Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Remember Jon Jon. How Mary Cried The Night They Found Him De

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:12 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:28 pm
JW:
From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

15:21
And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross. (ASV)
15:21

,
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
29 [e] angareuousin ἀγγαρεύουσιν they compelV-PIA-3P
3855 [e] paragonta παράγοντά passing by V-PPA-AMS
5100 [e] tina τινα one, IPro-AMS
4613 [e] Simōna Σίμωνα Simon N-AMS
2956 [e] Kyrēnaion Κυρηναῖον [1]of Cyrene, N-AMS
2064 [e] erchomenon ἐρχόμενον coming V-PPM/P-AMS
575 [e] ap’ ἀπ’ from Prep
68 [e] agrou ἀγροῦ, the country, N-GMS
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
3962 [e] patera πατέρα father N-AMS
223 [e] Alexandrou Ἀλεξάνδρου of Alexander N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
4504 [e] Rhouphou Ῥούφου, Rufus, N-GMS
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
142 [e] arē ἄρῃ [2]he might carry V-ASA-3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν [3]cross N-AMS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ. of him. PPro-GM3S

Textual Criticism:
[1]No genitive form here. The better translation is "Simon Kyrenian".

[2]The better translation is "take up".

[3]"Cross" is anachronistic. The better translation is "stake".

Reaction of ancient witness:

John 19:17

http://biblehub.com/text/john/19-17.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
941 [e] bastazōn βαστάζων [3]bearing V-PPA-NMS
1438 [e] heautō ἑαυτῷ [2][his] own RefPro-DM3S
3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS
4716 [e] stauron σταυρὸν cross, N-AMS
1831 [e] exēlthen ἐξῆλθεν he went out V-AIA-3S
1519 [e] eis εἰς to Prep
3588 [e] ton τὸν the [place] Art-AMS

Commentary:
[1]"John" (author) exorcises "Simon" completely thus removing all fictional sounding (so to speak) elements ("Simon Kyrenian", coming from the country, defined by sons and having sons with a Greek and Latin name).

[2]"John's" Jesus carries his own dead weight. A straight-forward narrative would have no reason to add that he carried his own cross since that was standard for crucifixion. "John's" mention than sounds like a reaction to "Mark".

[3]"John" has replaced "take up" with the literal sounding "bear".

In summary, for the offending verse, "John" has transformed "Mark" into an even more historical sounding, less fictional sounding verse than "Matthew"/"Luke". Perhaps that was "John's" intent.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6260

ϥⲓ: bear, carry, take. Its a bit of all, and it's interesting that they copy the stauros as well

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: ThAlma and BetuLouise

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:50 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:52 am
JW:
In The Beginning

Mark 1:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
746 [e] ArchēἈρχὴ [The] beginning N-NFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GNS
2098 [e] euangeliou εὐαγγελίου gospel N-GNS
2424 [e] Iēsou Ἰησοῦ of Jesus N-GMS
5547 [e] Christou Χριστοῦ Christ, N-GMS
5207 [e] Huiou Υἱοῦ Son N-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ. of God. N-GMS

JW:
Many unorthodox items here, even by Markan standards, but starting at the beginning... Note that "Mark" (author) begins his Gospel with the word "begin". Usage of the Greek definite article does not have rules as strict as the English definite article but I have faith that starting with an anarthrous noun here would be considered unorthodox (Ben?). So is this style or slop? It seems like quite a coincidence to me to that the word that begins the Gospel is "begin". [sarcasm]And of course GMark does not also have an unorthodox ending[/sarcasm].

I find it interesting that there is something of a parallel in Hosea:

Hosea 1:2

Str Translit HebrewEnglish Morph
8462 [e] tə-ḥil-laṯ תְּחִלַּ֥ת The beginning Noun

Note that the offending Hebrew word "תְּחִלַּ֥ת" (beginning) also lacks the definite article. Hebrew definite article usage is more like the English than the Greek. I also note with great interest (but less evidence) that Hosea here has a primary context that is reMarkably similar to a primary theme of GMark. A figurative relationship between God and Israel with a non-traditional father. So too does GMark show a figurative relationship between God and Jesus with a non-traditional father.

