RE: Compositional anaylsis of the Gospel of Mark
December 19, 2012 at 8:52 am
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2012 at 8:53 am by Jackie.)
I hate the title of the thread, to me this vernacular, "Compositional anaylsis". If we all know holy books are mere comic books do not fuel the believer by using such implied academic phrases.
Why do we need a fancy way of saying we are merely doing a book review, especially one that is no better or real than Batman or Superman?
Language is a code, and while we can and should have a more elevated way of communication than "See Spot Run", I find it better to talk in laymens terms when it comes to holy books and simply call them what they are. You don't need to get past even the first page of the bible to know it is a myth.
So as far as my review of Mark, it deserves no more special weight than any other book in the bible. A person back then wrote some shit, probably believed it, copied the ideas from other writers, added and subtracted shit, and successfully marketed it.
Ultimately there was no magic baby or magical death. There were people who wrote shit and sold it because they wanted it to be true.
Why do we need a fancy way of saying we are merely doing a book review, especially one that is no better or real than Batman or Superman?
Language is a code, and while we can and should have a more elevated way of communication than "See Spot Run", I find it better to talk in laymens terms when it comes to holy books and simply call them what they are. You don't need to get past even the first page of the bible to know it is a myth.
So as far as my review of Mark, it deserves no more special weight than any other book in the bible. A person back then wrote some shit, probably believed it, copied the ideas from other writers, added and subtracted shit, and successfully marketed it.
Ultimately there was no magic baby or magical death. There were people who wrote shit and sold it because they wanted it to be true.
