Let the reader understand... Again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ernst Haenchen in Der Weg Jesu, pp 447-48, on how Mark 13:19 can be understood as the worst time ever . . .

After depicting a situation where Christians will be required to flee for their lives without warning whenever the emperor's representative comes in to set up the image of the emperor and requiring sacrifice. The "day x" is unpredictable. The stress is therefore constant. The escape must be made immediately, no matter if pregnant, in winter, etc. "Today we know only too well the experiences of refugee treks, how such an escape can look."
V.19 beruhrt sich so eng mit Dan 12,1, daß deutlich wird: mit diesem Geschehen wird sich fur Mk die danielische Weissagung erfullen. V.20 beschreibt indirekt das Furchtbare dieser Verfolgungszeit: wenn Gott nicht - seinen Erwählten zuliebe - die (Zahl der) Tage verkurzt hätte, würde niemand gerettet werden - auch keiner der Erwählten! Das ist freilich unlogisch: ein Erwählter, der nicht gerettet wird, ist eine contradictio in adjecto. Aber der Ausdruck soll eben die alles Maß übersteigende Größe der" Trübsal" schildern, und das gelingt ihm gut.

Wenn man sich vor Augen stellt, daß die Christen in solchem Falle von einer Minute zur andern, ohne alle Vorbereitung fluchten mussen, im Gebirge oder in der Einöde den Unbilden der Witterung ausgesetzt, womöglich von Häschern des heidnischen Staates gejagt, dann ist die Überzeugung des Mk, daß sie das nicht lange aushalten könnten, keineswegs phantastisch, sondern durchaus realistisch. Und Vorbereitungen kann man nicht treffen, weil der "Tag x" der Verfolgung eben nicht bekannt ist, sondern völlig unbestimmt!
Google translation with minimal human assistance:

V. 19 touches so closely with Daniel 12:1 that it becomes clear: With all of this happening the Daniel prophecy will be fulfilled for Mark. V. 20 indirectly describes how terrible will be this time of persecution: If God had not for the sake of his chosen ones shortened the number of days nobody would have been saved, none of the chosen would be saved.

Of course that's illogical. An elected person who is not saved is a contradiction in terms. But the expression is just to describe the magnitude of the tribulation, and the author succeeds well.

If you imagine that in such a case the Christians' lives is subject to change from one minute to the next, without having time to prepare, to the mountains or the wilderness, exposed to the rigors of the weather, possibly hunted by the pagans of the pagan state, then the conviction of Mark, that they could not stand it long, is not at all fantastic but quite realistic. And you cannot make preparations because "day x" of the persecution is not known, "undefined".
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by gmx »

Ok, so it was a worthwhile question, in any case. Mark 13 is pretty much impenetrable, despite many interesting, supportable, and heavily conflicting theories. A bit like the totality of Mark, but exaggerated.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben Smith wrote:
So I take it you feel that the pericope about the abomination of desolation and the tribulation to trump all tribulations, while describing the same situation as the previous pericope, does at least describe a special case of that situation, correct? Normally, there is not much one can do against relatives who secretly decide to betray you or local authorities who, on a whim (since, as you say, persecution was sporadic), decide to haul you into court. But, when the provincial governor is on his way to town (a circumstance often followed by demands of worship to Caesar), this is something that you can "see" (verse 14) and flee, correct?

If I am interpreting your position aright, what does this do to the "time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning," nor ever shall? Does this tribulation begin at one time in one town and at another time in another town, depending upon the schedule of the governor? It even seems like it could happen in one decade in Italy, in another decade in Macedonia, and in yet another decade in Phrygia. Is this how you read it? Or is there supposed to be, on your reading, a more concentrated period which overall could be described as the greatest tribulation of all time?

I ask because I take "those days" (of tribulation) in verse 19 (notice the γάρ) to be the same exact period as "those days" (of hardship for mothers) in verse 17, and "those days" in verse 17 relate directly to the flight once one has seen the abomination of desolation being set up. So, if there are many different possible flights in many different towns over the course of years or decades, then the greatest tribulation of all time would seem to be an oddly repeatable event.

