Q: Where can we look at individual New Testament manuscripts ourselves?
A: One of the best books for reading the actual Greek text, as well as discussion of the text, see The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (A Corrected Enlarged Edition…) edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1999,2001.
For seeing the actual manuscripts themselves, if you do not want to travel to various museums, you can see photocopies of many pages in Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography by Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1981.
If you want to see for a particular verse, the manuscript variations in different versions listed, a good source is The Greek New Testament : Fourth Revised Edition by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. United Bible Societies 1988.

Q: How can we know the New Testament was translated reliably?
A: We would have a problem if we did not have any Greek manuscripts of the original.
However, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and if someone were to deliberately distort something in English (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have), we can all see exactly where they distorted it. However that is not the end of the story.
One could bring up the issue of how do we know we have a correct understanding of the Greek language? There are three independent ways that we know.
1. We have extensive references to the Old and New Testaments in Greek and Latin among the church fathers. They not only repeated what was in the Greek, they interpreted and explained it, and we can see how they understood the Greek.
2. We have many non-religious Greek manuscripts, and we can see how most of the words in the New Testament were used in everyday language. For example, a ship could be said to be "baptized" if it was sunk.
3. We have Bibles translated from Greek into other languages, including Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Latin. One of the more interesting ones is Gothic. This was actually made by an Arian heretic Ufilas. Being an Arian, one might think he would have a motive to either change the meaning, or at least use any Greek variants that had a meaning more favorable to his theology, yet, the meaning of his translation is identical to the Greek Bible with one notable exception. He did not translate the books of 1 and 2 Kings at all, because he thought the Goths were already too warlike.

Q: How could an imperfect book come from a perfect God? As you read through the scriptures, there are a great number of footnotes that say that we can’t be sure if certain passages should be included. Christians are told that these problems exist because of alleged "copyist errors," and that the "original writings" of the Bible are perfect. But how does anyone know? We don’t have the original writings!
A: God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25; Matthew 24:35. God is perfect, and a God of truth. Everything God said in the original manuscripts was true. Copyist errors do not affect the truth of what was originally said, copyist errors do not show an imperfect book came from a perfect God. When someone, such as myself, says the Bible is inerrant, they mean the Bible is without any error in the original manuscripts and without significant error (infallible) today.
However, I think part of what you are really asking is how we can trust the message in a book that has copyist errors in it. According to my studies, we are certain of 97.3% of every word in the New Testament, but that still leaves 3,599 words, with the end of Mark (166 words) being the largest place of uncertainty. I believe we can be sure of the meaning God intended, because these uncertainties do not significantly change the meaning. (By the way, ever single teaching in the end of Mark is mentioned elsewhere, except the drinking of poison.) I have no problem with the end of Mark saying God is able to protect His obedient people when they drink poison, because God can protect people from poison, just as he can protect us from anything. However, the Bible also says we are not to test God in Matthew 5:7 and other places. God is not obligated to protect people who foolishly test Him. So in summary, I do not believe an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God of truth allowed His word to be messed up.
Though the 2.7% is not very significant, we might still wonder why God even allowed that 2.7% variation. I suggest that perhaps God did that deliberately. Perhaps He did so to make clear that it is not the individual words that are important but the meaning and thrust of what was said. The Pharisees prided themselves on knowing the individual words of the Old Testament, yet they were not looking for the Messiah, they robbed widows instead of caring for the poor, and they loved money and prestige rather than God and people. Unfortunately, it is all to possible to do the same thing today, and this might be a reminder that if you think the goal is just knowing the words, this 2.7% shows your goal will never be perfectly realized and you are searching in the wrong place.

Q: Is something true just because someone writes it down? Christians are often taught that the "manuscript evidence" proves the truthfulness of the Bible. More specifically, Christians are told that there are thousands of copies of manuscripts of the scriptures, and this somehow makes the Bible reliable. But how? Anyone could write something down, and produce thousands of copies of what they’ve written. Does that somehow make what they wrote down true? Of course not!
A: Your observation is 100% valid. In establishing the truthfulness of our Bible today, you have to
establish that it originally was God’s word, and
has been preserved without significant error.
Thus the manuscript evidence Christians talk about is necessary but not sufficient. Manuscripts are important to establish b), but they does not address a). When I have taught about the reliability of the Bible in Sunday school, I believe it is important to point out both aspects.

Q: How are ancient manuscripts dated?
A: Some, such as the John Rylands fragment (117-138 A.D.), were dated by mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating. Others are simple to date, because the author either wrote the date of writing, or mentioned a famous event (such as the start of a king’s reign). Many manuscripts are dated by the style of handwriting compared with documents of a known date (such as burial at Pompeii). In a few cases, the date of a corrector of a manuscript is known, so obviously the manuscript had to be earlier than that.
In English, handwriting at the time of the American Revolution, handwriting at the time of Abraham Lincoln, and 100 years after that are very different. The grammar and words thou might use are different too. Likewise the way of forming Greek letters, and grammatical signs can date a manuscript sometimes within 50 years.
Scribes switched from writing on scrolls to writing in books at the start of the 2nd century. The Magdalen manuscript of Matthew 26:7-8,10,14-15,22-23,31-33 (3 fragments, each front and back) was in all capitals and part of a book. The handwriting is very similar to manuscripts buried at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Scholars debate this one, with dates from as early as 50-60 A.D., but we will go with the "book evidence" and follow Philip Comfort who dates it as the start of the 2nd century (100 A.D.).
In a few cases there have been false leads though. Ways of writing some letters, thought to prove a manuscript was after a certain date, have been found in earlier manuscripts, subsequently discovered, with known dates. Older New Testament scholars tended to be fairly conservative with their results, so dates given in early and mid 20th century books tend to be either correct or a little late.

Q: What is inadequate about many Christian’s knowledge of New Testament manuscripts?
A: Many Christians (myself included) have taught something slightly outdated that goes like this.
117-138 A.D. John Rylands (still correct)
150-200 A.D. Bodmer II (p66) (92% of John)
c.200 A.D. Chester Beatty (p45, p46, p47) (most of the New Testament)
325-350 A.D. Vaticanus (B) Most of the Old Testament and Matthew 1 - Hebrews 9:15 (still correct)
340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus (Aleph) Most of the Bible (still correct)
A few other manuscripts dated 25 to 75 years later than they should be.
One shortcoming of this approach is that in the last fifty years so many other early Bible manuscripts that have been found. A second shortcoming is that many other non-Biblical manuscripts have been found, that cause us to redate some of the manuscripts even earlier.
Bodmer II has disagreement over the date. Comfort says mid 2nd century, Hunger says 100-150 A.D., and Turner says 200-250 A.D. Comfort gives an effective rebuttal to Turner’s reasons in the Complete Text of the New Testament Manuscripts p.367-368, and he is more cautious than Hunger. So this means Bodmer II is 125-175 A.D.
Chester Beatty II (p45, p46, p47) is dated to 81-96 A.D. by Young Kyu Kim. Comfort dates this to early to mid 2nd century. Kenyon in 1936 dated it to 200-250 A.D., mainly on the stichiometric notes. (Comfort says the scribe was excellent and obviously a professional.). Wilcken in 1935 dated it to 200 A.D., but he only looked at one leaf However, Comfort provides extensive comparisons to other manuscripts, and while he cannot rule out Kim’s dating, dates Chester Beatty II to 100-150 A.D.
Other notable facts are that p4 (of Luke) used to be dated 4th century, but is now mid second century. p104 (of Matthew) has been dated end of the 1st century to end of the 2nd century, but it is more likely early to mid 2nd century, about the same as John Rylands fragment of John 18:31-33,37-38.

