so) in their own Latin Vulgate
That is a translation, not the original, and that is normal textological work, not "tampering".