Eve-Marie Becker, «Mk 1:1 and the Debate on a 'Markan Prologue'», Vol. 22 (2009) 91-106
On the basis of observations to the syntactical structure and the literary style of Mk 1:1-15 as well as to the literary genre of the Markan Gospel, this paper questions those concepts of subdividing Mk 1 according to which Mk 1:1-13/15 is classified as a 'Markan prologue'. It is argued instead, that already Mk 1:4 opens up the Gospel narration and that only Mk 1:1-3 has to be regarded as a literary unity: Mk 1:1-3, however, is in no case part of a 'Markan prologue' or a 'prologue' in itself. These verses are rather more to be understood as a prooemium to the overall prose-text of the Gospel narrative, consisting of a 'Buchüberschrift'/title (1:1) and an opening introductory close (1:2-3).
102 Eve-Marie Becker
of pre-Markan traditions about John the Baptist (cf. also e.g. Mk 1:4ff.).
The creation of the mixed-quotation (1:2b and 1:3) on the one hand, and
the connection of 1:2b, 3 with the opening clause in 1:2a on the other
hand, might be redactional67. Thus, the Gospel writer Mark becomes as
a literary author very much visible behind Mk 1:1-3, while in 1:4ff., he
obviously follows the lines of pre-Markan narrative traditions68. Never-
theless, we should avoid classifying e.g. Mk 1:1-3 as a ”Prolog im Prolog“69
here because of the above mentioned difficulties in applying terminology,
which derives from tragedy and epic, to a prose text. Besides, the question
remains, if Mk 1:1 stands for itself, or if it is connected to 1:1-3, or if it
should even be related to 1:1-13/15.
(c) Classification – The literary function of Mk 1:1
How could we proceed from here? Several observations can be made:
(1) Mk 1:1 is polyvalent and therefore – in a certain sense – does stand
by itself.
(2) As an elliptic sentence, however, Mk 1:1 has to be completed, at
least if we refuse to take it as a post-Markan, i.e. a secondarily included
‘manuscript marker’70. It has to be related to Mk 1:2-371.
(3) Mk 1:1-3 has to be subdivided from Mk 1:4ff.: In 1:4 the actual
Markan narrative of the ‘history of events’ obviously starts.
(4) There is no further division visible within the Gospel narration
– neither after Mk 1:13, nor after 1:15.
How can we then relate Mk 1:1 to its micro- and macro-context in Mk
1? Scholars have presented at least three ideas. According to these, Mk
1:1 could function in different ways:
a) as an inscriptio (‘Buchüberschrift’)72 and/or title or initiium/incipit
for the whole Gospel narrative73;
b) as a title for Mk 1:1-13/1574;
67
Cf. Becker, Markus-Evangelium, 245.
68
Cf. E.-M. Becker, “‚Kamelhaare... und wilder Honig’. Der historische Wert und die
theologische Bedeutung der biographischen Täufer-Notiz“, R. Gebauer/M. Meiser (Hg.), Die
bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums, FS O. Merk (MThSt 76; Marburg 2003) 13-28.
69
Feneberg, Markusprolog, 195.
70
Cf. again Clayton Croy, “Where the Gospel Text Begins”, 119-125. – Clayton Croy
bases his ideas on the judgment: “the beginning of Mark’s Gospel is defective” (119). My
aim, however, is to interpret the Markan beginning as an intended literary opening.
71
Cf. also Meyer, Kommentar, 12f.
72
Cf. LXX-traditions such as e.g: Tob 1:1; Prov 1:1; Eccl 1:1.
73
C. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK 1/2; Göttingen15 1959) 10: Mk 1:1
is “Überschrift und Vorrede zugleich… Die Überschrift bezieht sich… nicht auf das Buch eines
Evangelisten, sondern auf das Geschehen des Evangeliums“. Cf. also G. Arnold, “Mk 1 1 und
Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften“, ZNW 68 (1977) 123-127.
74
Cf. e.g. Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 33.
FOLLOW US