Q: What are the earliest fragmentary and complete manuscripts of the New Testament?
A: Here is a list of most of them. It is important to note that some of these manuscripts were dated 70 years ago, but subsequent similar papyrii have shown that some of those dates were too conservative (late). many people are The dates are taken primarily from The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Comfort 1999) and secondarily from Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Metzger 1981) and The Greek New Testament 4th Revised Edition (Aland et al. 1993).

Date	Name	Contents
117-138 A.D. or 110-125 A.D. (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.367)	p52 (John Rylands) (= Papyrii Rylands 457)	John 18:31-33, reverse side John 18:37-38 (5 verses)
100-150 A.D.	p104 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 4404)	Matthew 21:34-37,43,45(?) Matthew 21:44 was not originally present (5 verses)
c.125 A.D.	p87 - The handwriting is nearly identical to p46.	Phm 13-15,24 (part),25b with gaps (4 verses)
100-150 A.D. (Comfort) 81-96 A.D. (Young Kyu Kim)	p46 (=Chester Beatty II) It has 1,390 verses from Paul and 290 verses from Hebrews. This is 70% of the 2,389 verses in Paul and Hebrews.	Romans 5:17-6:3; 6:5-14; 8:15-25,27-35; 8:37-9:32; 10:1-11:11; 11:24-33; 11:35-15:9; 15:11-16:27; Hebrews 1:1-9:16; 9:18-10:20,22-30; 10:32-13:25 (all but 3 verses); 1 Corinthians 1:1-9:2; 9:4-14:14; 14:16-15:15; 15:17-16:22 (all but 5 verses); 2 Corinthians 1:1-11:10,12-21; 11:23-13:13 (all but 3 verses); Ephesians 1:1-2:7; 2:10-5:6; 5:8-6:6, 8-18, 20-24 (all but 5 verses); Galatians 1:1-8; 1:10-2:9, 12-21; 3:2-29; 4:2-18; 4:20-5:17; 5:20-6:8, 10-18 (all but 9 verses); Philippians 1:1, 5-15, 17-28; 1:30-2:12, 14-17; 2:29-3:8, 10-21; 4:2-12, 14-23 (all but 20 verses); Colossians 1:1-2, 5-13, 16-24; 1:27-2:19; 2:23-3:11, 13-24; 4:3-12, 16-18 (all but 16 verses); 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9-2:3; 5:5-9,23-28
100-150 A.D. (Hunger) or 125-175 A.D. (Philip Comfort and Barrett) c.200-250 A.D. (Turner due to broad delta, broad theta, narrow alpha, finial end on the crossbar of epsilon, apostrophe between double consonants like other third century manuscripts. However, we go with Hunger and Philip Comfort because second century manuscripts have been found with these features. This was discovered close to Nag Hamadi (second century). Hunger has found many late first and early second centuries manuscripts that are closer to p66 than 3rd century documents.	p66 (Bodmer II + Inv. NR4274/4296) 808.5 verses, which is 92% of the 879 verses in John	John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-14:26, 29-30;15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20; 20:22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. (John 7:53-8:11 was never present)
c.170 A.D.	0212	Tatian’s Diatessaron (Harmony of the Gospels) Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49b-c; Luke 23:54; Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:42; Matthew 27:57; Luke 23:50; Matthew 27:57; Luke 23:51b; Matthew 27:57; Luke 23:40; John 19:38; Matthew 27:57; Luke 23:51c; Luke 23:51a
c.175 A.D.	p90 (P. Oxyrhynchus 3523)	John 18:36-19:7 (11 verses)
2nd century	p98 (P.IFAO Inv. 237b [+a]	Revelation 1:13-2:1 (9 verses)
Mid to Late 2nd century	p77 and p103	Matthew 23:30-39; Matthew 13:55-57; 14:3-5 (10 + 6 verses)
150-200 A.D.	p32 (P. Rylands 5) probably from Oxyrhynchus	Titus 1:1-15; 2:3-8 (21 verses)
Late 2nd / early 3rd century	p38 (P. Michigan Inv. 1571)	Acts 18:27-19:6, 12-16
Late 2nd / early 3rd century	Uncial 0189	Acts 5:3-21 (earliest parchment of the N.T.)
c.200 A.D.	p1 (= p. Oxyrhynchus 2)	Matthew 1:1-9,12,14-20; 2:14? (17 or 18 verses)
Second century ca.200 A.D. (150-175 A.D.) Comfort and Barrett	p64 (Magdalen) and p67. All agree these are from the same manuscript.	(p67) Matthew 3:9,15; 5:20-22,25-28 (p64) Mt. 26:7-8,10,14-15,22-23,31-33 (19 verses)
Early to mid 2nd century In 1963 Aland dated it to the third century. However, if it is the same original as p64 and p67 then it would have to be early to mid 2nd century.	p4 (the handwriting is the same as p64 and p67.) (Aland disagreed but never gave a reason.) Also, all three have an unusual abbreviation for "Jesus".). p4 was used as padding for a copy of Philo’s works that was hidden to avoid confiscation in either 292 A.D. or 303 A.D. The Philo Codex was written about 250 A.D.	Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1,6-7; 3:8-4:2,29-32,34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16
200-225 A.D.	p29	Acts 26:7-8, 20 (3 verses)
175-225 A.D. (ca 175 A.D.) Comfort and Barrett	p75 (=Bodmer 14/15)	Luke 3:18-22; 3:33-4:2; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-6:4; 6:10-7:32; 7:35-39,41-43; 7:46-9:2; 9:4-17:15; 17:19-18:18; 22:4-24:53; John 1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:1,8-9; 14:8-29;15:7-8 (1,166 verses)
200-225 A.D.	p45 (=Chester Beatty I) Matthew 71 verses Mark 147 verses Luke 242 verses John 84 verses Acts 289 verses	Much of Acts and the Gospels. Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41-26:39 [71 verses]; Mark 4:36-5:2; 5:16-26; 5:38-6:3; 2 letters of 6:15; 6:16-25, 36-50; 7:3-15; 7:25-8:1; 8:10-26; 8:34-9:8; 4 letters of 9:9; 9:18-31; 11:27-12:1; 12:5-8,13-19,24-28 [147 verses]; Luke 6:31-41; 6:45-7:7; 9:26-41; 9:45-10:1; 10:6-22; 10:26-11:1; 11:6-25, 28-46; 11:50-12:13 (12:9 was never written); 12:18-37; 12:42-13:1; 13:6-24; 13:29-14:10; 14:17-33 [242 verses]; John 4:51,54; 5:21,24; 10:7-25; 2 complete out of 16 letters of 10:30; 10:31-11:10; 11:18-36,42-57 [84 verses]. Acts 4:27-36; 5:10-20; (8 out of 33 letters in 5:21) 30-39; 6:7-7:2; 7:10-21; 7:32-41; 7:52-8:1; 8:14-15, 8:34-9:6; (8:37 was never written); 9:16-27; 9:35-10:2; 10:10-23, 31-41; 11:2-13; 11:24-12:6; 12:13-22; 13:6-16,25-36; 13:46-14:3; 14:15-23; 15:2-7,9-27; 15:38-16:4; 16:15-21,32-40; 17:9-17) At Acts 15:7 this scribe lost his place and repeated from Acts 15:2. [289 verses]
