Your post is too long. If you would like to be read with care you could make it easier by being more concise.
It’s interesting that you mention Carsten Thiede because I credit his book The Jesus Papyrus with getting me interested in Bible manuscripts and palaeography 25 years ago or so. It’s a well written book and certainly grabbed the attention of many people at the time, it’s central claim being that a small fragment of Greek text could be identified as a portion of Matthew from the first century. Unfortunately, as I didn’t appreciate at the time, the evidence he claimed in support of this was rather flimsy and relied on over-specific claims about how one or two letters of the alphabet were written in different time periods. While his work was popular in the media, scholars found his claims incredible based on shallow or non existent evidence.
Another sensationalist claim about a first century Mark fragment was made more recently by Daniel Wallace but again proved to be unfounded.
A real work of scholarship, God’s Library by Brent Nongbri has demonstrated to the satisfaction of many scholars that NT fragments generally should be dated later that previously believed, with no fragments definitely dated earlier than the third century.
David Trobisch’s thesis about the second century edition of the New Testament relies on a broad base of evidence relating to the titles of NT works, the order of their arrangement in MS, the use of nomina sacra, and editorial details including John 21 and much more. In other words a serious contribution to scholarship unlike Carsten Thiede.