Is that how you read the tribulation period here, as a repeatable event, or do you have some way of consolidating it into a single, Danielic period of time which can stand on its own as (allegedly) the greatest such period in history? And, if you do have some way of consolidating it like that, how do you do so without ignoring the textual connections between the tribulation period itself and the specific moment when flight becomes the recommended option?
I think Mark regards all Christians as living in the last times (as did Paul some decades earlier; e.g. 1 Cor. 7.26, 29, 31; 1 Thess. 4.15, 17, 5.2-3) preceding the immanent second coming of Christ. If my interpretation (or Haenchen’s interpretation as explicated by me) is correct, then Mark must have at least heard of Roman trials of Christians and knows that sort of thing goes on in his present. I wouldn’t want to draw a hard and fast distinction between the last times and the time of tribulation – they are broadly overlapping.

I suppose that the appearance of the “abomination of desolation” in Mark 13.14, which I have interpreted to denote compulsory worship of Caesar and the gods on pain of death, could be called a “special case” of the same situation described in the previous pericope (Mark 13.9-13), but I think that would be a bit misleading. I see an extensive overlap between the two, though they are not strictly synonymous. In particular, Mark 13.12, “Brother will betray brother to death … ” would seem to require that capital cases, and hence Roman governors, are involved. While Mark is aware of rifts within families (Mark 3.21, 10.29-30), I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. I would suggest that 13.12 is probably best understood as Christians naming or locating other Christians under Roman interrogation rather than family members settling grudges. In Polycarp’s case, his location was disclosed by slaves of his household rather than blood relatives, but the principle is the same. (I’d have to do some digging to provide other examples). But Polycarp’s case shows that one can flee and still be handed over for trial and bear witness before governors. And when brother is betraying brother to death, we’re already in the tribulation. The tribulation is not some worse period following that.

As for the greatest tribulation of all time being an “oddly repeatable event,” I don’t see why it should seem odd that the tribulation is experienced differently by different Christians in different places. Mark 13.9: “they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them,” seems to presuppose that the audience will understand that their individual experiences will vary. The author of Mark does not expect to be taken as claiming that each individual Christian will be beaten in a synagogue and stand before a governor or a king. He expects his readers to interpret what he says in light of both their individual experiences and what they have heard is going on with other Christians elsewhere.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:43 am Ben Smith wrote:
So I take it you feel that the pericope about the abomination of desolation and the tribulation to trump all tribulations, while describing the same situation as the previous pericope, does at least describe a special case of that situation, correct? Normally, there is not much one can do against relatives who secretly decide to betray you or local authorities who, on a whim (since, as you say, persecution was sporadic), decide to haul you into court. But, when the provincial governor is on his way to town (a circumstance often followed by demands of worship to Caesar), this is something that you can "see" (verse 14) and flee, correct?

If I am interpreting your position aright, what does this do to the "time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning," nor ever shall? Does this tribulation begin at one time in one town and at another time in another town, depending upon the schedule of the governor? It even seems like it could happen in one decade in Italy, in another decade in Macedonia, and in yet another decade in Phrygia. Is this how you read it? Or is there supposed to be, on your reading, a more concentrated period which overall could be described as the greatest tribulation of all time?

I ask because I take "those days" (of tribulation) in verse 19 (notice the γάρ) to be the same exact period as "those days" (of hardship for mothers) in verse 17, and "those days" in verse 17 relate directly to the flight once one has seen the abomination of desolation being set up. So, if there are many different possible flights in many different towns over the course of years or decades, then the greatest tribulation of all time would seem to be an oddly repeatable event.

Is that how you read the tribulation period here, as a repeatable event, or do you have some way of consolidating it into a single, Danielic period of time which can stand on its own as (allegedly) the greatest such period in history? And, if you do have some way of consolidating it like that, how do you do so without ignoring the textual connections between the tribulation period itself and the specific moment when flight becomes the recommended option?
I think Mark regards all Christians as living in the last times (as did Paul some decades earlier; e.g. 1 Cor. 7.26, 29, 31; 1 Thess. 4.15, 17, 5.2-3) preceding the immanent second coming of Christ. If my interpretation (or Haenchen’s interpretation as explicated by me) is correct, then Mark must have at least heard of Roman trials of Christians and knows that sort of thing goes on in his present. I wouldn’t want to draw a hard and fast distinction between the last times and the time of tribulation – they are broadly overlapping.