Early 3rd century (ca.225 A.D.)	p30	1 Thess. 4:12-13, 16-17; 5:3, 8-10, 12-18, 25-28; 2 Thess. 1:1-2; 2:1, 9-11 (25 verses)
Early 3rd century	p5 (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 208 + 1781)	John 1:23-31, 33-40; 16:14-30; 20:11-17, 19-20, 22-25 (47 verses)
ca.200 A.D. (Comfort and Barrett) vs. 3rd century (Aland)	p23 Urbana (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1229)	James 1:10-12, 15-18 (7 verses)
c.220 A.D.	p48 (=Firenze bibl. Medicea Laurenziana; PSI 1165)	Acts 23:11-17,25-29 (12 verses)
200-250 A.D	p39	John 8:14-22 (9 verses)
225-250 A.D.	p13 (p. Oxyrhynchus 657 + PSI 1292)	Hebrews 2:14-5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29-11:13; 11:28-12:17 (114 verses)
c.250 A.D.	p22 (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1228)	John 15:25-16:2; 16:21-32 (17 verses)
250-251 A.D. Severe Persecution by the Emperor Decius across the entire Roman Empire
285-300 A.D.	p12 (P. Amherst 3b)	Hebrews 1:1 (1 verse)
3rd century	p9 (= papyrus Oxyrhynchus 402)	1 John 4:11-12, 14-17 (6 verses)
3rd century	p20 (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1171)	James 2:19-3:2; (6 out of 96 letters of 3:3); 3:4-9) (16 verses)
3rd century	p27 + p40 (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1355)	(p40) Romans 1:24-27; 1:31-2:3; 3:21-4:8; 6:2-5, 15-16; 9:17,27 (36 verses) Or (p40) Rom 1:24-27,31-2:3; 3:21-4:8; 6:4-5,16; 9:16-17,27 (p27) Rom 8:12-22,24-27,33-9:3; 9:5-9
3rd century	p28 (=papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1596)	John 6:8-12, 17-22 (11 verses)
3rd century	p35	Matthew 25:12-15,20-23 (8 verses)
3rd century	P Antinoopolis 2.54	Matthew 6:10-12 (Part of the Lord’s prayer) (2 verses)
3rd century	p69	Luke 22:40, 45-48, 58-61. It never contained Luke 22:43-44 (9 verses)
3rd century	p70	Matthew 2:13-16; 2:22-3:1; 11:26-27; 12:4-5; 24:3-6, 12-15 (19 verses)
3rd century	p101	Matthew 3:10-12; 3:16-4:3 (8 verses)
c.260 The date is based on similarities to Letters of Heroninos date c.260 A.D.	p53 (=p. Michigan Inv. 6652)	Matthew 26:29-40; Acts 9:33-38; 3 letters of the 124 letters in 9:39; 9:40-10:1 (23 verses)
Mid 3rd century	p37	Matthew 26:19-52 (34 verses)
Mid 3rd century	p49 + p65 (=Yale p.415+531 + Firenze. 1st. di Pap. G. Vitelli PSI XIV 1373)	(p49) Eph 4:16-29; 4:31-5:13 (29 verses) (p65) 1 Th 1:3-2:1; 2:6-13 (19 verses)
250-300 A.D.	p47 (=Chester Beatty III)	Revelation 9:10-11:3; 11:5-16:15; 16:17-17:2 (125 verses)
Late 3rd century	p15/p16 (=p. Oxyrhynchus 1008/1009)	(p15) 1 Cor 7:18-8:4; (p16) Php 3:10-17; 4:2-8
Late 3rd century	p17 (= p. Oxyrhynchus.1078)	Hebrews 9:12-19 (8 verses)
c.300 A.D.	p72, somewhat similar handwriting to p50. 1 and 2 Peter have page numbers 1-35. Jude has page numbers 62-68. Also contains the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal letter of Paul to the Corinthians, the 11th Ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, part of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalm 33 and 34.	1 Peter 1:1-5:14, 2 Peter 1:1-3:18 and Jude 1-25 (191 verses) (Every verse of those three books)
c.300 A.D.	p38	Acts 18:27-19:6, 12-16 (13 verses)
ca.300 A.D.	0162 (P. Oxyrhynchus 847)	John 2:11-22 (12 verses)
ca.300 A.D.	0171 (PSI 2.124)	Matthew 10:17-23,25-32; Luke 22:44-50,52-56,61,63-64 (30 verses)
ca.300 A.D.	0220 (MS 113)	Romans 4:23-5:3,8-13. 100% agrees with Vaticanus except Rom 5:1. (6 verses)
ca.300 A.D.	0232 (P. Antinoopolis 12)	2 John 1-9 (9 verses)
3rd/4th century?	p7 (=Kiev. Centr. Nauch. Bibl. F.301 (KDA) 553P)	Lk 4:1-3
3rd/4th century	p18 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 1079)	Revelation 1:4-7 (4 verses)
3rd/4th century	p35 (=Firenze. Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana; PSI 1)	Matthew 25:12-15, 20-23 (8 verses)
3rd/4th century	p37 (U Michigan Inv. 1570; P. Mich. 137)	Matthew 26:19-52 (34 verses)
325-350 A.D.	Vaticanus (B)	Most of the Old Testament and all of the New up to Heb 9:15 (6,979 NT verses)
340-350 A.D.	Sinaiticus (Aleph)	Almost all of the New Testament and half of the Septuagint Old Testament
4th century	p8 (Berlin Staatl. Mus. Inv.8683)	Acts 4:31-37; 5:2-9; 6:1-6,8-15 (29 verses)
4th century	p10 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 209)	Rom 1:1-7 (7 verses)
4th century	p24 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 1230)	Revelation 5:5-8; 6:5-8 (8 verses)
4th century	p62 (Oslo U. Inv.1661)	Mt 11:25-30 (6 verses)
4th century	p71 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 2385)	Mt 19:10-11,17-18 (4 verses)
Late 4th century	p25 (=Berlin Staatl. Mus. Inv.16388)	Mt 18:32-34; 19:1-3,5-7,9-10 (11 verses)
4th/5th century	p21 (=P. Oxyrhynchus 1227)	Mt 12:24-26,32-33 (5 verses)
4th/5th century	p50 (=Yale p.1543)	Acts 8:26-32; 10:26-31 (13 verses)
4th/5th century	p57 (=Vienna, osterr Nat. Bibl p. G.26020	Acts 4:36-5:2; 5:8-10 (7 verses)
c.400 A.D.	p51 (=p. Oxyrhynchus 2157)	Gal 1:2-10,13,16-20
5th century	p14 (=P. Sinai II, Harris 14)	1 Cor 1:25-27; 2:6-8; 3:8-10,20
5th/6th century	p54 (Princeton U. Lib Garrett 7742, P. Princeton 15)	James 2:16-18,21-26; 3:2-4
5th/6th century	p56 (=Vienna, Osterr nat. bibl p. G.19918)	Acts 1:1,4-5,7,10-11 (6 verses)
6th century	p2 (=Firenze. Mus. Egizio Inv. 7134)	John 12:12-15 (4 verses)
ca.600 A.D.	p26 (= P. Oxyrhynchus 1354) (SMU Bridwell Libr.)	Rom 1:1-16 (16 verses)
6th/7th century	p3 (= Vienna Osterr. Nat. Bibli. Pap. G 2323)	Lk 7:36-45; 10:38-42 (15 verses)
6th/7th century	p43 (=London British Mibrary inv.2241	Rev 2:12-13; 15:8-16:2 (5 verses)
6th/7th century	p44a (N.Y. Metropolitan Museum of Art Inv.14.1 527 1 fol.	John 10:8-14 (7 verses)
6th/7th century	p44b (N.Y. Metrpolitan Museum of Art, Inv 14.1 527	Mt 17:1-3,6-7; 18:15-17,19; 25:8-10; John 9:3-4; 12:16-18
6th/7th century	p55 (Vienna osterr Nat. Bibl. p. G.26214	John 1:31-33,35-38
7th century	p11	1 cor 1:17-22; 2:9-12,14; 3:1-3,5-6; 4:3-5:5; 5:7-8; 6:5-9,11-18; 7:3-6, 10-14
7th/8th century	p42	Lk 1:54-55; 2:29-32
8th century	p41	Acts 17:28-18:2; 18:17-18,22-25,27; 19:1-4,6-8,13-16,18-19; 20:9-13,15-16,22-24,26-38; 21:1-4,26-27; 22:11-14,16-17