Regarding this thematic development in Christianity, it looks to me like it would go something like this:

Paul
  • 1. No mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus was born of a woman
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God
Conclusion at the time = Jesus' traditional father was either unknown or unimportant.

"Mark"
  • 1. No mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = Jesus' traditional father was either unknown or unimportant.

Original GMatthew (no virgin birth)
  • 1. Explicit mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = While GMark is confirmation of Paul, GMatthew is contradiction. Implication that Jesus did not have a traditional father is undone by Explicits that he did.

Edited GMatthew (virgin birth)
  • 1. Explanation of why Jesus' lacked traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = Reconciliation with Paul/GMark. Agreement that Jesus did not have a traditional father but negation of possible reason that Jesus was a Marmzer.


Joseph

The Strange Chapter Of Dr. Jewkyll And Mr. Hymn - Day 2
It is the best refutal of Thomas, who started the whole euanggelion thing (in my theory), and who is full of beginning and end.
Note his different uses of the Greek loanword ⲁⲣⲭⲏ (logion 18, 3 times) and the ordinary Coptic ϩⲏ (logion 19, 21, 84, 103), and the verb ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ in logion 109 - whenever Thomas uses Greek he's on to something "meta"

18. say(s) the(PL) Disciple to IS : tell it as-regards we : we end she/r will come-to-be within what? manner say(s) IS did you(PL) uncover Indeed outward the(F) Beginning in-order-that you(PL) will seek-after the(F) end : in the place who/which the(F) Beginning therein the(F) end will come-to-be therein a(n) Blessed he-who will stay to foot he in the(F) Beginning and he will know the(F) end and he will take taste not of death

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:56 am

robert j wrote:
Sun May 29, 2016 9:19 am
outhouse wrote:And last, "good news" was a term used by Romans already before the gospels existed.
OK, but the statement is superficial. Looking to the Greek (the language of the early extant Christian writings) --- various forms of euangeli- as nouns, verbs and adjectives are found occasionally in non-Christian literature of the times, including the LXX.

However, can you cite even just one example of the noun in the singular, neuter occurring with the article --- to euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον --- before Paul?

“The gospel” --- to euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον --- seems to have been a construction crafted by Paul to designate --- not a written biographical account of Jesus --- but rather his “announcement of good news” --- his system that allowed Gentiles to become full participants with the god of Israel, without the benefit of circumcision.

The author of gMark apparently picked-up the construction from Paul.

Can you cite even one use of the noun in the singular, neuter with the article --- to euangelion, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον --- outside of the NT and other Christian works prior to single occurrence in the works of Plutarch (writing late 1st C. to early 2nd C. CE)?

note: edited to revise date range of the writings of Plutarch.
https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/20.jpg

The link provided by outhouse is dead by the way

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Exploratory Post = The Cup of Power

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:58 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:53 am
JW:
Will no one stay awake with me? Peter, Ben, KK?

Does "Mark" (author) create chiasms based on key words?:

# Verse Commentary
1 7:4
and [when they come] from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
Ritual cleaning = Physical
2 -----9:41
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ`s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Physical reward of cup
3 ----------10:38
But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
The question
4 ----------10:39
And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
The answer
5 -----14:23
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
Spiritual reward of cup
6 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Ritual cleaning = Spiritual

JW:
To my eyes "Mark's" usage of the offending word looks contrived. Two usages in the physical part of the Gospel, the Healing Ministry, both usages physical. Two usages in the transitional part of the Gospel, from the Healing Ministry to the Passion Ministry, "on the way" to Jerusalem. Both uses transitional, question and answer. Two usages in the spiritual part of the Gospel, the Passion Ministry, both usages spiritual. No other usage of the word.

Bonus material for Solo = And who was the only significant Christian author before "Mark" who advised to always swear a cup for spiritual protection before going into spiritual activity.


