The following is the Conclusion of the book, "The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism" by Harry A. Sturz (Pages 129-130).
This book gave me a very new and very interesting understanding of how we have received the New Testament as we have it today.
Conclusion
Westcott and Hort reasoned that the Byzantine text was made through an editorial process by using previously existing Western and Alexandrian texts. They argued that because the "Syrian" text was late, edited, and therefore secondary in origin, it should not be used as evidence in textual criticism of the New Testament.
Burgon and Hills, on the other hand, sought to controvert the WH theory by maintaining that the Byzantine text was the providentially preserved text; for this reason the Byzantine text was not secondary but primary. They referred to it as the "Traditional" text, the one which has descended in unbroken procession from the original because it was preserved by God's special care. In their opinion, the peculiar evidence for the primacy of the Byzantine text is its overwhelming superiority in numbers. For Burgon and Hills, the Alexandrian and Western texts are corruptions of the "Traditional" text and are therefore untrustworthy for the recovery of the original.
The thesis that the Byzantine text is primary was examined and felt to be unacceptable because its main argument rest on what appears to be a mis-use of the doctrine of God's providence. It thus excludes from use other types of text witch, in the providence of God, have also been preserved.
The thesis that the Byzantine text is late, textually mixed, and therefore holy secondary in form, though it has been supported by the apparently imposing arguments of conflate readings, patristic silence, and an appeal to intrinsic character, is now inadequate to account for the data which has accumulated since the days of Westcott and Hort.
Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early. They have been shown to be early by evidence which is more certain than citation by early Father's. The argument from conflation was found to be inadequate, not only because it is now known that such readings are early, but also because it is now realized that this type of reading is not confined to the Byzantine text. It is found in others also, including the Alexandrian. Finally, now that more is known about the language milieu of the New Testament, its Semitisms and Koine style are no longer evidence for editing as they seemed to be in the days of WH.
If the cumulative force of the evidence presented sufficiently justifies the two affirmations: 1) the Byzantine readings are early, and 2) the Byzantine text is unedited in the WH sense, then the conclusion which follows logically is that while the Byzantine text is neither primary or secondary, it is independent. That is to say, since it is not made from the Alexandrian and Western text, it is not dependent upon them in its attestation of early readings. Therefore, it constitutes an additional, geographically unrelated witness to second-century readings, along with the Western and Alexandrian text-types. Since it is not the only type of text whose testimony recedes into the obscurity of the second century, it cannot be treated as "primary." However, if it is not "secondary" but "independent" in its attestation to early readings, it appears reasonable to conclude that the Byzantine text should be given equal weight, along with the Alexandrian and "Western" texts, in evaluating external evidence for readings.