External factor
In the research process, there is often an unsolvable alternative that blocks the possibility of further mapping out the research path. The research community is divided into two groups that continue their research independently. Until someone can confirm or deny something. Let me repeat - two parallel and equivalent research processes are being carried out until the resolution is reached.
But you can't come to terms with it. You bet in a coin toss.
When I look at Mark's priority arguments, the same textual arguments are repeated, but other textual arguments are also omitted. Because they don't fit the chosen scenario.
Marek may intentionally try to give his gospel a primal character by using bizarre primitive language techniques, but he does it inconsistently, as noted by synopsa.pl
Mark sometimes uses Luke's specific language. On the other hand, Marek is a master of composition and sophisticated techniques.
The composer of this story has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience. The author used classical rhetorical techniques to create emphasis and to develop themes that would otherwise not be so apparent. Itercalatian, chiastic structures, framework structures are used by the man who begins a sentence with "kai".
A similar literary construct may be the obsession with the fall of the Temple, which, according to various scholars, depends on Matthew's less dramatic testimony.
We do not know the goals and intentions of the author of the text. He is a ghost writer who has to be better to win. His goal may be to give his work the appearance of seniority over others. Here is the only true, original message about the earthly Jesus and the rest are a brazen plagiarisms. Message created by witness not by professional.
Well done since everyone is falling for it so far.
The external determining factor cannot be replaced. It's time to come to admit it.
In the research process, there is often an unsolvable alternative that blocks the possibility of further mapping out the research path. The research community is divided into two groups that continue their research independently. Until someone can confirm or deny something. Let me repeat - two parallel and equivalent research processes are being carried out until the resolution is reached.
But you can't come to terms with it. You bet in a coin toss.
When I look at Mark's priority arguments, the same textual arguments are repeated, but other textual arguments are also omitted. Because they don't fit the chosen scenario.
Marek may intentionally try to give his gospel a primal character by using bizarre primitive language techniques, but he does it inconsistently, as noted by synopsa.pl
Mark sometimes uses Luke's specific language. On the other hand, Marek is a master of composition and sophisticated techniques.
The composer of this story has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience. The author used classical rhetorical techniques to create emphasis and to develop themes that would otherwise not be so apparent. Itercalatian, chiastic structures, framework structures are used by the man who begins a sentence with "kai".
A similar literary construct may be the obsession with the fall of the Temple, which, according to various scholars, depends on Matthew's less dramatic testimony.
We do not know the goals and intentions of the author of the text. He is a ghost writer who has to be better to win. His goal may be to give his work the appearance of seniority over others. Here is the only true, original message about the earthly Jesus and the rest are a brazen plagiarisms. Message created by witness not by professional.
Well done since everyone is falling for it so far.
The external determining factor cannot be replaced. It's time to come to admit it.
Skip the text analysis for now and just look at the technical inconsistencies. Here is the simple language of the street combined with a sophisticated composition. Plain street language with exceptions and intentional errors sometimes used and sometimes not. The author deliberately hides his professionalism. For what? i don't know. Maybe customer request, maybe to make his writing older than it really is
The Venn graph for the synoptic gospels clearly shows that their development followed simple editorial rules. The triple tradition is content that has been appreciated by all editors. This is not the oldest content, as is commonly assumed, but the most popular. Double traditions are content accepted by two. And individual choices. Klinghardt proved that the assumption that Mark is the oldest is unnecessary to achieve the same effect. The Limited Luke-Mark-Matthew-Canonical Luke sequence works in the same way and produces the same effects. So how to choose? An external criterion. The first to use the gospel systemically was Marcion. His gospel is Limited Luke (60%). that's where it started - the rest of the model is the same as the Mark-Matthew-Canonical Luke consensus.
I'm not talking about historical value, just that the model of dating the gospels and the relationship between them assumes one of the options of an irresolvable alternative. Option based on the assumed goals of the Author. To me, that's a mistake. Mark is secondary. Priority cannot be determined by content alone. The intentional efforts of the author to achieve such an effect can be relatively simple and effective
(my bold)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151