I suppose that the appearance of the “abomination of desolation” in Mark 13.14, which I have interpreted to denote compulsory worship of Caesar and the gods on pain of death, could be called a “special case” of the same situation described in the previous pericope (Mark 13.9-13), but I think that would be a bit misleading. I see an extensive overlap between the two, though they are not strictly synonymous. In particular, Mark 13.12, “Brother will betray brother to death … ” would seem to require that capital cases, and hence Roman governors, are involved.
So Mark 13.14 represents, on your reading, a command to flee when the time comes for the Roman governor to come to town to judge capital cases which will probably involve compulsory worship of Caesar. But Mark 13.9-13 represent, on your reading, an overlapping period of time during which the Roman governor may also be present, judging capital cases. Is that correct?

If so, does the command to flee in verse 14 apply (retroactively, in a textual sense) to the capital cases described in verses 9-13? In other words, should those Christians, according to Mark, being rounded up in verses 9-13 already have fled so as to avoid standing capital trial before the governor?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ken Olson »

So Mark 13.14 represents, on your reading, a command to flee when the time comes for the Roman governor to come to town to judge capital cases which will probably involve compulsory worship of Caesar. But Mark 13.9-13 represent, on your reading, an overlapping period of time during which the Roman governor may also be present, judging capital cases. Is that correct?
Yes, with two qualifiers. First, it's speaking of a situation in which they have reason to believe the governor is instituting proceedings against Christians, not just that he's in the same town or that he's trying capital cases. Second, I should clarify that the overlapping of Mark 13.9-13 and Mark 13.14-20 has to do more with with content than with periodization. Mark 13.14-20 concerns official Roman persecution, while Mark 13.9-13 includes that and also local trouble with town councils and synagogues. They're talking about the same period of time.
If so, does the command to flee in verse 14 apply (retroactively, in a textual sense) to the capital cases described in verses 9-13? In other words, should those Christians, according to Mark, being rounded up in verses 9-13 already have fled so as to avoid standing capital trial before the governor?
They are encouraged to flee in such circumstances, yes, in the way that Polycarp did.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:23 am
So Mark 13.14 represents, on your reading, a command to flee when the time comes for the Roman governor to come to town to judge capital cases which will probably involve compulsory worship of Caesar. But Mark 13.9-13 represent, on your reading, an overlapping period of time during which the Roman governor may also be present, judging capital cases. Is that correct?
Yes, with two qualifiers. First, it's speaking of a situation in which they have reason to believe the governor is instituting proceedings against Christians, not just that he's in the same town or that he's trying capital cases. Second, I should clarify that the overlapping of Mark 13.9-13 and Mark 13.14-20 has to do more with with content than with periodization. Mark 13.14-20 concerns official Roman persecution, while Mark 13.9-13 includes that and also local trouble with town councils and synagogues. They're talking about the same period of time.
If so, does the command to flee in verse 14 apply (retroactively, in a textual sense) to the capital cases described in verses 9-13? In other words, should those Christians, according to Mark, being rounded up in verses 9-13 already have fled so as to avoid standing capital trial before the governor?
They are encouraged to flee in such circumstances, yes, in the way that Polycarp did.
Suppose the governor comes to town in an official capacity against Christians, and the Christians flee to another town; then the governor (or another governor) comes to that town in the same capacity, and they flee again. It seems that, to your eye, this is all part of the same overall tribulation period, and that particular cadre of Christians has simply obeyed the command to flee twice now. If so, then this is what I meant about the tribulation period being oddly repeatable; it has nothing to do with that period of time affecting different Christians differently, which is the direction in which you took my statement; it has to do with it literally being possible that it could happen more than once. I cannot see any convincing way in the text to link the "tribulation to end all tribulations" to the general period in which Mark and his readers are living; it applies specifically to that time when flight is prescribed ("those days"), and I feel like I would be bending the text well past the breaking point to read it as anything other than a one-time-only, especially nasty affair. I find this to be my position regardless of whether I include or exclude verses 9-13 as original to their context.

And I already feel like I am stretching the text considerably too far in reading the answer to the disciples' question about the fall of the temple indirectly in verse 7 (the "wars and rumors of wars") rather than directly in the parts that actually count for something in the discourse; and in reading the "abomination of desolation," famously an historic desecration of the Jerusalem temple, as having nothing to do with the Jerusalem temple precisely in a context in which people are asking about the Jerusalem temple; and in reading verses 9-13 as including scenarios which could/should have been avoided by obeying verse 14, without the text itself in any way backtracking to make such a connection; and in reading "those in Judea" as "Christians in all parts of the empire."

