Papyrus 1, according to Wikipedia, is from around 250 AD, and contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. The Wikipedia page contains a full transcription as well as a collation against Vaticanus by Hoskier.

Papyrus 2, according to Wikipedia, is from about 550. Although the Wikipedia page does not contain a transcription or a collation of the manuscript, it does contain a citation to an article by E. Pistelli, 'Papiri evangelici', in Rivista di Studi Religiosi 6 (1902): 69-70. The sixth volume of that journal is helpfully found on Google books.

There in Pistelli we find the following transcription. I am not attempting to reproduce spacing, diacritics, or indentation -- merely letters and line numbers:

1. ευαγγελ[ιον 2.\ † τη επαυριον οχλος π[ολυς 3. εορτην ακουσαντ[ες 4. εις ιερου[σαλημ 5. φοινικων[ 6. κα]ι εκραυ[γαζον 7. δ] ερχομε[νος 8. τ]ου ιηλ ε[υρων 9. ε]π αυτ[o 10. μη] φ[οβου

Pistelli informs us that the text is from the Gospel of John (12:12-15). I would next have compared this text with that standard of collation, the 1873 Oxford Textus Receptus. Unfortunately, however, the 1873 TR facsimile I ordinarily use is missing John 10-18.

In its place, I suppose I will use the Scrivener 1894 text, which can't be too far different, as produced by Maurice Robinson (web source here).

I find that on line 6, where Pistelli reads "κα[ι εκραυ]γαζον", Scrivener has "kai ekrazon." Here Papyrus 2 is in agreement with NA²⁸ against the TR.

The next difference, very minor, is that Pistelli reads ιηλ, the abbreviated form, where Scrivener spells out ισραηλ.

It was while working this up that I found a nice database of Greek NT stuff at the University of Münster's website, where two different transcriptions of this scrap of John are available: [http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace?docID=10002].

The other side of papyrus 2 is Coptic, about which I know nothing.

Papyrus 3, according to Wikipedia, is from the 6th or 7th century, and contains Luke 7:36-45 and 10:38-42. Wikipedia provides what appears to be an uncited transcription.

However, a published transcription can be found in Wessely, C. (1885). Analekten: 1. Neue Evangelien-Fragmente auf Papyrus. Wiener Studien: Zeitschrift Für Classische Philologie, 7, 69–70. https://archive.org/details/wienerstudien12kircgoog/page/n73.

The transcription is as follows. I am simply reproducing the transcription as given by Wessely, but without indicating indentation. As I don't know of any convenient way to do the overlines in Markdown, I am using bold text to show the nomina sacra.

In the second-to-last line of the excerpt from Luke VII, a superscripted upsilon will likely not display in quite the same format as was found in the original publication. The same goes for what looks like an iota superscripted in the fourth-to-last line of the part from Luke 10. I am distinguishing final sigmas, though Wesselly does not.

Lucas VII v. 36 f.

τον των φαρισ
ελθων εις τ
ι ειδου γυνη ητις η
γνουσα οτι κατακ
σα αλαβαστρον μυρ
οδας αυτου κλαιουσ
υς ποδας αυτου και
αυτης εξεμαξεν και κατε
α]υτου κα[τ]ηλιφεν τω μυρω
σα]ιος ο κα[λεσ]ας αυτον ειπεν ε[ν εαυ]τω
ης εγιγνωσκεν αν τις και ποταπ
ται αυτου οτι α[μ]αρτωλος εστιν
ειπεν ο ις προς α[υ]τον σιμων
δε διδα[σκα]λε ειπε φησιν δυο
λεται ησαν δανιστη τινι ο εις ωφειλεν δηναρι
ο δε ετερος πεντηκοντα μη εχοντων δε αυτω
αμφοτεροις εχαρισατο τις ουν αυτων πλειον
ει αυτον αποκριθεις δε σιμων ειπεν υπολαμ
ν εχαρισατο ο δε ειπεν αυτω ορθως εκριν
εις προς την γυναικα τω σιμωνι εφη
ταυτην την γυναικα εισηλθον εις τ
επι τους ποδας ουκ εδωκας α
εξεν μου τους ποδ[α]ς και ταις θρ
ιλημα μοι ο^υκ εδ[ω]κας αυ
καταφιλουσα μου του

Lucas X v. 38 ff.

ρευεσθαι αυτου
θεν εις κωμην τιν
ονοματι μαρθα
ο αυτον εις την ο[ι]κ
ην αδελφη καλουμε
ι παρακαθεσθεισ
δας του κυ ηκουεν
του η δε μαρθα περι
ε[σπα[το περι πολλην διακονιαν
επιστασα δε ειπεν κε ου με
οτι η αδελφη μου μονην με κα
π[εν]διακονειν ειπε ουν αυτη ινα μ
συν[α]ντιλαβηται αποκριθεις
ειπεν αυτη ο κς μαρθα μαρθα
μεριμνας και θορυβαζει περι πολλα
ολιγων δε εστιν χρεια^ι η ενος
μαριαμ γαρ την αγ[α]θην μεριδα
ε]ξελεξατο ητις ουκ αφαιρε
θησεται απ αυτης.

