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).
92 Eve-Marie Becker
to be such a ‘prologue’3. The classification of either Mk 1:1-13 or 1:1-15
as such a ‘prologue’ obviously derives from the works done by Wolfgang
Feneberg (1974)4 and –later on– Hans-Josef Klauck (1997)5. Especially
since Klauck’s monograph was published, the term ‘prologue’ seems to
be standard in Markan exegesis6. Thus, we find the ‘Markan-prologue-
concept’ echoed e.g. in Joel Marcus’7 or Camille Focant’s8 recent com-
mentaries. More recently, Adela Yarbro Collins takes Mk 1:1 separately
and defines Mk 1:2-15 as a ’narrative introduction’9, but without using
the term ‘prologue’ here.
If the ‘Markan prologue’-concept is more or less 30 years old and very
successfully renewed by Klauck in 1997, we should ask: How could Pesch
already in the middle of the 1970’s have claimed that the term ‘prologue’
has been used “seit langem”10? When we look into the history of research
we see that the ‘Markan prologue’-concept basically has two roots: (1)
It is based on various suggestions for subdividing Mk 1 into Mk 1:1-
13 or 1:1-15. This approach derives from the general research about the
Synoptic Gospels: In the 19th century, scholars like Heinrich Julius Holtz-
mann not only tried to solve the ‘synoptic problem’ and to reconstruct
the synoptic sources behind Mark, Matthew and Luke11, but they also
separated the Markan pericopes according to the synoptic parallels in
Matthew and Luke12. This structure was certainly initiated by Johann
3
Cf. R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford 1950) esp. 15-16. Light-
foot uses here the term ‚prologue’ and ‚introduction’ equivocally. That confuses Markan
scholarship, as becomes evident in H.-J. Klauck, Vorspiel im Himmel? Erzähltechnik und
Theologie im Markusprolog (BThSt 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997) 19 esp. notes 21 and 22. –
Cf. also: I. Broer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Band I. Die synoptischen Evangelien,
die Apostelgeschichte und die johanneische Literatur (NEB Ergbd. 2/I; Würzburg 1998) 73f.
4
Cf. W. Feneberg, Der Markusprolog. Studien zur Formbestimmung des Evangeliums
(StANT 36; München 1974).
5
Cf. Klauck, Vorspiel im Himmel? Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, Mark. A Commentary
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2007) 134 note 1, who states: “Hans-Josef Klauck has made an
excellent case for the literary unity of 1:1-15”.
6
Cf. U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; Göttingen 62007) 246
defines here Mk 1:1-15 as a prologue.
7
Cf. J. Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AncB 27; New York etc. 2000) 137ff.
8
Cf. C. Focant, L’évangile selon Marc (Commentaire Biblique. Nouveau Testament 2;
Paris 2004) esp. 53.
9
Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 133ff.
10
See above. Pesch does not give a reference for that statement.
11
To the synoptic problem cf. in general: U. Schnelle, “Synoptische Frage”, RGG4 7
(2004) 1978-1984. – To the history of research concerning the Gospel of Mark cf. Dormeyer,
Markusevangelium, esp. 11-30.
12
Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament. Erster Band. Erste
Abtheilung. Die Synoptiker (Tübingen/Leipzig3 1901) 111ff. Cf. also H. J. Holtzmann, Die
synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig 1863) 67ff.,
where Holtzmann reconstructs the Markan composition („Urmarcus“).
FOLLOW US