Q: What is the evidence (pro and con) that p4 is from the same manuscript as p64 and p67?
A: This is according to Philip Comfort in The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.38-39.
Same Manuscript Evidence
S1. All letters but three that could be compared in all three manuscripts are identical. Four letters could not be compared. Sigma, epsilon, and alpha are quite similar in all manuscripts but not quite identical. In some case of p4 the underside is less fully curved than others in p4. In p64 and p67 all these letters are always less fully curved.
S2. The pages are very similar; all are the same width, same number of columns (2), about 36 lines per column, and 15-17 letters per line.
S3. Similar punctuation and paragraphing is common to the three.
S4. P64 and p4 were purchased in the same city.
S5. "Sacred abbreviations" were used in many late-second and early-third century manuscripts for God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, and Spirit. These three did also, but they also had "sacred abbreviations" for Son, Father, man, cross, and crucify.
S6. Accompanying p4 is another small fragment, written by a later writer, that is part of a title page "Gospel According to Matthew." Comfort p.43-44 says it was stylish for scribes to add a title from 175-200 A.D. This does not address whether p4 is the same manuscript as p64/p67, but it attests to an early date for p4.
S7. The reputation of Colin Roberts (who dated the John Ryland’s manuscript), Joseph van Haelst, C.H. Roberts, and Philip Comfort.
Different Manuscripts Evidence
D1. P4 has finer, thinner pen strokes than p64/p67. A different stylus and/or ink in the hands of the same scribe could produce this difference.
D2. P64/p67 is on average lighter than p4, though parts of p4 are the same lightness as p64/p67. Difference in preservation conditions would produce this. Regardless, p4 is not uniform and parts match p64/p67.
D3. Aland’s reputation. In 1965 Kurt Aland suggested p4 was the same codex as p64/p67, but afterwards he listed them as separate. Philip Comfort p.36 says he is unaware of any reason Aland gave for the change.

Q: Just how many New Testament manuscripts (including fragments) exist today?
A: Here are the counts from various scholars of just the Greek manuscripts (complete manuscripts, small fragments, and everything in between). One reason the counts differ is that a number of new manuscripts have been discovered since 1975. Also some people call multiple manuscripts what others call one manuscript with multiple pieces.

Category	Ralph Earle	Aland et al. The Greek New Testament 3rd edition (1975)	Bruce Metzger p.54 (1976)	Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.54 (1981)	A General Introduction to the Bible p.387 (1986)	Aland et al. The Greek New Testament 4th edition (1998)
Papyrii (p1-p88)		76+	88	88	88	95 (=97-2)
Uncials (non-Lectionary)	270	250+	274	274	274	286 (=300-16+2
Miniscules (non-Lectionary)	2,400	2,768+	2,795	2,795	2,745	2,818
Lectionary manuscripts (both uncial and miniscule)	not mentioned	1,761+	2,209		2,147	1,977+
Uncial (Lectionaries)				245
(Miniscule) Lectionaries				1,964
Ostraca	not mentioned	not mentioned	20		not mentioned	not mentioned
Total	2,670+	4,855+	5,386	5,366	5,254+	5,176+

The manuscripts in other languages, including 89+ Italic (Old Latin), four Vulgate families, 8 Syriac families, 8 Coptic families, Aramaic, Armenian, 2 families of Georgian, 3 families of Ethiopic, Slavonic, 5 Gothic manuscripts, Arabic, and Persian bring the total up to over 11,000 manuscripts.
The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (copyright 1999) p.627 goes up to p104.
Some would say there are really four less papyrii, as p45 + p46 + p47 are apparently written by the same scribe. p64 + p67 apparently are also from the same scribe. P20 + p27 possibly are by the same scribe.
For comparison purposes, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.5 says that scholars have catalogued 55,000 Greek manuscripts on all topics. Thus almost 10% of all Greek manuscripts are Bible manuscripts. Homer’s Illiad has the second most number of copies with 643-650 manuscripts; which is about 1% of all Greek manuscripts.
By the way, there are conflicting dates about when Homer lived. The ancient Greek historian Aristarchus says 1044 B.C., authorities in Philostratus says 1159 B.C., and pseudo-Herodotus The Life of Homer puts it as 1102 B.C. In contrast to the historian Theopompus said Homer lived as late as 685 B.C.. Herodotus says it was not earlier than about 730 B.C.. The Exodus was about 1447 B.C. See The Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.11 (1956) p.689under Homer. It says the Illiad and Odyssey were performed in Athens every four years and there are only 10 papyrii of Homer prior to 150 B.C.

Q: How many Bible fragments and manuscripts are preserved, century by century?
A: Sometimes scholars disagree about the dates, but here are my numbers, based primarily on Comfort and Barrett, and secondarily on Aland et al. The Other column is artificially small because it is part manuscripts and part languages which contain many manuscripts.

Century	Greek	Other
2nd century	11	0
2nd/3rd century	4	0
3rd century	30	5+
3rd/4th century	8	0
4th century	24	3+
4th/5th century	16	5
5th century	34	13+
5th/6th century	14	2+
6th century	48	4+
6th/7th century	11	2+
7th century	32	6+
7th/8th century	2	0
8th century on	Many	Many

The Greek manuscripts were not used as much when people started using other languages more, such as Coptic, Latin, Syriac, etc. The large number of Greek Byzantine Lectionaries, which primarily come later, are not included here.
Taking the same data, except splitting each manuscript that might span centuries as half in each century, gives the following numbers.

Century	Greek	Other
2nd century	13	0
3rd century	36	5+
4th century	36	5.5+
5th century	49	19.5+
6th century	60.5	1+
7th century	38.5	7+
8th century on	Many	Many

Q: For the NT, how many multi-lingual manuscripts exist today?
A: The oldest preserved bilingual manuscript is Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Here is a list of bilingual manuscripts.
Greek and Latin (20 manuscripts) D (Cantabrigiensis Bezae), D (Claromantus), E, F, G, others
Greek and Arabic (16 manuscripts) (0136, 0137, 211, 609, l6, l225, l311, l762, l804, l937, l1023, l1343, l1344, l1746, l1733, l1774,)
Greek and Armenian (1 manuscript) (256)
Greek and Coptic (52 manuscripts) (p6, p41, p42, p62, T, 070, 086, 0100, 0110, 0113, 0124, 0125, 0129, 0139,0164, ethers)
Greek and Slavonic (3 manuscripts) (525, 2136, 2137)
Greek and Turkish (1 manuscript) (manuscript 1325)
There are three known trilingual manuscripts:
Greek and Coptic and Arabic (2 manuscripts) (l1993, l1605)
Greek, Latin, and Arabic (manuscript 460)
See Greek Manuscripts of the Bible p.56 for more info.

