Well, here is a very interesting comment on this topic which I´ve recently read about it and I tend to totally agree with it.

Here it is:

For the past few centuries, scholars have catalogued and categorized the papyri and uncials along with the rest of this large group of manuscripts. Since J. A. Bengal first divided New Testament witnesses into three families in 1725, scholars have continued to refine a number of criteria for evaluating manuscripts. Today, there are occasional proposals for regrouping and redefining the families of the extant Greek manuscripts. Currently, however, New Testament textual critics generally agree that there are three main text types or “families” of texts, with the possibility of a fourth. The main families are Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and possibly Caesarean.

The majority of Greek manuscripts, both uncials and miniscules (in other words, the Majority Text) are from the Byzantine textual family. This is the text type from which the Textus Receptus was developed. Textus receptus means the “received text,” or the text that has been accepted universally as authoritative since about 1624. It was essentially that published by the Christian theologians Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

The Textus Receptus was the source for most early English versions of the New Testament. These, in turn, influenced the compilers and translators of the Authorized or King James Version. Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi contain mixed readings and are often considered typical examples of the Byzantine family. The Byzantine text type was used by the Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire and originated later than other families. It was widespread during the medieval Christian period, and subsequently manuscripts from this text type were used as the source for the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament. The Byzantine text type is usually regarded as far removed from the original autographs (manuscripts penned by the authors or their scribes) and probably derived from other text types.

It is characterized by the replacement of difficult language with easier terms. For example, Matthew 6:1 says, “Take heed lest you do your alms [Greek, “righteousness” or acts of religious devotion] before men.” The Byzantine text replaces “righteousness” with “alms.” Another characteristic of the Byzantine text type is harmonization and conflation of variant readings. To harmonize is to eliminate contradictions within a text by scribal insertion. Conflation occurs when different readings of the same passage are combined.

For example, in Matthew 8:26, the Alexandrian textual family has “Do not enter the village,” and the Western family has “Do not speak to anyone in the village.” The Byzantine text type has “Do not enter and do not speak to anyone in the village.”

Because of these characteristics, most scholars have long considered the Byzantine text type less accurate and of lower quality than the earlier Alexandrian family. A few scholars have taken a new look at this family and have found justification for some of its readings, which they feel appear older and more original than previously thought. Most scholars, however, are still persuaded that the Byzantine text type often contains a corrupted text.

The Alexandrian textual family is usually considered the oldest and most faithful in preserving the original text of the New Testament. Both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, along with some significant papyri (Bodmer’s P66 and P75), contain this text type. The Alexandrian text type is characterized by brevity and austerity and is a probable source for later texts. For example, this text type concludes the Gospel of Mark at 16:8 and omits the story of the adulterous woman in John 8, both of which lack early manuscript support. This does not mean that the omitted passages are untrue but that they may have been placed in these particular chapters after the Gospels were originally written.

Though some scholars dispute the existence of a distinct Western textual family, most do not. The Western family is often found in manuscripts that contain both the Greek and the Latin New Testament. The term Western is a bit of a misnomer because members of the Western text type have been found in the Christian East. This family is represented by Codex Bezae (its most important examples) and Codex Claromontanus (in Paul’s letters), as well as many minuscules and the writings of most of the Syriac Church Fathers. These text types are characterized by extensive paraphrase which results in addition, omission, substitution, and “improvement” of the text. For example, in Luke 23:53, the Western text adds “twenty men could not move the stone.” Luke 22:19–20 omits the reference to “the cup after supper” and the reference to Christ’s sweat as “great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44) and does not have the prayer on the cross, “Father, forgive them . . .” (Luke 23:34).[28] Some scholars see evidence that the Western family eventually combined with a distinct eastern or “Caesarean” text, and together they evolved into the Byzantine family.

The so-called Caesarean text employs mild paraphrase and strives for a certain elegance of expression. It is not as extreme as the Western and so is thought to fall between the Alexandrian and Western text types. However, no typical examples of the Caesarean type exist, and most descriptions of this text type are conjectural.

Each of these text families has characteristic variant readings by which it is identified. The earliest biblical manuscripts will sometimes contain evidence of more than one textual family from book to book even within one manuscript. There are enough patterns and consistencies among these variations, especially in later manuscripts, that confirm the existence of these families.

The fact that one text type is attested in thousands of manuscripts does not necessarily mean that the family is more original or accurate. Quantity does not equal quality. Conversely, because a manuscript is dated early and is rare does not automatically mean it is closest to the original. Scholars follow certain criteria as they judge individual variants.

For example, scholars give more weight to the shorter reading (lectio brevior) among variants since scribes tend to add rather than delete.In addition, scholars give more weight to the more problematic reading (lectio difficilior) among variants because copyists tend to simplify difficult readings. Scholars also give more weight to those variants which are in higher quality manuscripts, have wide geographical distribution, or appear in more than one textual family.

Robert said

Coimbra1982 said

Well, here is a very interesting comment on this topic which I´ve recently read about it and I tend to totally agree with it.

Here it is:

“For the past few centuries, scholars have catalogued and categorized the papyri and uncials along with the rest of this large group of manuscripts. Since J. A. Bengal …” 

Hi, Moises. Who are you are quoting here? Is it Edward Andrews again? I ask because he has already been implicated in plagiarism and this particular quotation is almost identical to ** you do not have permission to see this link **, except your source seems to have removed Ellertson’s footnotes and added one small insertion. Of course, it’s also possible that your quotation is from another version of Carol’s own work or that she is plagiarizing your source, whomever that may be.

Robert, 
Nope, it is not Edward Andrews.

By the way I haven’t spoken to him in a long time and again, I don’t know him personally but only through a discussion forum on Facebook. Also, He doesn’t talk to me much because he considers me skeptical. I have this issue also being discussed in this forum and one participant by the name of Mr. John R. King Jr shared this long comment on it.