That is not how it works because the Byzantine text type has way more representatives simply because in the eastern empire the common people were allowed to have the scriptures in their private possession, (i.e. local congregations and their congregation heads throughout the eastern empire). Because of that fact the Byzantine types were copied and reproduced thousands of times more than the Western text type during a period of about a thousand years. Thus the tendency for error to be introduced in the Byzantine types, and thus likewise, the reason for the overwhelming quantity of manuscript and fragment evidence supporting the Byzantine text type. This is meaningless when it comes to which is more reliable because the older manuscripts are primarily where the readings do not agree with the majority Byzantine types. "Majority" thus means nothing more than quantity, because it does not reflect any superior quality whatsoever, and rather increases the opportunity for private doctrine and error to creep into the text over such a lengthy period of time. In the west, (Rome, Europe), the common people, for a very long period of time, were not allowed to have the scriptures in their possession, and therefore, since the scripture was only in the hands of "the church" elite, the Western text type is less common but older. In essence your argument is for quantity but such notion misrepresents the reality because mere quantity does not suggest what you assume. Instead what it more likely suggests is that more people like yourself, who believed that "Jesus is God Almighty", copied and copied and copied the Byzantine text type, over and over, so many times in the eastern empire that your doctrine slowly eventually crept into the text. But that quantity does not make your stance correct because all of your quantity is more recent than the minority which refute your stance.
No one having drunk old wine desires new, for he says, "The old is Chrestos!" :chuckle:
