Tampering with the text clearly occurred in this tunnel period between the time the NT texts were written and the time the writings became treated as Holy Scripture.  The differences between the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Caesarean texts show copyists changed the text (e.g. Acts 2:17 in the Western text).  The 3rd century Christian writer Origen condemned those Christians for "their depraved audacity" in changing the text and Jerome told Pope Damascus of the "numerous errors" which had arisen in the texts through attempted harmonizing.  In 1707 John Mill of Oxford listed 30,000 variants in the different NT texts, and at the beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts, the scholar Hermann von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the NT texts illustrating how they were altered.  Even in the 4^th century Codex Sinaiticus, containing all the New Testament, Professor Tishendorf, the discoverer, noted that it had been altered by at least three different scribes.  [Others have suggested some 4-10 different persons altered the text.]  This demonstrates that the present-day Bible is not and cannot be an "inerrant copy" of the original writings.(Adapted, website source).  Christian apologists and commentators typically suggest (and I have been told) that “90 to 99% of the New Testament is accurate” and that only 1 to 10% has been corrupted to some extent.  And they go on to assert that any corruption, real or imagined, has no bearing whatsoever on biblical or church doctrine.  This is a common perception and I am hard put to find a legitimate scholarly source for these percentages or to verify such an estimate, although I did locate a single source that comes close.  There may be others.  Unsupported assertions by Christian apologists do not satisfy me.  I need verification. One person wrote that 99% of all the variations in the NT manuscripts are insignificant.  That leaves only 1% as significant. Another writes that only 0.5% of the NT words are in question, and further, that these variations are insignificant—that they mean nothing.  He goes on: For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Notice the qualification of the word “certainty”—it is not absolute.  Despite many searches of old and new reference books and the Internet and elsewhere, I have to date, been totally unable to find any scholarly documentation of any suggested 90%—98% of faultlessness or exactness as asserted by any number of Christian apologists.  I would surely welcome and publish such scholarly documentation. But please do not give me your opinion about the minute amount of corruption and its low impact—I have opinions of my own and need no more, thank you very much.  My search is for facts, not opinions.