Q: Briefly, when were these manuscripts written?
A: The Lukan manuscript in Paris (p4) containing parts of Luke 1 to 6 is dated by Philip Comfort to around 100 A.D. Of course, the Gospel of Luke was written prior to Acts. More on this is in the book by Thiede, Carsten P. and Matthew d’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (NY Doubleday 1996 206 pp.). However, while Thiede and d’Ancona date this as "not much later than 68 A.D., Philip Comfort is more cautious, dating this at 100 A.D. Aland et al’s. The Greek Testament Fourth Revised Edition (1998) dated this as fourth century.
The earliest fragment of John, called the John Rylands Papyrus, written 117-138 A.D. The next was the Chester Beatty II papyrii, 150-200 A.D. (or 200-225 A.D.) The next was the Bodmer II papyrii, written about 125-175 A.D. (formerly thought to be 150-200 A.D.) These two manuscripts alone contain 40% of the New Testament according to both my own study and The Qur’an and the Bible p.148
There were a total of 4 preserved manuscripts around 200 A.D., 30 more manuscripts prior to 300 A.D., 8 manuscripts around 300 A.D., 28 more manuscripts before 400 A.D., 16 manuscripts around 400 A.D., and 38 more manuscripts prior to 500 A.D. See The Text of the New Testament : An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism by Aland and Aland p.52 and A General Introduction to the Bible p.387 for charts of all the manuscripts up to 1600 A.D.
Jose O'Callaghan found in cave 7 at Qumran fragments of a papyrus dated 50 A.D., that might be fragments of Mark. However, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 8 p.608 says this "has been largely rejected by NT scholars (cf. EBC 1:420-421, n.1). The evidence O’Callaghan presents is far too fragmentary to be reliable."

Q: For the NT versus other ancient works, what is the number of manuscript variations?
A: Here are Bruce Metzger’s estimates compared with other religious literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Metzger estimates the New Testament has 20,000 lines, an accuracy of 99.5% with only 40 lines (about 400 words) in question. (This is probably on a letter by letter basis.) Homer’s Illiad is the next most reliably preserved document. It has 643-650 manuscripts, and is 95% accurate. It has 15,600 lines, with about 764 lines in doubt. The Hindu Mahabharata has 250,000 lines and is roughly 90% accurate according to Bruce Metzger. (See the Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics p.532-533 and A General Introduction to the Bible p.475) It has over 26,000 lines have textual corruption. See A General Introduction to the Bible - Revised and Expanded p.474-475 for more info.

Q: Compared to the NT, what are some of the dates of other early documents and the number of copies?
A: Here are some other ancient works.

Aristotle wrote 364-322 B.C. There are only 5 copies, the earliest being 1100 A.D.

Julius Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 10 copies. This is the only direct evidence we have that Julius Caesar actually entered Gaul.

Demosthenes 4th century B.C. 200 copies

Euripides’ Tragedies 330 copies (The Origin of the Bible p.182)

Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 8 copies

Homer wrote The Iliad 643-650 copies, more than any others. 5% of the words are in question

Jubilees (A Jewish apocryphal book) 14 copies among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Mahabharata (a Hindu scripture) 10% in question

Old Testament Manuscripts 235 scrolls and fragments the Dead Sea Scrolls alone. From the Great Isaiah scroll, about 5% of the words are different vs. the Massoretic text. However, most of these are archaic vs. later words and grammar with the same meaning.

Pliny the Younger 1st century A.D. 7 copies

Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars 70-140 A.D. The earliest copy is 950 A.D.

Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 20 copies

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 8 copies

The Qur’an 765 A.D. 9th century. Aisha said one Sura had 200 verses. After ‘Uthman’s "standardization", today it has 73 verses. Also, part of Sura 9:30 was abrogated. The Bukhari Hadith 6:509 says that when certain people died, parts of the Qur’an known only to them were lost. Other Bukhari Hadiths saying parts of the Qur’an were missing and/or abrogated are 4:57,62, 69,229; 6:510,511.

Q: In the NT, what is a summary of the manuscript variations?
A: We are about 97.3% certain of each New Testament word. (Other people might have slightly different numbers if they exclude some variations as certainly incorrect.) Here is a book-by-book summary. See the end of the discussion on each book for the details.

Book of the New Testament	Total verses	Total words in Greek	Greek words in question	Percent accuracy	100 - % accuracy
Matthew	1,071	18,111	531	97.1 %	2.9 %
Mark (exc.16:9-20)	661/ 678	11,051	401	96.4 %	3.6 %
-- Mark 16:9-20	---	---	Additional 166	(-1.5%)	+ 1.5 %
Luke	1,151	19,581	494	97.5 %	2.5 %
John (exc.7:53-8:11)	879	15,436	313	98.0 %	2.0 %
-- John 7:53-8:11	---	---	Additional 168	(-1.1) %	+ 1.1 %
Acts	1007	18,460	487	97.4 %	2.6 %
Romans	433	7,030	200	97.2 %	2.8 %
order: Rom 16:25-27	---	---	additional 53	(-0.8%)	+0.8%
1 Corinthians	437	6,799	104	98.5 %	1.5 %
2 Corinthians	257	1,495	55	96.3 %	3.7 %
Galatians	149	2,233	38	98.3 %	1.7 %
Ephesians	155	2,385	51	97.9 %	2.1 %
Philippians	104	1,621	37	97.7 %	1.9 %
Colossians	95	1,570	33	97.9 %	2.1 %
1 Thessalonians	89	1,477	26	98.2 %	1.8 %
2 Thessalonians	47	826	12	98.5 %	1.5 %
1 Timothy	113	1,592	22	98.6 %	1.4 %
2 Timothy	83	1,336	13	99.0 %	1.0 %
Titus	46	657	5	99.2 %	0.8 %
Philemon	25	329	6	98.2 %	1.8 %
Hebrews	303	4,888	82	98.3 %	1.7 %
James	108	1,735	26	98.4 %	1.6 %
1 Peter	105	1,648	63	96.2 %	3.8 %
2 Peter	61	937	35	96.3 %	3.7 %
1 John(excl. 1Jn5:8)	104	2,103	30	98.4 %	1.6 %
2 John	13	245	7	97.1 %	2.9 %
3 John	14	219	3	98.6 %	1.4 %
Jude	25	459	7	98.5 %	1.5 %
Revelation	404	9,667	127	98.7 %	1.3 %
Totals	7,955	133,892	3,600	97.3 %	2.7 %

Q: Why does the percentage of variants listed (97.3%), differ from Bruce Metzger’s number of 99.5%?
A: Bruce Metzger was a contributor to Aland et al’s Greek Translation of the New Testament. This Greek translation, besides giving manuscript variations, gives an estimate of the certainty of the translation. In the fourth edition p.3, the letters mean:
A - "indicates that the text is certain"
B - "indicates that the text is almost certain"
C - "indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text."
D - "which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision."
Note that in the 3rd edition on p.xii-xiii, the letters have slightly different meanings.
A - "virtually certain"
B - "some degree of doubt"
C - "considerable degree of doubt"
D - "very high degree of doubt"
You arrive at close to the 97.3% figure by including all categories, and the 99.5% figure by only including the C and D categories. The 99.5% figure does not include, for example, many Greek textual variants that were the primary choices the Biblical scholars who translated the NKJV, including the longer ending of Mark, and the pericope of the adulteress. As for myself, rather than try to say who is right, I simply want to report where trustworthy scholars are not certain or disagree. That is why I included in the 97.3% number all variants except those with extremely obvious conclusions.

Q: What are characteristics of the typographical errors in the New Testament?
A: The following table was calculated from the possible significant manuscript variations listed at the end of each book.
The following table shows differences primarily due to typos, spelling, grammar, and word changes. Note the relatively high number of single word changes.

