"Corruption" is a term used by textual critics to refer to any modification of the original text, whether intentional or accidental. Your focus should be to rightly define "corruption". The top NT scholars including Bart Ehrman believe that despite the minor textual corruption or interpolation, the NT books remain incredibly accurate to the original writings. It is a fact that some NT books were lost, and many of the OT books have been lost, and the fact of textual evolution or changes have been well attested. So, eventually what the "Christians" need to adjust is their perception of the nature of scriptures and inspiration. The vast majority of textual corruption had already occurred till the second century. Despite, the fact that some books may have been pseudonyms and full of midrashic creative revision or embellishment rather than accurate history. The historical value of the bible is not destroyed, but only the naive notions and dogmas of the devout man about the scripture.
In The Text of the New Testament its transmission, corruption, and restoration, by Ehrman and Metzger, pp 24, we read:
In the earlier ages of the Church, biblical manuscripts were produced by individual Christians who wished to provide for themselves or for local congregations copies of one or more books of the New Testament. Because the number of Christians increased rapidly during the first centuries, many additional copies of the Scriptures were sought by new converts and new churches. As a result, the speed of production sometimes outran the accuracy of execution. Furthermore, in preparing translations or versions for persons who knew no Greek, it occurred more than once (as Augustine complained) that "anyone who happened to gain possession of a Greek manuscript and who imagined that he had some facility in both Latin and Greek, however slight that might be, dared to make a transladon" (De doctrina Christiana, n.xi.l6).
The book testifies that despite the textual corruption, the NT is highly reliable to the original:
In contrast with these figures [about non-Christian Roman writers], the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant [existing] copies is relatively brief . . . several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents. (Metzger and Ehrman, p. 51)
The scribes were often amateur and unlearned on language and religion, as Augustine himself was, it is not surprising to see the quote of Origen about the early corruption, but we need to be careful to understand they meant it concerning the minor interpolations and errors which do not make a big change to theology. The corruption can be sorted out and studied under textual criticism. The reason why modern man is baffled by the textual changes or corruption is due to his comic and limited perception of the ancient writings & religion.