Joseph

The Strange Chapter Of Dr. Jewkyll And Mr. Hymn - Day 1
You should read all of Dick Harfield, starting with https://www.academia.edu/12106716/A_Pro ... k_s_Gospel

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Turn Off Your Mind

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:58 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:50 am

It is the best refutal of Thomas, who started the whole euanggelion thing (in my theory), and who is full of beginning and end.
Note his different uses of the Greek loanword ⲁⲣⲭⲏ (logion 18, 3 times) and the ordinary Coptic ϩⲏ (logion 19, 21, 84, 103), and the verb ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ in logion 109 - whenever Thomas uses Greek he's on to something "meta"

18. say(s) the(PL) Disciple to IS : tell it as-regards we : we end she/r will come-to-be within what? manner say(s) IS did you(PL) uncover Indeed outward the(F) Beginning in-order-that you(PL) will seek-after the(F) end : in the place who/which the(F) Beginning therein the(F) end will come-to-be therein a(n) Blessed he-who will stay to foot he in the(F) Beginning and he will know the(F) end and he will take taste not of death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNbHn3i9S4

JW:
The Gospel of Thomas
(18)
(1) The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
(2) Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end?
For where the beginning is, there the end will be too.
(3) Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning.
And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."
It's interesting how well this coordinates with the original ending of GMark/Paul:

16
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.[a]
You are told that Jesus was resurrected and there is no historical witness that is promoting this. You have to choose whether or not to believe based only on faith. If you choose to believe based on revelation then the ending of GMark is the beginning of your belief that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And that is how Paul begins and ends.

Regarding your likely correct conclusion that the original Jesus witness was GThomas/Q and was still Judaism and not Christianity, deductive reasoning like that found in Foundation and Empire (for those familiar with the Classics) is the best we can do:

Historical Jesus witness is like a giant Jewsaw puzzle. The only pieces we can be certain of placement are the Impossible claims which form the borders -
  • 1. We can be certain that Jesus did nothing impossible.

    2. We can be certain that witness to Jesus did not witness anything impossible.

    3. It's improbable that witness to Jesus wrote that they witnessed Jesus doing significant impossible because they did not.

    4. It's improbable that witness to Jesus witnessed that they witnessed Jesus doing significant impossible because they did not.

    5. It's unlikely that non-witness to Jesus wrote that Jesus did significant impossible based on witnesses to Jesus.

    6. It's possible that non-witness to Jesus wrote that Jesus did significant impossible and was not based on witnesses to Jesus.
The above is more valuable historical evidence than anything and everything most supposed Bible scholars have written on the
subject, including Skeptics like Ehrman, and especially for those who have an assumption of being neutral on claims of the
impossible. It moves all related conclusions in the direction of fiction, such as the improbable, unlikely, contrived and possible.

Disclaimer - for those who need points sharply explained/tend to Strawmen = The above is Literary Criticism and not Source
Criticism so it does not prove that non-impossible claims are fiction. Far from it. It's just quality evidence against the conclusion
that they are history (uncertainty).


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Turn Off Your Mind

Post by mlinssen » Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:59 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:58 pm

Disclaimer - for those who need points sharply explained/tend to Strawmen = The above is Literary Criticism and not Source
Criticism so it does not prove that non-impossible claims are fiction. Far from it. It's just quality evidence against the conclusion
that they are history (uncertainty).


Joseph

Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?
I never understood all the differences in all the approaches to criticism, they all get applied in the same way: you read something in a text that magically fits your existing theory by interpreting it

But yes, Ehrman just makes money off Jesus, he'll drag it out as long as he can. Tell Kloppenborg that Q is a hoax and get him to agree with that so he can kiss goodbye his entire career? Tell DeConick anything and she'll just ignore you and continue her fortune telling on Thomas. And so on. Crossan? Comfortably jammed in between the Catholic tit and the Liberal one, and they both are fat enough to last him for ages

And those are the good guys, supposedly

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

A Framework Structure of GMark

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:38 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:58 am

