Regarding the genre of GMark, believers beliefs are generally believed to be related to the believer's beliefs:
- 1) All = GMark has more Greek Tragedy (GT) influence relative to the other Gospels.
2) Most = GMark has some elements of GT.
3) Some = GMark has significant elements of GT.
4) The Elect = GMark is GT.
The Way to a GT conclusion a farther question comes up:
Was GMark intentionally written as anti Greco-Roman Biography?
This question is already justified in general considering that the only known significant Christian author before
"Mark" was Paul and either Paul's primary point or at least one of them was that his source was revelation and
not human history. GMark likeunwise has the same primary/significant point. For both the significance is that
belief based on revelation is faith = good and belief based on human history is evidence = bad.
Various authors, primarily Christian, have attempted to determine the genre of GMark, and predictably the most
direct relationship found as a result of their studies is not between the evidence and their conclusion but
between their conclusion and their level of belief. This Thread then will directly compare the main elements of
generally accepted specific Greco-Roman Biographies with GMark and based on the results wonder/marvel/ruminate
regarding The Question here = Did "Mark" (author) intentionally construct an anti Greco-Roman Biography?
Note then that this study is offensive in nature and not defensive. For those who need points sharply explained
what is important here is not what GMark has in common with Greco-Roman Biography, but what it lacks and
One of the most famous and straight up Greco-Roman Biographies is Plutarch The Life of Romulus
so that's what we will be comparing first.
The New Porphyry