To limit the early writers only to those who wrote before A.D. 200 is a little strange, to say the least. That is because, if we include Clement of Alexandria, who is right on the line, there are only 3 early writers with any substantial amount of quotations similar to the wording of what we have in the NT manuscript tradition (rather than mere allusions): Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement.
Clement wrote from Alexandria and used texts from there. Justin was Syrian but wrote from Rome and used some kind of harmony (like Tatian his pupil who also was Syrian). Irenaeus, although from Asia Minor, lived in Gaul and so used whatever texts were available there. What we find is that only Clement is more Alexandrian than anything else, but he also has many Western (and Byzantine) readings, while Justin and Irenaeus are decidedly more Western (and Byzantine) than Alexandrian. None of the three quotes a purely Byzantine, Alexandrian, or Western text, but they are, as an earlier poster said, "a mixed bag."
Byzantine text priorists argue that the situation of the three writers above is not unexpected due to their respective locations, i.e. Western text in Rome and Gaul, Alexandrian text in Alexandria. They also say that there is not enough evidence of any kind from the most important region of the early church, i.e. Asia Minor, since leaders there did not need or use any early versions (they used the NT's original language, Greek), and the many works of the theologians of that region (such as, e.g., those of Papias and Melito) have not survived the ravages of time. Thus Byzantine priorists put more emphasis on those Greek manuscripts themselves that are neither Alexandrian nor Western, i.e., Byzantine, arguing that they, which represent up to 90% of the Greek NT manuscript tradition, reflect a text earlier than the others and deriving from the only location (of the three) from which other early evidence is (accidentally) absent.
