Here is how I think the evidence should be viewed. None
of the text-types were created overnight. The Byzantine,
Western, and Alexandrian text-types all developed
gradually in other words, the Byzantine, Western, and
Alexandrian texts all gradually detoured from the auto-
graphic text, and developed their own variants and
characteristics. The Caesarean Text is sort of an X-factor,
which developed at a location where the Alexandrian
and Western Texts (and later, the Byzantine Text)
intersected. But each text-type can be filtered against the
others, removing the non-original readings that are
unique to each text-type, to reconstruct the text of the
archetype of all copies. In some cases it is clear that the
Byzantine Text contains a variant for which the attestation
is late. In some cases, something similar will be true of the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean
Texts. But in no case should a Byzantine reading be dismissed simply because it is Byzantine.
In every case there is a possibility that the Byzantine reading was a late development, but in every
case there is also a possibility that the Byzantine reading is early, and that it preserves the original

This elicits a desire to evaluate readings without pre-judging the Byzantine readings to be late,
and without a reflex to favor the agreement of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which tend to share one
early text-type -- the Alexandrian Text). In many cases, this approach yields results which
oppose the readings adopted in the modern Critical Text and support the originality of readings
in the Majority/Byzantine Text.

Here is the full Textual Araneum (Web-structure), which I present to give some idea of how the
influence of the various text-types spread, and how they have affected both English and non-
English translations. This arrangement shows the "genealogy" of the various branches of the
manuscript evidence.

Two final notes:
In the Araneum, I have separated the
Textus Receptus from the Byzantine
Text. This is because when one closely
compares the two, they are different in
many points not so much as to form a
different message, but more than
enough to disprove the claim that the
King James Version New Testament
(which is based on the Textus
Receptus) agrees completely with the
Byzantine Text. In some cases (Eph.
3:9, for instance) the underlying text of
the KJV contains a late, unoriginal

Also, the Araneum is just an estimate.
The picture would vary somewhat
depending on whether one wanted to
show the relationship of manuscripts of
the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles,
the General Epistles, or Revelation.
Nevertheless I hope it helps you
visualize the development of the New
Testament text.
- arranged according to the theory of Partial Byzantine Antiquity -