Just for the experience, I think I might try my hand at collating this text against the 1873 Oxford TR.

Below is the text of p³ in every place where it disagrees, even on insignificant matters of spelling, with the TR. Only places where p³ differs from the 1873 TR are listed, but in those places I have also indicated what is the reading found in NA²⁸.

Luke 7
37 ιδου TR NA²⁸ ειδου p³ | κατα[κειται] p³ κατακειται ΝΑ28 ανακειται ΤR.
38 αυτου οπισω κλαιουσα TR αυτου κλαιουσ[α] p³ NA²⁸ (Note that here οπισω is moved forward in NA²⁸, not omitted entirely.) | εξεμασσε TR εξεμασσεν ΝΑ28 εξεμαξεν p³ | και ηλειφε TR και ηλειφεν NA²⁸ κα[τ]ηλιφεν p³
39 εγινωσκεν TR NA²⁸ εγιγνωσκεν p³ | εστι TR εστιν p³ NA²⁸
40 ο ιησους ειπε TR ο ιησους ειπεν ΝΑ28 ειπεν ο ις p³ | φησι διδασκαλε ειπε TR διδα[σκα]λε ειπε φησιν p³ NA²⁸
41 δανειστη TR δανιστη p³ NA²⁸ | ωφειλε TR ωφειλεν p³ NA²⁸
42 ειπε TR omit p³ NA²⁸ | αυτον αγαπησει TR [αγαπησ]ει αυτον p³ αγαπησει αυτον ΝΑ28
43 ο σιμων TR σιμων p³ NA²⁸
44 εισηλθον σου εις TR NA²⁸ εισηλθον εις p³ | επι τους ποδας μου TR επι τους ποδας p³ NA²⁸ | εβρεξε TR εβρεξεν NA²⁸ [εβρ]εξεν p³
45 ουκ TR NA²⁸ ο^υκ p³

Luke 10
38 εις τον οικον TR εις την ο[ι]κ[ον] p³ omit NA²⁸
39 παρακαθισασα TR παρακαθεσθεισ[α] p³ παρακαθεσθεισα NA²⁸ | ιησου TR κυ p³ κυριου NA²⁸ | ηκουε TR ηκουεν p³ NA²⁸
40 ειπε TR ειπεν p³ NA²⁸ | κυριε TR NA²⁸ κε p³
41 ιησους TR κς p³ κυριος NA²⁸ | τυβαζη TR θορυβαζει p³ NA²⁸
42 ενος δε εστι χρεια TR ενος δε εστιν χρεια NA²⁸ ολιγων δε εστιν χρεια^ι η ενος p³ | δε TR γαρ p³ NA²⁸

Papyri 4-6, 8-41, 43-44 in Schofield

According to Wikipedia, Papyrus 4 is from somewhere in the second to fourth centuries, and contains portions of the first six chapters of Luke.

A transcription of it can be found beginning on page 104 of Ellwood Mearle Schofield's dissertation (1936) entitled The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament. His dissertation has been generously been made available for download by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here.

The papyri numbered 5 and 6 may also be found transcribed, beginning on page 113 of Schofield's dissertation, along with p⁸ (p. 131), p⁹ (135), p¹⁰ (p. 140), p¹¹ (147), p¹² (154), p¹³ (161), p¹⁴ (170), p¹⁵ (173), p¹⁶ (177), p¹⁷ (181), p¹⁸ (185), p¹⁹ (188), p²⁰ (192), p²¹ (195), p²² (199), p²³ (202), p²⁴ (205), p²⁵ (211), p²⁶ (217), p²⁷ (221), p²⁸ (225), p²⁹ (228), p³⁰ (231), p³¹ (237), p³² (241), p³³ (245), p³⁴ (250), p³⁵ (255), p³⁶ (258), p³⁷ (264), p³⁸ (271), p³⁹ (276), p⁴⁰ (281), and p⁴¹ (288).

A transcription of p⁴³ can be found in Schofield's 1936 dissertation on page 295. The dissertation can be found here. A transcription of p⁴⁴ can be found on p. 299.

Papyrus 7

Schofield does not have a text of Papyrus 7, which includes the first two verses of Luke 4. A transcription of it can be found at the INTF website here.

A comparison with the 1873 Oxford TR shows that, in the verse first verse, where TR reads ιησους δε πνευματος αγιου πληρης, p⁷ appears to read ις δε πλ[ηρης] [π]νς αγιου, a matter of word order and nomina sacra. (I have employed italics instead of overlines to mark the abbreviations.) In the word order of this variation, it sides with NA²⁸.

Likewise, where TR has εις την ερημον, p⁷ appears to read with NA²⁸ εν τη ερ[ημ]ω. Where TR has τεσσαρακοντα, p⁷ with NA²⁸ has τεσσερακοντα.

