Mr. A. C. Clark

Gaius, an orthodox Father who wrote between A.D. 175 and 200, names Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonides as heretics who prepared corrupted copies of the Scriptures and who had disciples who multiplied copies of their fabrications.[2]
...
Fifty years ago a Hortian might have insisted that John 10:31 also has a "Syrian conflation," but now that P66 moves the "Syrian" reading back to 200 A.D. a different interpretation is demanded.
...
From Origen to Macarius Magnus the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 A.D. it is back up to 2:1.[101] Please note that the Traditional Text was always ahead, even in the worst of times.
...
I made a toilsome examination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order to draw a self-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D., with the result that the Traditional Text is found to stand in the general proportion of 3:2 [this is 60%, precisely as Peter Johnston verified-see footnote 101] against other variations, and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test passages.
...
Taking the Greek and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before A.D. 400, their quotations are found to support the Traditional Text in 2,630 instances, the "neologian" in 1753.
...
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered.
...
After this careful screening Miller still came up with 2,630 citations, from 76 Fathers or sources, ranging over a span of 300 years (100-400 A.D.), supporting readings of the "Byzantine" text as opposed to those of the critical text of the English Revisers (which received 1,753 citations).
...
Each of the early Papyri (300 A.D. or earlier) vindicates some "Byzantine" readings.G.
...
The whole question of interpolations in ancient MSS has been set in an entirely new light by the researches of Mr. A. C. Clark, Corpus Professor of Latin at Oxford. . . . In The Descent of Manuscripts, an investigation of the manuscript tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics, he proves conclusively that the error to which scribes were most prone was not interpolation but accidental omission. . . . Hitherto the maxim brevior lectio potior . . . has been assumed as a postulate of scientific criticism.Clark has shown that, so far as classical texts are concerned, the facts point entirely the other way.[149]

Gaius, an orthodox Father who wrote between A.D. 175 and 200, names Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonides as heretics who prepared corrupted copies of the Scriptures and who had disciples who multiplied copies of their fabrications. [2]
...
6:12. Fifty years ago a Hortian might have insisted that John 10:31 also has a "Syrian conflation," but now that P 66 moves the "Syrian" reading back to 200 A.D. a different interpretation is demanded.
...
From Origen to Macarius Magnus the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 A.D. it is back up to 2:1. [101] Please note that the Traditional Text was always ahead, even in the worst of times.
...
I made a toilsome examination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order to draw a self-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D., with the result that the Traditional Text is found to stand in the general proportion of 3:2 [this is 60%, precisely as Peter Johnston verified-see footnote 101] against other variations, and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test passages.
...
Taking the Greek and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before A.D. 400, their quotations are found to support the Traditional Text in 2,630 instances, the "neologian" in 1753.
...
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered.
...
After this careful screening Miller still came up with 2,630 citations, from 76 Fathers or sources, ranging over a span of 300 years (100-400 A.D.), supporting readings of the "Byzantine" text as opposed to those of the critical text of the English Revisers (which received 1,753 citations).
...
Each of the early Papyri (300 A.D. or earlier) vindicates some "Byzantine" readings.
...
The whole question of interpolations in ancient MSS has been set in an entirely new light by the researches of Mr. A. C. Clark, Corpus Professor of Latin at Oxford. . . . In The Descent of Manuscripts , an investigation of the manuscript tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics, he proves conclusively that the error to which scribes were most prone was not interpolation but accidental omission. . . . Hitherto the maxim brevior lectio potior . . . has been assumed as a postulate of scientific criticism. Clark has shown that, so far as classical texts are concerned, the facts point entirely the other way. [149]

The whole question of interpolations in ancient MSS has been set in an entirely new light by the researches of Mr. A. C. Clark, Corpus Professor of Latin at Oxford…In the Descent of Manuscripts, an investigation of the manuscript tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics, he proves conclusively that the error to which scribes were most prone was not interpolation but accidental omission …Hitherto the maxim brevior lectio potior… has been assumed as a postulate of scientific criticism.Clark has shown that, so far as classical texts are concerned, the facts point entirely the other way.

It is strange because the naturalistic critics themselves have shown each of the principles listed above to be defective, and yet in a greater or lesser way they still embrace it.Under no circumstance will they return to the Received Text! We see the same thing regarding the theory of evolution.Science has disproved it at each point but would not dare return to Biblical Creationism.What spirit does the reader see at work here.