 

Section of the New Testament	Total words in Greek	Total words in question	Percent accuracy	Places with the number of words in question
				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10+
Matthew	18,111	531	97.1 %	134	31	16	7	5	2	2	2	1	12
Mark	11,051	567	96.5-1.5%	80	46	19	8	3	2	0	0	6	6
Luke	19,581	494	97.5 %	97	37	19	10	13	4	2	2	2	3
John	15,436	481	98.0-1.1%	109	35	6	4	6	2	1	0	0	4
Acts	18,460	487	97.4 %	141	35	10	9	2	7	4	2	1	7
Paul’s writings	29,350	633	98.0 %	317	52	11	9	4	0	1	2	0	5
Other NT	12,234	254	98.2 %	160	23	15	1	3	0	1	0	0	1
Revelation	9,667	127	98.4 %	90	8	3	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Totals	133,892	3,600	97.3 %	1120	264	90	48	40	17	12	8	10	38

Conclusion: Over half of the variations are places with only one to three word variations.

The following table shows differences primarily due to style and phrasing.

It is interesting that the percentage of words subject to typographical errors is very similar in the 1, 2, and 3 word variations. Mark, has slightly more typographical errors, which would tend to confirm the generally held view that Mark was the earliest Gospel written.
As for the other errors, 0.25% of the total New Testament variations (334 words) are just in two passages: Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. An additional 0.04% are due to the placement of Romans 16:25-27.

This table excludes Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 7:53-8:11

Section of the New Testament	Total words in Greek	Total words in question	Places with 7 | 8-9 |10+ words in question	% inaccuracy from 7| 8-9 |10+ word variations	Total Words	Total % variations 100 - % acc.
Matthew	18,111	530	2 | 3 | 12	0.1 | 0.1 | 1.2 %	224	1.4 %
Mark	11,051	567	0 | 6 | 6	0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 %	59	0.9 %
Luke	19,581	494	2 | 4 | 3	0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 %	93	0.3 %
John	15,436	481	1 | 0 | 4	0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 %	51	0.3 %
Acts	18,462	487	4 | 3 | 7	0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 %	135	0.1 %
Paul’s writings	29,350	633	1 | 2 | 5	0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 %	133	0.1 %
Other NT	21,901	386	2 | 0 | 1	0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 %	40	0.1 %
Totals	133,892	3,600	12 | 18 | 38	0.2 | 0.1 | 0.6 %	739	0.6 %

Romans 14:23 (53 words) is simply a question of order of the verses.
Let’s define a "subsection of the New Testament" as a portion of around 10,000 words or more that was written at roughly the same time. If you sort the subsections of the New Testament by percent accuracy, (ignoring the three largest errors: the end of Mark, the story of the adulteress, and the location of 53 words in Romans) you get an interesting result.

Subsection	Percent Accuracy	Date Written (Conservative)	Date Written (21st century Liberal)	Date of the earliest preserved fragment
Mark (not counting the ending)	96.4 %	50/62-70 A.D.	64-70 A.D.	100-150 A.D.
Matthew	97.1 %	50-80 A.D.	80-100 A.D.	100-150 A.D.
Luke	97.5 %	58-80 A.D.	80-100 A.D.	100 A.D.
Acts	97.4 %	50-80 A.D.	80-100 A.D.	100-150 A.D. 1 Clement (97/98 A.D.) refers to verses in Acts
Late Paul (Rom, 1, 2 Tim, Tt, Phm)	97.8 %	55-67 A.D.	55-67 A.D.	100-150 A.D.
John	97.9 %	50-95 A.D.	80-110 A.D.	117-138 A.D.
Other NT (not counting Revelation)	97.9 %	62-98 A.D.	60-110 A.D.	1 Clement (97/98 A.D.) refers to Hebrews
Early Paul (1 Cor – 2 Thessalonians)	98.3 %	50-63 A.D.	50-55 A.D.	1 Clement (97/98 A.D.) mentions Paul
Revelation	98.7 %	95-110 A.D.	95-110 A.D.	200 A.D.

With the exception of "early Paul" letters, the order follows the dates when we think each book was written. Now the differences between some numbers, such as 97.1% to 97.4% are too close to be statistically significant. Thus, this does not answer the question of whether Matthew or Luke was written first. 1 Clement, written in 97/98 A.D. quotes from Hebrews 1:3a,4,5,7,13b; 6:18 as well as alludes to Hebrews 11:17 (with Gen 21:22); Hebrews 10:37 (with Habakkuk 2:3), Hebrews 12:6 (with Proverbs 3:12), and Hebrews 13:17, so we know that at least that part of "Other NT" was written before then. While "Early Paul" was written early, the letters probably did not get wide distribution until the time all four gospels were written. Also, Paul apparently quotes Luke, so the gospel of Luke likely was written before Paul.

Q: How did you arrive at the number of 97.3% for manuscript uncertainties?
A: I found the total number of Greek words in the New Testament to be 133,892 (manually counting from Aland et al. 3rd ed). (Aland et al. 3rd edition and 4th edition have identical words in the main text.) I double-checked many parts to reduce miscounts.
The total number of manuscript variations I have seen are 3,599 words in 1,637 places. These were determined by looking through Aland et al. 3rd edition, Aland et al. 4th edition, Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Barry, and footnotes from the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV.
I excluded 441 words in 82 places listed below, because most of the following criteria were met:
1. There was no disagreement between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families,
2. The earliest manuscripts were unanimous
3. Aland et al. in 3rd or 4th edition called it "A – virtually certain"
4. The variant was only in one manuscript or else only in some late manuscripts.
I had the following assumptions.
1. I generally paid more attention to early manuscripts,
2. Paid less attention to church writings for one and two word differences, because they could have paraphrased,
3. Did not discount either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine manuscript families.

Other places	Places	Words
Miscellaneous	27	89
p75 (=Bodmer 14/15)	4	4
Sinaiticus	2	3
2nd corrector of Sinaiticus	1	4
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus	1	1 (1 letter spelling difference)
Bezae Cantab., sometimes some Italic	15	116
Bezae Cantabrigiensis + Sahidic Coptic	1	5
Vaticanus	2	5
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, Mid Egyptian Coptic	1	44
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Priscillian	1	2
Sahidic Coptic	1	15
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac	1	?
Syriac	1	2
Ephraemi Rescriptus	1	1
p15 (3rd century)	1	1
p72, Georgian	1	1
Bezae Cantabrigiensis + Alexandrinus	1	1
Alexandrinus	2	2
Slavonic, Armenian, Clementine Vulgate	1	4
Corrected Alexandrinus, Middle Egyptian Coptic	1	7
Order of Philippians 1:16 and 17	1
Tertullian and F (9th century)	1	2
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Some Syriac, Italic	1	2
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, some Syriac Mid Egyptian Coptic	1	23
Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Athanasius	1	1
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac	4	56
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, Syriac	1	2
Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac, p38 (300 A.D.)	1	21
Italic, Middle Egyptian Coptic	1	1
Ethiopic	1	2
Total	76	389

This left 3,599 uncertain words in 1,658 places. Out of 133,892 total words, 3,599 / 133,892 = 2.7%.

Q: What are some other people’s opinion of the uncertainty of words in the New Testament?
A: Before comparing numbers, it is important to notice that different numbers report different things.
My 97.3% is for all manuscript variations that have any reasonable probability of being the correct reading. This is regardless of how insignificant the spelling or other change in meaning would be.
The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and A General Introduction to the Bible p.474 says that Westcott and Hort’s figures would make 98.33%.
Bruce Metzger estimated 99.5% for all manuscript variations that have any change of meaning.
Keith Elliot and Ian Moir in Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament p.8 says "Most modern textual critics can agree on the bulk of the text (some 95 per cent of it, perhaps). It is the remaining 5 per cent or so where disputes occur and differing conclusions may be found."
According to A General Introduction to the Bible p.474 Ezra Abbot estimated about 95% / 99.75%. The variant and rival readings give the 95% figure. Removing the variations that make no appreciable difference in the sense of the text gives the 99.75% figure.
For all variations in all manuscripts, A General Introduction to the Bible p.468 says those occur in 10,000 places in the New Testament. Now one variant was in 20 manuscripts so you multiplied that one variant by 20, and if you did similarly for all variants, A General Introduction to the Bible p.468 says counting that way gives 200,000 manuscript-places. It is interesting that both in talking with Mormon missionaries and reading footnotes by Muslim authors, the only number I have seen for Bible manuscript variations is 200,000, with no explanation that that is not 200,000 variations by variations times the number of manuscript with the variations. When someone repeats that number without knowing what it means, ask them how they think that could be true, since there are less than 134,000 words in the entire New Testament.

