doctorzb

Well, strictly speaking the original post didn't mention that; I missed the one later where he made it clear that it did.

Hmmm, perhaps. Paul seems to make it clear that his credentials are true and he didn't lie about them, even if they are not valuable.

Yeah, but this guy asserts he will never become perfect, whereas it seems like, "I have not already.." to me implies "someday I will."

I agree with the dying be a gain, although even someone who believes in no afterlife would consider death a gain if it ends suffering.


I think I was unclear--Paul says "Brothers, be imitators together of me, and note those who walk this way" (Phil 3:17) but I get no impression that our unknown author desires to be imitated. I would agree with "pastiche of references" but as a paraphrase I'd consider it beyond "loose" because its purpose seems so completely different.

-Zac

Ecrasez L'infame

Too self-effacing for Paul. Even a fictional one. Which leaves...

BTW I disagree with the posters who think the writer isn't terribly good. On the contrary - it's a little old fashioned, and breaks the current rule of "show don't tell" taught at all creative writing classes (which, by coincidence, have yet to produce a Dostoevsky), and maybe it's translator could have tried a bit harder with the anachronisms if translation it be, BUT it does open out with perfect clarity another person's thoughts for us to consider and approve or reject - and isn't that what language is supposed to do? I think a very good writer indeed. (Except then - how come no one here knows him/her?)

judge

Where is Vork?
Says Spin.
Maybe Michael wrote it?

Gamera

Wll you please tell us where it comes from!

Chris Weimer

You guys aren't done yet. There's still more work to do.

spin

No. The ueber-use of chiasmus was what I was commenting on with regard to Vork, whose analysis of Mark highlighted the frequent use of chiasmus there.


spin

Ecrasez L'infame

Is it a dialogue between Chris and his evil twin brother?

spin

C'mon. There's no need for yet another smart-ass comment, is there?

I can see that you've already said some useful things in the thread. Chris isn't happy with what he's got so far, so the choice seems to me to be either give him more or give it a rest.

If you really truly and desperately must know who wrote the piece then what are you going to do with the literature that is our food here, of mostly unknown provenance?


spin

judge

Yes I'm aware you weren't indicating Vork, but with Vork's work on the use of Chiasmus it might have been quite interesting if it had been a dialogue he had written.
People have after all been wondering if it is a well known writer or just someone known to Chris. Chris does hint it is not well known in post #39.

People think it might be Chris himself, if Chris then why not Vork?

Mind you I think not in the light of Chris's comments, but it would have been an interesting twist in the light of Vorks chiasmus work, that all.

But maybe Chris himself is more likely as other have pointed out.

spin

It simply doesn't matter who wrote the text. It's what can be known just from what the text says.