PS, Byzantine manuscripts such as the 64 Magdalen Papyri are older than the earliest dated Alexandrian manuscripts anyway.
I believe you have that wrong.
The p64, known as the Magdalen papyrus, is a Unical, dated to the late 2nd to early 3rd century. Writen on the front and back, shows that this came from an existing codex rather than a scroll.
Shown to be a Alexandrian text type.
Other "notable"
Alexandrian text-type "papyrus":
"
P1, 4-6, 8-35, 37, 39, 40, 43-45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55-57, 61-62, 64-65, 70-72, 74, 77-82, 85-87, 90-92, 95, 100, 104, 106-108, 110, 111, 115, 122.
I also suggest, antiquity does not necessarily mean better.
"
Is Oldest Best?
First, there is the somewhat uncritical reliance by modern textual critics upon a text's antiquity above everything else. Weight (a term describing the relative esteem accorded to a manuscript or other evidence in determining the original text) is accorded to a text's age, with other evidence receiving a far inferior status. The arguments made by scholars for this approach sound plausible when they are not examined in any great detail. An older text, one would naturally assume, should be more closely approximate to the reading of the original autographs. Sounds logical, right? Unfortunately, this assumption is just that: an assumption. When this argument is tested against the facts, we see that it does not really hold up.
The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.
1 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."
2 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large..."
1) Scrivener,
A Plain Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 264
2) E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts,"
Early Christian Origins, Ed. A. Wikgren, p. 138
Source
Marvin Vincent agrees that corruptions in the manuscripts probably occurred within a century of their writing.
"Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with tolerable certainty that the farther back we go in the history of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its composition, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, "I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual communities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations."
A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, 1899, New York, The MacMillian Company, Chapter V, Textual Criticism of the Early Church.
God Bless
Till all are one.
