Of minimal relevance.
The papyri in general only show the corrupt and wild Alexandrian textual region.
Kurt Aland even put forth a pithy warning on that point.
And the dating is ultra-dubious.
As usual, the problem is a far-too-early terminus ante quem.
"Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament"
"The evidence gathered in the present essay calls these conclusions into question by showing that both paleographically and codicologically, P.Bodm. XIV–XV ﬁts comfortably in a fourth-century context, along with the bulk of the other “Bodmer papyri” with which it was apparently discovered."
Vaticanus may well have preceded P75.
The major effort in Vaticanus could easily have been, directly or indirectly, the exemplar for P75.
Nongbri: "Several different studies showed that, for the text of both Luke and John, where variation exists in
the textual tradition, p75 and Codex Vaticanus agree between roughly 90 and 94
percent of the time, once one accounts for small orthographic errors and obvious
scribal errors. To gain a sense of the impressiveness of this level of agreement, one
need only consider that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, generally acknowledged
to be closely related, agree at a rate of roughly 75 percent under similar conditions of comparison.
The online tools produced by Münster’s INTF for Luke and the early chapters of John provide
more data to reinforce this close relationship between p75 and Vaticanus.
What made this level of agreement even more remarkable was the perceived
temporal distance between Codex Vaticanus and p75. Vaticanus was (and is)
generally agreed to be a product of the fourth century, and p75 has been thought
to represent a text of about the year 200 CE faithfully copied from a second-century
As Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland have phrased it, the text of p75 was “so close to that of Codex Vaticanus (B) that the theory of
recensions, i.e., of thoroughgoing revisions of the New Testament text made in the
fourth century, was no longer defensible. One of the main pillars supporting the
dominant theory of New Testament textual history was now demolished.” (Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament: An Introduction, 87.)
The present study, however, places us in a position to evaluate this textual
evidence from a rather different perspective. Because the paleographic and codicological
characteristics of p75 are not inconsistent with a fourth-century date of
, the close similarity between the text of p75 and that of Vaticanus may
instead be seen as an additional piece of evidence in favor of a fourth-century date
for the production of p75 itself. Furthermore, if both of these codices can be
assigned to the fourth century, then textual critics of the New Testament may need
once again to entertain the idea that the “B Text” is indeed the result of some sort
of recensional activity in the fourth century."
Note Nongbri is not ruling out the possibility that the original dating is correct. He isn't saying it's wrong. He's saying "not proven."
Against the above:
"It must be noted, however, that Nongbri seems generally skeptical of conventional palaeographical methods, and it remains to be seen whether his emphasis on the manuscripts’ codicological format and the date of their collection provides a more reliable alternative."
Peter Malik, p.54 "P.Beatty III (𝔓47): The Codex, Its Scribe, and Its Text"