Q: In the NT, what is the degree of uncertainty in the variant readings?
A: Aland et al (3rd edition), Aland et al (4th edition), and Green have different opinions on some words. Aland et al (3rd edition) shows manuscript variations in 1,333 places, puts the variations in 4 categories. "A" means "virtually certain", "B" means "some degree of doubt", "C" means "considerable degree of doubt", and "D" means a "very high degree of doubt". "The apparently large number of C decisions is due to the circumstances that many readings in the A and B classes have had no variants included in the apparatus, because they were not important for the purposes of this edition. By far the greatest proportion of the text represents what may be called an A degree of certainty." (p.xiii) Assuming I counted correctly, in the third edition there are 121 (9%) A, 468 (35%) B, 603 (45%) C, and 141 (11%) D in the entire New Testament. The probability of a variation being a particular letter seems fairly uniform among the books, except that Revelation has 71 of the 92 listed variations as C.

Q: Which manuscripts are in general the most reliable?
A: All of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.7% (about 3,564 words). However, some Christian scholars energetically debate the differences in this 2.7%, with primarily three different views.
The Alexandrian manuscripts are the earliest and some think the most reliable (except for John 6:53-8:11). Aland et al. the NIV translators, and a majority of scholars today hold to this view. A church father named Origen (225-254 A.D.) extensively studied many Bible texts we do not have available today, and his work undoubtedly influenced the Alexandrian manuscript family.
The early Alexandrian family manuscripts are p45 in Acts, p46, p66, p75, part of Sahidic, and two early manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, written on expensive vellum (deer hide). These two might have been the "official copies", Constantine ordered to be written just after Christianity was legalized, or they might be rejects. These go back to about 325-350 A.D. Two authors are Clement of Alexandrian and some of Origen. According to The Text of the New Testament p.216, "most scholars have abandoned Hort’s optimistic view that codex Vaticanus (B) contains the original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen".
Later Alexandrian manuscripts are Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, T, the Freer Gospels in Luke 1:1-8:12 and John), X, Z, Delta in Mark, Xi, Psi, 33, 81, 104, 326, 579, 892, 1241, and Bohairic Coptic. Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus are Alexandrian in everything but the gospels. For the book of Acts in Later Alexandrian we have p50 (284-305 A.D.).
For Paul’s letters we have H, I, 1739
For the other letters we have p20, p23, 1739.
For Revelation we have 1006, 1611, 1854, 2053, 2344.
This list is according to The Text of the New Testament p.216.
The Byzantine manuscripts some think are most reliable. In the east, manuscripts being written gradually "standardized", and there are 1,100 manuscripts of the Byzantine Lectionary. This viewpoint is growing among scholars, as the manuscripts typically agree with quotes from John Chrysostom, which takes this tradition back to 392-407 A.D.. For large changes there are least 54 word modifications between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families and 577 words absent in the Alexandrian and present in the Byzantine. This about 0.5% (631 words). In other words, 20% of all text variations are due to Alexandrian vs. Byzantine issues.
The Textus Receptus (TR), also called the Received Text, some think is the most reliable. In the West, manuscripts being written became more and more standardized. This Latin standard is called "the Textus Receptus". The King James Version follows the Textus Receptus, except that it adds 1 John 5:7-8. Jay P. Green, Sr. primarily uses the Textus Receptus in his a Greek/Hebrew to English parallel Bible.
One can find merit for each of the three views on different passages. It would be nice to find "the one family" that has all the correct readings, but perhaps the truth is that all families have a few incorrect readings.
A crazy view that some people have today is that "God’s inspired word" is not the meaning the words convey, nor is it the Greek and Hebrew, but it is the English words in the King James Version. All other versions are labeled as "New Age Versions". Some call this the "King James Only" view, and these people "onlyites". However, be aware that not every scholar who believes the King James is the most accurate English translation necessarily holds to this crazy view.
1 John 5:7-8 was added to the King James Version because it was in the Third edition of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus. It was not in his second version as the Catholic Church wanted, because Erasmus would not put it in unless they could show him a single Greek manuscript that had it. He put it in the third edition because they showed him a Greek manuscript. Unknown to him, that manuscript had just been written the year before. Erasmus must have learned of this, because he did not put it in his fourth edition either.
However, before deciding to devote your entire life to studying these 2.7% variations, remember 2 Timothy 2:14 and 1 Timothy 6:4, where Paul commands Timothy to avoid quarreling about words.
Why are there these differences? A key reason is that the Greek copyists probably believed that precisely copying each word was not their primary intent. Their main intent was to communicate God’s meaning as accurately and precisely as possible. Some did that by having a literal copy, others by correcting spelling, grammar, improving the phrasing, and making the meaning more precise, and some by paraphrasing.

Q: What are the some of the oldest Bible texts in the Alexandrian manuscript family?
A: The oldest Alexandrian manuscripts are Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), p20 (3rd century), p23 Urbana (3rd century), p45 + p46 (= Chester Beatty), p47, p50 (284-305 A.D.), p52, p66 (125-175 A.D.) (= Bodmer II), Ephraemi Rescriptus (400-500 A.D.). It is debatable whether p4, p8, and p13 are a part of this family. P75 (early 3rd century is called proto-Alexandrian). P.Antinoopolis 2.54 p104 contain parts of Matthew. There also are a number of Coptic and Ethiopian manuscripts translated from Alexandrian manuscripts. The Coptic manuscripts themselves are subdivided into Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayyumic, Middle Egyptian, and others. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the New Testament p.15 says that Sahidic Coptic is only Alexandrian text in part. The Origin of the Bible p.302 says that Sahidic was probably first written about 200 A.D. Note that the manuscript Alexandrinus, which sounds like it should be Alexandrian, is actually considered a Byzantine text.
Among the church fathers, Clement of Alexandria and Origen (in part) quote from Alexandrian texts.

Q: What are the major Byzantine texts?
A: These are Alexandrinus, the Freer Gospels (Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:53) and the Byzantine Lectionary. The Gothic translation is Byzantine. The primary earliest source of Byzantine text is the sermons of John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.), who extensively quoted scripture.

