94 Eve-Marie Becker sic interest in the Markan theology rather than in Literarkritik20. Bacon obviously chooses the term ‘prologue’ without any deeper terminological or methodological reflection, i.e. simply synonymously to “Vorgeschich- te”21. He fills out the term in regard to its theological content22, and does not reflect the literary implications and consequences of using such a terminology.23 Thus, the term ‘prologue’ is Bacons own terminological invention, created simply as a theologically-filled synonym to ‘Vorge- schichte’. Similar ideas may also be in the background of more recent schol- arly tendencies24: By characterizing Mk 1:1-15 as a ‘prologue’, scholars like Klauck intend to avoid questions of Literarkritik and studies in the Synoptic sources, and instead try to put the Gospel of Mark, in its final literary form, into the frame of ancient drama and rhetorics25. This ap- proach, however, has certain consequences for the interpretation of the Markan Gospel. It leads to a specific literary valuation of Mk 1:1-15, that is expressed e.g. by Detlev Dormeyer26, who represents the idea that the Markan Gospel as a whole might be best classified as a part of the ancient bios-literature. Thus, the Gospel of Mark is interpreted as a biographical writing that is opened up in 1:16 and introduced by a certain literary prologue that contains a biographical double-structure, consisting of an introduction into John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ missions. We will come back to this discussion. 20 “In dealing systematically with the question of the Sources and Structure of Mk. it becomes needful at the outset to frame” the “idea of the evangelist’s distribution of his material”, Bacon, “Prologue”, 86f. 21 Bacon, “Prologue”, 88. 22 The “prologue describes first the Elijan Forerunner and his Prophecy of the Christ (§1, 1 1-6, 7-8), then Messiah’s Anointing and Endowment with the Spirit (§2, 1 9-11), lastly (§3, 1 12-13) the Testing of his Power”, Bacon, “Prologue”, 88f. 23 Nowadays this terminology also occurs e.g. within Matthean exegesis: Cf. U. Luz, Matthew 1-7. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2007) 71-73 discusses also the beginnings of Mt 1-4 in respect to the ‘prologue’-terminology. 24 Cf. e.g. D. Dormeyer, „Mk 1,1-15 als Prolog des ersten idealbiographischen Evan- geliums von Jesus Christus“, BI 5 (1997) 181-211; D. Dormeyer, Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener (SBB 43; Stuttgart2 2002) 22; G. Guttenberger, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (BZNW 123; Berlin/New York 2004) 55ff. 25 Cf. Klauck, Vorspiel im Himmel?, 35ff. 26 Mark has in his prologue ”nicht nur mit dem Einsetzungsbericht, sondern auch mit der Kontrastierung der Hauptfigur mit dem Vorgänger die alttestamentliche Tradition der Biographie aufgegriffen“, D. Dormeyer/H. Frankemölle, “Evangelium als literarische Gattung und als theologischer Begriff. Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums in seinem Verhältnis zur antiken Biographie“, ANRW 2.25.2 (1984) 1543-1704, 1588.