[kosta50]

Who are you trying to kid? I saw what you tried to present as proof, the tired old, defunct W/H theory

And you have provided — zilch.

[fortheDeclaration]

Who are you trying to kid? I saw what you tried to present as proof, the tired old, defunct W/H theory And you have provided — zilch.

You better get the up to date information, you are way behind.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Byzantine text-type and New Testament textual criticism (Unknown Binding) by Harry A Sturz (Author)

Get this work, the author proves that the Byzantine Text type is from the 2nd century.

[fortheDeclaration]

From the work, The thesis that they Byzantine text is late, textually mixed, and therefore wholly secondary in form, thought it had been supported by the apparently imposing arguments of conflate readings, patristic silence and an appeal to intrinsic character, is now inadquate to account for the data which have accumulated since the days of Westcort and Hort. Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have shown to be early (Sturz pg.130)

Also, in the introduction to the Greek-English New Testament (Nestle-Aland), Aland writes,

Similiarly the idea of a 'Neutral text' has been retired. Neither Codex Vaticanus nor Codex Sinaiticus (nor even P75 of two hundred years earlier) can provide a guideline we can normally depend on for determining the text. The age of Westcott-Hort and of Tishendorf is definitely over! (intro.p.5)