| P-66 Agrees with | Number of Agreements | Total Comparisons | Percent of Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Textus Receptus | 315 | 663 | 47.5% |
| P-75 | 280 | 547 | 51.2% |
| B | 334 | 663 | 50.4% |
| Aleph | 295 | 662 | 44.6% |
| A | 245 | 537 | 45.6% |
| C | 150 | 309 | 48.5% |
| D | 235 | 604 | 38.9% |
| W | 298 | 662 | 45.0% |
Does a comparison of this data really suggest "two clear textual streams"? Many other examples could be cited, however the point has been plainly demonstrated. The whole purpose of applying the genealogical or family tree techniques to the Bible manuscripts was to reduce the vast majority of witnesses of the text of the New Testament to that of only one voice. Such in and of itself was wicked enough for us to endure, for in order to justify applying these techniques the position had to be taken that the New Testament could be treated like any other book, that it was not of a supernatural origin. But now we see wickedness added to wickedness, for under the guise of "scientific methods" a system has been imposed upon the material; which system is now exposed as artificial, totally subjective, contrived, and synthetic - SHAME!
Pickering has given the following estimates:
A perusal of the foregoing reveals that one may reasonably say that around 90% of the extant MSS belong to the Traditional text-type. This strongly argues that such domination can best and most logically be explained by recognizing that this demonstrates the text goes back to the autographs.1 Again, Hort correctly saw the magnitude this problem posed against his thesis so he invented the Lucianic revision.
As Pickering observed, Sturz apparently did not perceive the significance of the argument presented by the vast statistical preponderance of evidence in favor of the "Byzantine text-type".2 After demonstrating that the "Byzantine" is both early and independent of the "Western" and "Alexandrian text-types", Sturz - like von Soden - concluded that they should be treated as three equal witnesses.3 This completely misses the point which is that if the three "text-types" were equal, how could the so-called "Byzantine" type obtain a near 90% preponderance since it has been shown (and Sturz agrees, his p. 62) that no 4th century official revision at Antioch ever took place? Again, since academia now generally acknowledges that the "Byzantine text-type" must date back to at least into the 2nd-century, how could the original "Byzantine" document have been "created" by editors using other competing texts such that the resulting "conflated" (combined) text could gain ascendancy when appeal to the autographs was still possible at that time.