You should read all of Dick Harfield, starting with https://www.academia.edu/12106716/A_Pro ... k_s_Gospel
JW:
At this point, I will introduce and explain the proposed framework structure for Mark’s Gospel, based on the parallel structure outlined in the following table:

A John explains the coming of Jesus (Mark 1:1-8)

B The baptism of Jesus (1:9)

C The voice of God from heaven, "Thou art my beloved son" (1:11)

D The forty days in the wilderness as an allusion to Elijah and Moses (1:13)

E The people were astonished at what Jesus taught (1:22)

F Jesus casts out an unclean spirit (1:23-26)

G Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians how they might destroy Jesus (3:6)

H Demons, whenever they see Jesus, fall down and say that he is the Son of God.Jesus commands that they tell no one of this (3:11-12)

I Jesus calls the 12 disciples (3:13-19)

J Jesus rejects his own family: he has a new family, his followers (3:31-35)

K Jesus rebukes the wind (4:36-41)

L The demoniac, wearing no clothes (5:15), cries out that Jesus not torment him and Jesus sends out the demons (5:1-20)

M Jesus comes into his own country (6:1)- Where he was brought up

N The people misunderstand Jesus and he can do no mighty work (6:2-6)

O Jesus sends out the disciples and curses those who will not receive them (6:7-11)- in sending the disciples with authority and expecting all to receive them, Jesus is asserting his own authority

P Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead (6:14)

Q Herodias and her daughter conspire to kill John the Baptist (6:16-29)

R Feeding the thousands, and related miracles and discourses (6:31-8:21)

S Who do people say that I am (8:27)

T Peter affirms faith in Jesus as the Christ (8:29)

U Whosoever shall be ashamed of me: of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed (8:38)

V The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and scribes (8:31a)

W Be killed and after three days rise again (8:31b)

X Prophecy of second coming (9:1)
- Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw the kingdom of God coming with power.

B The Transfiguration of Jesus (9:2-3)

C The voice of God from heaven, "This is my beloved son" (9:7)

D Jesus talks to Elijah and Moses then to the disciples about Elijah (9:4-13)

E A great multitude was amazed at Jesus (9:15)

F Jesus cast out a dumb spirit (9:17-27)

G Jesus says they shall kill the Son of man and he shall rise on the third day (9:31)

H Jesus clarifies his divine status, saying that he is not God: "Why call me good? There is none good but God"(10:18)

I Peter says the disciples have left all and followed Jesus (10:28)

J Those who have left their family for Jesus have a new family: all Jesus' followers (10:29-30)

K Jesus rebukes the 'sons of thunder', James and John (10:35-45 - cf 3:17)

L Blind Bartimaeus cries out for mercy and casts off his clothes, then Jesus heals him (10:46-52)

M Jesus comes into Jerusalem (11:1-10)- Where he will die

N Jesus misunderstands the fig tree that can provide no fruit (11:13-14)

O Jesus casts out them that sold and bought in the Temple and curses them for making the Temple a den of thieves (11:15-17)- Jesus is asserting his authority

P Jesus asks whether the baptism of John is from heaven or of men, and the priests, scribes and elders can not answer (11:30-33)

Q Parable of husbandmen who conspire to kill the vineyard owner's son (12:1-9)

X Prophecy of second coming (chapter 13)
- on clouds of glory, within the lifetimes of some of those to whom he was speaking

R The Last Supper (14:17-25)

S Art thou the Christ, Son of God (14:61)

T Peter denies Jesus three times (14:66-72a)

U And when he thought thereon, Peter wept (14:72b)

V The chief priests, elders and scribes delivered Jesus to Pontius Pilate (15:1)
- Delivering Jesus is a similar concept to rejecting him.- Both parts of the pair involve chief priests, elders and scribes

W Jesus dies and on the third day rises again (15:37, 16:6)

A The young man explains the departure of Jesus
(16:6-8)