Those are my main obstacles, I suppose, for better or for worse.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:36 am Suppose the governor comes to town in an official capacity against Christians, and the Christians flee to another town; then the governor (or another governor) comes to that town in the same capacity, and they flee again. It seems that, to your eye, this is all part of the same overall tribulation period, and that particular cadre of Christians has simply obeyed the command to flee twice now. If so, then this is what I meant about the tribulation period being oddly repeatable; it has nothing to do with that period of time affecting different Christians differently, which is the direction in which you took my statement; it has to do with it literally being possible that it could happen more than once. . . .

[/quote]

Not to speak for Ken, but to my mind the problem raised here does not arise in Haenchen's reading, p. 448:
Wenn man sich vor Augen stellt, daß die Christen in solchem Falle von einer Minute zur andern, ohne alle Vorbereitung fluchten mussen, im Gebirge oder in der Einöde den Unbilden der Witterung ausgesetzt, womöglich von Häschern des heidnischen Staates gejagt, dann ist die Überzeugung des Mk, daß sie das nicht lange aushalten könnten, keineswegs phantastisch, sondern durchaus realistisch. Und Vorbereitungen kann man nicht treffen, weil der "Tag x" der Verfolgung eben nicht bekannt ist, sondern völlig unbestimmt!

If you imagine that in such a case the Christians' lives is subject to change from one minute to the next, without having time to prepare, to the mountains or the wilderness, exposed to the rigors of the weather, possibly hunted by the pagans of the pagan state, then the conviction of Mark, that they could not stand it long, is not at all fantastic but quite realistic. And you cannot make preparations because "day x" of the persecution is not known, "undefined".
Fleeing multiple times is not multiple fulfillments of the vaticinium ex eventu prophecy but all part of the time (singular extended period) of tribulation.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:36 am Those are my main obstacles, I suppose, for better or for worse.
Is it possible that these obstacles arise from a confusion between symbol and the symbol's referent. Mark 13's symbols drawn from Daniel and 1 Maccabees ought not be interpreted any more literally than, say, the various symbols in Revelation.

Sorry, Ken. I interrupted.....
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, and these are just some notes for me to compare what Josephus says about the Fourth Philosophy and what Jesus says in Mk. 13. There appear to be some interesting similarities. I'm not thinking that perhaps Mark knew Josephus (but I suppose it's not impossible), just thinking that what Jesus says seems to fit the 6 CE to 70 CE Fourth Philosophic climate that Josephus describes.

Ant. 18.1.1:
All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people ... and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
Mk. 13:5-23:
As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

“If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
War 2.13.3-6:
When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

Now when these were quieted, it happened, as it does in a diseased body, that another part was subject to an inflammation; for a company of deceivers and robbers got together, and persuaded the Jews to revolt, and exhorted them to assert their liberty, inflicting death on those that continued in obedience to the Roman government, and saying, that such as willingly chose slavery ought to be forced from such their desired inclinations; for they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up and down the country, and plundered the houses of the great men, and slew the men themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled with the effects of their madness. And thus the flame was every day more and more blown up, till it came to a direct war.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by John2 »

After assessing all this, it looks to me like Jesus is referring to (other) Fourth Philosophic messiah-types and the uprisings and famine and such that occurred leading up to the destruction of the Temple that Josephus describes.

And I've looked at a few commentaries about "the reader" and have stopped looking because it seems simple to me (and I think someone has already suggested it on this thread). This is Jesus -not Mark- saying, "let the reader [i.e., of Daniel, re: the abomination that causes desolation] understand [i.e., what the abomination that causes desolation is or means]."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Let the reader understand... Again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:32 pmAnd I've looked at a few commentaries about "the reader" and have stopped looking because it seems simple to me (and I think someone has already suggested it on this thread). This is Jesus -not Mark- saying, "let the reader [i.e., of Daniel, re: the abomination that causes desolation] understand [i.e., what the abomination that causes desolation is or means]."
That does seem simple. Too simple for me, given that "let the reader understand" sounds like it should not be quite that simple. You and I both have pointed out in various ways how very Danielic the time period in question was. Mark rarely names or points out the scriptural sources of other allusions in his gospel; why this one? Could it have been any clearer already that "the abomination of desolation" was an allusion to Daniel and to 1 Maccabees?

This is why I think the answer lies in the middle somewhere: not so simple as to render "let the reader understand" unnecessary; not so difficult that deciphering it becomes an open-ended lateral thinking puzzle. My own interpretation is not the only one possible by any means, but at least I think it lands in this middle "sweet spot," so to speak.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply