Hunting for the text of the New Testament

All right, so how might we explore the cumulative impact of all these differences? Actually, it is quite easy, though sensationalists avoid mentioning this. One reason why textual criticism is so complex is that we have so many manuscripts, in different scribal forms, from such a wide area, over a long period of time. One of the main theories (though this has recently been challenged) is that there are three main ‘families’ of manuscripts:

1. The Western tradition, which consists of early manuscripts from a wide area, and was the basis of translations in the Western church, in particular Jerome’s Latin translation the Vulgate, which was the dominant biblical text in the Roman church.
2. The Eastern tradition, or Byzantine text-type  , which consists of around 80% of all manuscripts, though none of them very early. Known as the Majority Text (MT), this was the dominant text used in the Eastern church, and was the basis of theTextus Receptus   (TR), a collation of manuscripts by Erasmus during the Reformation. When it was decided to make translations from original Greek texts rather then from the Latin Vulgate, this became the basis of early English translations up to and including the AV in 1611.
3. The third player in the drama is what is known as the Alexandrian text type  ; this includes Codex Sinaiticus   and Codex Vaticanus   (used by Westcott and Hort   in 1881) and consists of a smaller number of much earlier manuscripts which take us much closer to the original texts. It is this group of manuscripts which are sensationalised as introducing the differences from earlier manuscripts, and these are the basis of all modern translations.

read more: http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/hunting-for-the-text-of-the-new-testament/