Pair A
Pair A defines the scope of the gospel. The opening event informs the audience of Jesus’ arrival, and when the second event is narrated they know the gospel has ended (16:6-8). The ‘Long Ending’ continues the gospel as verses 16:9-20 and describes the appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and to the eleven, but this is generally accepted as not forming part of Mark’s Gospel as originally written and, of course, does not fit into the frame work structure of Mark.
JW:
Great stuff. Thanks.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A Framework Structure of GMark

Post by mlinssen » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:42 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:38 pm
Skeptical Textual Criticism
64. (...) they-who you summon they to the Dinner did they Beg-off say(s) the slaveowner to his slave : go to the part outside to the(PL) path they-who you will fall as-regards they bring they in-order-that they will make-be Dine the(PL) man-who buy with the(PL) trader they will go-inward not to the(PL) Place of my father

Love your blog post, and yes, I said just as much in my most recent paper on the three words Jesus spoke to Thomas.
A word means what it means in the moment it gets written down. I'm sure that many Germans liked to adjust their feelings towards Hitler during or after WW II, and if they hadn't written those down it would have been much easier to do

I believe the first Markan Jesus to be as rebellious and offensive as his role model, the IS of Thomas. The entire scene is just to demonstrate logion 64 and other logia that show his aversion of "Sales" in general

Needless to say that it didn't support the much softer image that evolved afterwards, and now even the Ehrmans of this world have joined the pack

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Two Women Enter. Two Women leave.

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:18 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM

JW:
A Proposed Framework Structure of Mark’s Gospel
K Jesus rebukes the wind (4:36-41)
...
K' Jesus rebukes the 'sons of thunder', James and John (10:35-45 - cf 3:17)
...
Pair K
Jesus rebukes the wind (4:36-41); Jesus rebukes the ‘sons of thunder’ (10:35-45 - cf 3:17). Although events K and K' clearly form a pair, the reason for this pair is not immediately apparent. Mark uses the storm in event K to remind readers that James and John are the 'sons of thunder'. In event K', the author then associates the brothers with Castor and Polydeuces, sons of Zeus the thunderer, who were often portrayed as seated on the right hand and left hand of Zeus. By comparing the sons of thunder with the sons of Zeus Mark was, in the minds of first-century readers, comparing Jesus himself with Zeus, whom he will replace. Both members of the pair contain allusions to the Greek god Zeus. Zeus controls storms and wind, but Jesus takes on this role in event K. Event K` compares Jesus to Zeus
3
and James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder:
This connection has already Ben mentioned in these unholy Threads but should be mentioned here. Pretty, pretty good parallels between "Mark's" Jesus and Zeus.

Castor and Pollux

Even though for most of its history it would have been very bad for your health to publicly make this connection, perhaps more amazing than GMark's original ending is that not that Old MacDonald cites the origin of the identification to 1913. B, ba, bah, blah blah. I'm loving it.

This would seem to be another in a seemingly endless series of Markan anachronisms, a 30s Jesus in Israel having interest in Greek mythology.


Joseph

Errancy Wiki

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Ezekiel 25:17

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:35 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6YBKdmOlM8

JW:
Identified categories of fictional literary style by GMark:
  • 1) Use of names:

    2) Anachronistic Christian beliefs

    3) The use of numbers

    4) Extreme irony

    5) Communication with the reader

    6) Balanced but contrasting structure

    7) Communications at Text versus Sub-text level

    8) Use of transliteration as code

    9) Chiasms

    10) Intercalations

    11) Inclusios

    12) Thematic Groupings in Literary Blocks

    13) Triads or Sets of Threes

    14) Progressive heightening

    15) Use of “Literary Echoes” for retrospectives or foreshadowing

    16) Repetition of Key Words and Phrases

    17) Phrases repeated in close proximity
It would seem like the primary purpose of GMark was to maximize the fictional literary style. Since we can be certain that GMark is not
primarily history, that is evidence that the intent was not primarily historical. This leaves open the possibility that the primary intent
was to make fun of Christians/Jews or was just literary art. Or at least one of the intents.


Joseph

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

ErranyWiki

Post Reply