You speak of the "wealth of manuscripts that we have today that Erasmus did not have", and by that I assume that you mean the KJV translators as well. Could you list for me the names of those manuscripts??? I have asked this question of the James White ministry and gotten nothing but rhetoric and silence.
A list of papyri is here: here
Others are: Uncials * Minuscules: * 1-500 * 501-1000 * 1001-1500 * 1501-2000 * 2001 and up*
He clearly didn't have all otf these. See also Metzger's companion volume to the UBS3... and the Text of the NT. Also, do not neglect the advances in understanding of Koine Greek obtained since 1611. For example, consider the work of Adolph Deissman who spent a lot of time reading papyri of contracts, etc. His work, published in 1885, helps us to understand the Christ's shout of "tetelestai" was a commonly used term for contracts meaning "paid in full."
Which or how many of the uncials and miniscules have surfaced since 1611? And of those that have surfaced, how do we know that Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and KJV translators had not read, and were not aware of them? They may be new to us, but what makes us think they were not known by them.
Of these newly surfaced miniscules/uncilas, how many are just simply verification of the ErasmusBezaStephanus Text, and thus not really new, merely vindication of the manuscripts that they relied upon?
Even if Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the KJV scholars had all these newly surfacing miniscules, uncials, papyrus in their hands, would their work look much different than it does now? 90% of the new evidence vindicates these men and their choice of manuscripts. Is that right?
If Westcott and Hort had all this new evidence at their disposal, then why did they use basicly only two warmed over corpses that were not new.? Why didn't they use all that evidence? Is it because 90% of it verified the KJV?
If White, Metzger, and the new version propagators are so enamored with new evidence, why do they reject 90% of it? Why don't they value it? Why do they keep going back to the warmed over corpses of Westcott and Hort in 1881, and those same debunked manuscripts Aleph and B? Why do they have such an affinity for "aberrant" manuscripts and reject all that new evidence? Perhaps it is because there is nothing new under the sun ----