Q: What are some of the differences between the Alexandrian manuscript family versus the Byzantine?
A: In the Old Testament, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus do not have Exodus 28:23-28. We do not have Exodus preserved in Sinaiticus. These verse are present in the Complutensian Septuagint as well as the Hebrew Massoretic text. Dead Sea scroll 4Q22 (=4QPaleoExodus^m) contains fragments of 28:22-24,26-28,30-43. See The Septuagint Version : Greek and English by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton. p.1131-1132 for more info.
For the New Testament, the Alexandrian manuscripts have at least 33 verses less than the Byzantine family, which works out to 577 words less. There also are at least 54 word modifications. If someone felt certain the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts were totally correct, then the following verses would not be in the Bible: Mt 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Lk 23:24; Jn 5:4; John 7:53-8:11. The manuscripts Bodmer 14, 15, Sinaiticus do not have Lk 23:17 while Vaticanus has it.
Modern times did not produce the first people to study Bible manuscript variations. An unusual Christian from Alexandria named Origen apparently was the first to very systematically look at various manuscripts and decide which most likely was the original reading. Origen had a large number of manuscripts available to him that are lost to us today, and Alexandrian manuscripts are all assumed to be influence by his work. (Christians today debate over whether his influence is a good or bad thing.) Here is a small sampling of manuscript variations where the Alexandrian manuscripts generally say the same thing and Byzantine manuscripts say something different.
Mt 18:11 ("For the son of Man is come to save that which has been lost.") is absent in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Origen (225-254 A.D.), Eusebius, and Jerome. These 9 words are included in the Byzantine Lectionary, Syriac, Armenian, Diatessaron (c.170 A.D.), and Chrysostom (392-407 A.D).
Mk 10:34 has "after three days" in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic. It says "On the third day" in Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Origen (225-254 A.D.).
Mk 11:26 "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins/transgressions." is missing in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bohairic Coptic, and Sahidic Coptic. (17 words)
Mk 16:9-20 The following sources do not have the longer ending.
c.360 A.D. Eusebius Questions to Marianus I
193-217/220 A.D. Clement of Alexandria
225-254 A.D. Origen
407 A.D. Jerome, Epistle 120
At least 6 other ancient manuscripts
Syriac
900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions
325-350 A.D. Vaticanus: blank space there. Vaticanus does not have any other blank spaces like this in the entire manuscript.
340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus: blank space there. However, According to www.LogosResourcePages.org/uncials.htm, you can see where this text was in Sinaiticus, but it was pumiced out (erased).
The following manuscripts do have the longer ending
182-188 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:11
110-155 A.D. (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)
c.170 A.D. Tatian’s Diatessaron
200 A.D. Tertullian Treatise on the Soul
At least 38 ancient Bible texts
120-150 A.D. Didache
~700 A.D. on Byzantine text family
5th century Freer Gospels
400-600 A.D. Codex Bezae manuscript
The later Alexandrian manuscripts have it also.
c.450 A.D. Alexandrinus
400-500 A.D. Ephraemi Rescriptus Manuscript
3rd-4th century Bohairic Coptic
3rd-4th century Sahidic Coptic
Jn 5:4 ("for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.") absent in p66 (150-200 A.D.), p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, and the original copies of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Alexandrinus, and the Diatessaron. The church writer Nonnus (431 A.D.) does not have this. The earliest copies with these 29 words are the Armenian and Georgian versions (both 5th century), and later corrections to Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Freer Gospels. However, the church fathers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.), Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.), and Cyril refer to this in their paraphrased renderings.
Jn 7:53-8:11 is called "the pericope of the adulteress" Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p56, p75, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Gothic do not have it. The Diatessaron, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen (225-254 A.D.), and Chrysostom also do not have it. The rest of the major manuscripts have it. Aland et al. says "Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus apparently had it, though their state of preservation makes this not certain. This passage is interesting in that Aland et al. says this is "virtually certain" it was in the original manuscript, yet the Alexandrian family, with the exception of Bohairic Coptic, do not have it. Thus, if one relies on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, one has to do so recognizing that this family left out this entire passage. Of course while the Byzantine family has this passage, John Chrysostom does not. (The pericope of the adulteress and the ending of Mark are the two largest non-trivial manuscript variations in the New Testament.)
Jn 10:34 "the law" is in Bodmer II 125-175 A.D. Bodmer 14,15 early 3rd century, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Athanasius (326-373 A.D.). It says "the law of you" in Chester Beatty Papyrii 200 A.D., Sinaiticus (corrected), Cantabrigiensis, Tertullian, Hilary.
Eph 1:1 The words "in Ephesus" are absent from Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), original Vaticanus, original Sinaiticus, and the early Christian writers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) and Origen (225-254 A.D.). A corrector later added the words to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Alexandrinus also has these words, as do the Byzantine Lectionary and John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.)
1 Cor 11:24 "broken for you", "broken" is absent in Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (original), Alexandrinus, Athanasius (326-373 A.D.). "Broken" is present as a later correction in Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (3rd corrector), the Gothic, Byzantine Lectionary, and John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.)
A split decision is Mk 1:2, where the Byzantine Lectionary and the Armenian says In the prophets, along with Alexandrinus, Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Irenaeus, and other manuscripts. Isaiah is mentioned in most other manuscripts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Gothic, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, etc..
Regardless, the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families all do not have 1 Jn 5:7-8. The first preserved Greek manuscript that has this was not written until the 10th century, though the heretic Priscillian (380 A.D.) had heard of this.

Q: Why do people put less weight on the "Western texts"?
A: The Western texts is a phrase for manuscripts primarily in Europe that do not fit in the Alexandrian or Byzantine family. Some people question whether it is accurate to speak of a Western text, since the manuscripts do not have that much "affinity" with each other, except that when the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts differ, they tend to put in both readings. According to Bruce Metzger’s A Textual commentary on the New Testament p.6 the problems with the Western text are most acute in Acts, where the Western text is 10% longer.

Q: What are some corrections in the p46 manuscript?
A: It was probably not copied by a professional scribe, and one or two people cam along later and corrected it. Here are some examples from 1 Corinthians 13-16 for simple letter errors, that are not counted in the previous lists.
1 Cor 13:5 mu was addeded after to.
1 Cor 13:12 prosopon changed to prosupon by adding u (omega) above the line.
1 Cor 14:9 auloumenon to laloumenon by crossing out au and adding la above the line.
1 Cor 14:9 added genu after tuchoi.
1 Cor 14:20 changed tai to tais by added s above the line.
1 Cor 15:2 dots were put above katecheiv which means they corrector thought this should be deleted.
1 Cor 15:17 estai to easte
1 Cor 15:24 the corrector put a slash through "i" when he should have put a slash through "a"
1 Cor15:34 amartanute to amartanete
1 Cor 16:1 ei to eis
1 Cor 16:7 pardu to parodu
When comparing manuscripts for significant variants, I used the original reading (versus later corrections) in all the manuscripts.

Q: What do we know about the Vaticanus manuscript?
A: Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) is the oldest existing member of the Alexandrian manuscript family. It often is abbreviated as "B" or is called uncial 03. It is 325-350 A.D. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 and c.325-350 A.D. according to A General Introduction to the Bible p.393.
What has been preserved: Vaticanus has preserved only verses 46:29-50:26 in Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament except for 2 Kings 2:5-7 and 1-13, and Psalm 105:27-137:6. The missing section in Psalms was added in the 15th century. As in Vaticanus, Hebrews follows 2 Thessalonians.
Some apocryphal books are in Vaticanus, as are in most Greek Bibles. Vaticanus does not contain 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The New Testament is all preserved up until Hebrews 9:15. After that some leaves were lost. Missing are 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Aland references Vaticanus in the book of James, and the New International Greek Testament Commentary on James p.60 says Vaticanus contains the complete book of James.
Physical Appearance: It was written with brown ink on expensive vellum, with each leaf being 27-28 centimeters square. There were three columns per page and 40-44 lines per column. Today it is in Vatican City in the middle of Rome
Order of Old Testament Books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (=Ezra-Nehemiah)
Psalms (with Psalm 151), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (=Sirach, =Wisdom of Sirach), Esther, Judith, Tobit, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel. Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (with Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon]. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.50 for more info.
Order of New Testament Books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, (following are missing but the presumed order) 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.60 for more info.
Scribes and Correctors: One scribe wrote the Old Testament, and another wrote the New Testament. There were two correctors. One corrected the manuscript about 350 A.D. soon after it was written. The other corrector lived in the tenth or eleventh century. A humorous note is that one corrector made a change in Hebrews 1:3. A later corrector c