The 'wealth' of manuscripts we have support the TR readings of the King James Bible.
The Critical text is supported by 1-5% of the manuscripts on a consistent basis.
The 'wealth' of manuscripts is put out by the anti-King James critics to give the impression that something 'new' was found. It wasn't.
The Critical text readings were already in the Roman Catholic Douey Rheims version when the King James translators were doing their own work.
The overwhelming majority of manuscripts found support the TR, hence even Nestles had to go put back into its text some 300 TR readings.
My reading of the matter, and I have Burgon's book too, is that 90% of all the papyrus, etc that has surfaced since 1611 have been TR readings, validating the text of the KJV and Erasmus's choice of manuscripts.
Amen!
Sinaiticus readings were available to Erasmus in the Latin Vulgate, but rejected. Vaticanus readings were being sent to him from the Vatican Library, but rejected.
Amen!
Can you name for me that supposed "wealth of manuscripts that we have today"? What are they? Certainly you wouldn't be referring to those that Burgon refers to as the most corrupt of all in his book that you and I have? Perhaps you can check with James White? Maybe he has some secret manuscripts that no one else has or maybe he is just blowing smoke as always.
Amen!