Okay, everyone, I will say a little about myself. I'm a Virginian, married to a Floridian, and have a strong belief that THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN! Seriously now, came to know Christ at a young age. Father's a religion professor at a university in VA. Learned Greek under his instruction. Read the entire Bible in both the NIV and the KJV while in Junior High. Started noticing differences in the NT and my father had me read Burgon, Greenlee, Hodges, Kenyon, Nestle, Tregelles, Scrivener, Metzger, Aland. All these my Dad had in his office at home. Scrivener was my favorite as a gentleman, Burgon as a warrior. I understand the views of modern eclectics (pick & choose readings from among the "best" manuscripts), although am not persuaded by them. I agree that the best manuscripts should be followed, but disagree with modern eclectics as to what the best manuscripts actually are. Here's why: The lack of any reference to the church in Egypt before 180 is huge, as well as the historical fact that at precisely this time the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece. The first 150 years were by far the most important for the transmission of the Greek New Testament, because by the end of this time copies of the originals would have been multiplied exponentially where the church was the strongest (i.e. Asia Minor), and these mass of descendents would absolutely spell the future of the transmission of the Greek NT for centuries to come. Not until at or after this period around 180 does the church in Egypt appear, with Demetrius, then Clement, then Origen, etc. No doubt, we stand upon the shoulders of these giants, but, as the wild nature of the early Egyptian papyri shows, the text there was radically inconsistent. The text of the great uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is so much more consistent than the early papyri (with the odd exception of P75) that help from manuscripts elsewhere had to contribute to stabilizing the Egyptian text. The "fuller" manuscripts that were brought in to Egypt were not always followed, however, in keeping with the logical textual critical principles of those like Origen, and old "traditional" readings from the inconsistent papyri were often retained. The influence of the great Fathers of Alexandria helped spread the readings of their edited "critical" text through their commentaries and influential associations. The making of a national Coptic version was a huge editorial and recensional accomplishment, and heavily dependent upon the great minds of Alexandria. But the readings of the "fuller" manuscripts that were brought into Egypt to help reconstruct and stabilize the text could not be controlled. They lay scattered throughout all Alexandrian witnesses. Even the early papyri have many instances of disagreement with the great Egyptian uncials all while agreeing with what are now called the Byzantines. The influence of Egypt was great, but not enough to overcome earlier and predominating influence of the ever-growing descendents of the originals throughout the rest of the empire. And the rest is history. That's my crude summary of the early transmission of our New Testament, for those who care. Currently, my wife and daughter and I serve in a restricted country in East Asia. You may guess if you like, but if you discover my name, please be careful what you put in print or I'll be back in the good ol' USA real fast! Yours, Bluefalcon p.s. THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!