Papyrus 42

Papyrus 42 appears to be skipped over in Schofield's dissertation, but the INTF does have a publicly available image and transcription of it here.

Papyrus 45 is quite extensive. All or part of 30 leaves survive, according to Schofield (p. 302), containing portions of all four gospels and Acts. Schofield does not include a transcription of it in his dissertation.

Images of it are available at the CSNTM website, here. Images along with transcriptions are available at the INTF website, here.

Papyri 46-57, 59-66, 68-98, 100-128

The INTF website contains available transcriptions and images of p⁴⁶ here. The same is true for p⁴⁷, p⁴⁸, p⁴⁹, p⁵⁰, p⁵¹, p⁵², p⁵³, p⁵⁶, p⁵⁹, p⁶⁰, p⁶¹, p⁶³, p⁶⁶, p⁶⁹, p⁷⁰, p⁷¹, p⁷³, p⁷⁴, p⁷⁷, p⁷⁸, p⁷⁹, p⁸², p⁸⁵, p⁸⁶, p⁸⁷, p⁸⁸, p⁸⁹, p⁹⁰, p⁹¹, p¹⁰⁰, p¹⁰¹, p¹⁰², p¹⁰³, p¹⁰⁴, p¹⁰⁵, p¹⁰⁶, p¹⁰⁷, p¹⁰⁸, p¹⁰⁹, p¹¹⁰, p¹¹¹, p¹¹², p¹¹³, p¹¹⁴, p¹¹⁶, p¹¹⁸, p¹¹⁹, p¹²⁰, p¹²¹, p¹²², p¹²³, p¹²⁴, and p¹²⁵.

Transcription, but no images, are available for p⁵⁴, p⁵⁵, p⁵⁷, p⁶², p⁶⁴, p⁶⁵, p⁶⁸, p⁷², p⁷⁵, p⁷⁶, p⁸⁰, p⁸¹, p⁸³, p⁸⁴, p⁹², p⁹³, p⁹⁴, p⁹⁵, p⁹⁶, p⁹⁷, p⁹⁸, p¹¹⁷, p¹²⁶, and p¹²⁸.

Transcriptions, with some images available, are available for p¹¹⁵ and p¹²⁷.

What have we left out here? Three special cases: 58, 67, and 99.

Papyri 58 and 67

The number p⁵⁸, if I understand the situation correctly, has been essentially retired, due to the discovery that the materials formerly known as p⁵⁸ are in fact part of the same manuscript as p³³.

Similarly designation p⁶⁷, if I understand the situation correctly, is essentially retired at this point, due to the discovery that the material formerly known as p⁶⁷ is part of the same manuscript as p⁶⁴.

Papyrus 99

p⁹⁹ is not a "biblical text" in the usual sense of the term, but rather an unusual set of materials including various phrases pulled from the letters of Paul. For a recent work on this, which also surveys previous work, see Dickey, E. (2018). "A Re-Examination of New Testament Papyrus P99 (Vetus Latina AN glo Paul)". New Testament Studies, 65(1), 103–121. doi:10.1017/s0028688518000243.

Images are available at the CSTNM website, here. I am not aware of any online transcription of the biblically-relevant parts.

p¹²⁹, as of 2019, seems not to have been published yet, and is involved in the recent scandal involving the Museum of the Bible. See Brent Nongbri. There seem to be unanswered questions about its provenance, and similar issues involving p¹³⁰ and p¹³¹ (see Brent Nongrbi again).

Images, but no transcription, are available on the INTF website for p¹³². A published transcription, however, made by G. S. Smith is available on academia.edu here.

Images and transcriptions are available for p¹³³, and J. Shao's publication of this manuscript is available online at academia.edu here, starting on the third page of the PDF, under the title "5259. 1 Timothy 3:13-4:8.

Images and transcriptions are available for p¹³⁴.

p¹³⁵ is not yet available, in image or transcription, on the INTF website. Brent Nongbri, as of 2019, expresses that details of this manuscript are as yet unclear (here).

Transcriptions and images are available on the INTF website for p¹³⁶,

p¹³⁷ is the now-infamous "first century" Mark papyrus. It has been both published and made available online with both transcription and images by the Egypt Exploration Society here.

I am not aware of any online transcription or image of p¹³⁸, although a small portion of its publication in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri has been made available online by the Egypt Exploration Society, and indicates that it is a third century pair of fragments containing Luke 12:13-17, 25-30. See page 4 of this PDF.

p¹³⁹ has been made available online by David Lincicum, who published it, including transcription and image, in 2018. You can see this at academia.edu here.

p¹⁴⁰, as far as the internet is concerned, barely seems to exist, but a transcription of it does appear in an Italian publication. See page 3 of this PDF.

As of 2019, it seems unclear whether a p¹⁴¹ and p¹⁴² exist (see Tommy Wasserman).

And I think that's about it.