How does the BYZANTINE TEXTFORM compar with other

[christ_undivided]

I was under the impression that Mark was early, and possibly the first written Gospel.

There is zero evidence for that claim. Zero. It is total conjecture based largely upon a less to more argument. Which ironically, is contrary to what everyone seems to accept here.

Mark abandoned the faith and caused Paul to separate from Barnabas. The idea he wrote his work years before Luke is ridiculous to me.

Anyone care to make the argument for Marcan priority?

If the Truth be known, there are many such false claims that very few people challenge any more.

There is meaning difference between the so called Synoptic Gospels. Seriously, think for a moment. Who would of thought that multiple people detailing the historical narrative of Jesus Christ would of said similar things? That is what good witnesses do. They all have the common narrative called truth.

Luke said very clearly that MANY had taken to task to set forth an orderly account. I believe Luke. He wasn't just talking about Mark and Matthew.

 

[Shoonra]

There is zero evidence for that claim. Zero. ......

Anyone care to make the argument for Marcan priority?

From Hugh J. Schonfield's The Authentic New Testament (London 1955), page 3 (preface to [Gospel of] Mark):

The oldest extent account of the life and teaching of Jesus is that which is attributed to Mark, doubtless the John Mark of Jerusalem mentioned in the Acts of the Envoys [Acts 12:25], who is credited with evangelizing Egypt. By a second century writer, Papias of Hierapolis, he is said to have acted as Peter's interpreter, and to have written down afterwards as accurately as he could remember what Peter had related in his addresses of the things said and done by Jesus. Papias explains that Mark was not attempting 'an orderly narrative', that is to say to write a book in the ordinary sense.

 

[Conan]

I thought i read that most thought Mark wrote first. Others that Matthew did. And an even smaller number thought Luke wrote first.

 

[christ_undivided]

From Hugh J. Schonfield's The Authentic New Testament (London 1955), page 3 (preface to [Gospel of] Mark):

What evidence is to be found in what you quoted? It is simply an empty claim based on conjecture. I gave you reasons as to why Luke is better and Mark is late. John Mark abandoned the faith. Mark had to regain respect among his peers. There no way that he gain such in a short amount of time. Luke never lost his respect among those who accepted the teachings of Paul. Which is the vast majority of Christianity in the first century.

Marcan priority is utter nonsense. Nothing but conjecture.

 

[christ_undivided]

I thought i read that most thought Mark wrote first. Others that Matthew did. And an even smaller number thought Luke wrote first.

I've spent significant time researching such claims. You'll be surprised just how empty such claims are. I believe Luke. He wrote....

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke felt to need to CORRECT some of the false information that was being distributed. He did just that.

 

[christ_undivided]

I thought i read that most thought Mark wrote first. Others that Matthew did. And an even smaller number thought Luke wrote first.

I be clear, I am saying that there were competing narratives about the life of Jesus during the explosion of Christianity in the 1st Century. Luke, very early on, sought to combat this during his life under the influence of Paul. Not that we need any witness from Paul himself. Paul, himself, was well aware of the life of Jesus Christ.

We know that there have been many competing narratives of the life of Christ. Many more than just "Matthew, Mark and John".

I reject the silliness involved with most of the attempts to say Mark, Matthew and Luke are based upon one another. It is ridiculous. There were MANY taking to task to tell others about Christ. Many letters and narratives. Most have not survived but we do have the words of Luke detailing "MANY" were involved. I believe Luke, Mark or Matthew either one..... would have referenced the others. They didn't.

The people that try to sell this nonsense are looking to sell books and "make a name for themselves". It is nothing more than 18th century nonsense. It is a ridiculous effort to minimize and mock the efforts of good men to preach Christ.

Most of these same people don't actually believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke or John were the actual writers themselves.