OK. But on some parts I request you to not be sentimental when analyzing. E.g. the issue of viShNu-avatArahood to kR^iShNa. Indeed, after reading the life of kR^iShNa in MBh, and that in bhagavatpurANa, one can not escape realizing that this viShNu-avatAra status is a later addition to kR^iShNa with retrospect effect. kR^iShNa of mahAbhArata and rAmachandra of rAmAyaNa are God-like-Heroes and Hero-like-Gods independently in themselves, without depending upon viShNu to come in their form.
On revisions/redactions, mahAbhArata mentions internally about its own specific revisions and enlargement. some purANa-s, IIRC vAyu, mention of how MBh was revised on some occasions too. That is natural. MBh is supposed to be itihAsa, the history, therefore worth revising/appending.
On revisions/redactions, mahAbhArata mentions internally about its own specific revisions and enlargement. some purANa-s, IIRC vAyu, mention of how MBh was revised on some occasions too. That is natural. MBh is supposed to be itihAsa, the history, therefore worth revising/appending.