96 Eve-Marie Becker exordium – a so-called ‘para-text’32. In difference to other para-texts (e.g. prooemium or exordium), such a prologue, in ancient literature, ought to be used in drama or epic texts33. Thus, Aristotle defines oÖ proßlogow as a meßrh of a tragedy that consists of: proßlogow, eöpeisoßdion, eäcodow, xorikoßn (poet 12:1452b). Here the proßlogow is a passage introducing the tragedy right before the paßrodow of the choir (poet 13:1452b: eästin de? oÖ proßlogow me?n meßrow oÄlon tragv#dißaw to? pro? xorouq paroßdou)34. While a prooemium also occurs in connection to prose-texts35, prologues are not known at all in the field of prose36. So, if we use the prologue- term, as Feneberg and Klauck suggest37, we need to ask carefully: Does this term implicate that the Markan Gospel should be understood as a ‘drama’ or an ‘epic text’38, rather than as a ‘prose-text’? Or are we simply re-defining terminology that derives from diverse literary and/or rhetori- cal traditions when we define parts of Mk 1 as a ‘prologue’?39 If we take the ancient literary terminology seriously, we cannot use the term ‘prologue’ for defining a para-text in the field of prose-litera- ture, such as the Markan Gospel. Thus, we should better use ‘Einleitung’/ introduction or ‘Vorgeschichte’, if we like to characterize Mk 1:1-13/15 32 Cf. K. Haberkamm, “Prolog“, Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Bd. III, hg. v. J.-D. Müller (Berlin/New York 2003) 163-166, 163. – Cf. in general: G. Genette, Paratexte. Das Buch vom Beiwerk des Buches. Mit einem Vorwort von H. Weinrich. Aus dem Französischen von D. Hornig (stw 1510; Frankfurt 2001) 10: „Der Paratext ist… jenes Beiwerk, durch das ein Text zum Buch wird und als solches vor die Leser und, allgemeiner, vor die Öffentlichkeit tritt“. Cf. also: B. Moennighoff, “Paratexte“, Grundzüge der Litera- turwissenschaft, hg. v. H. L. Arnold/H. Detering (München 1996) 349-356. 33 Cf. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Litera- turwissenschaft (Stuttgart3 1990) 786f. Cf. also Haberkamm, “Prolog”, 163. – Consequently, the term ‘prologue’ is actually not existent in New Testament scholarship cf. D. E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament & Early Christian Literature & Rhetoric (Louisville/London 2003), who instead uses correctly: preface, exordium, prooimion etc. 34 Cf. also B. Zimmermann, “Prolog“, DNP 10 (2001) 398-400, 398. 35 Cf. also Haberkamm, ”Prolog”, 164. 36 In the case of Ben Sira, the inscriptio: proßlogow just occurs in some manuscripts (e.g. B, A), while others e.g. use prooißmion (…) (e.g. 443s). 37 See above. 38 Cf. to an epic understanding of Mark: D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven/London 2000). 39 If we look at the earliest reception history of the Gospels we can find, that on the one hand the addition of inscriptiones indicates that there was an obvious need for giving titles to the different books: Cf. M. Hengel, Die Evangelienüberschriften (SHW.PH 1984.3; Heidelberg 1984). Cf. lately: S. Petersen, “Titel II. Neutestamentlich“, O. Wischmeyer et al. (eds.), Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik. Begriffe – Methoden – Theorien – Konzepte (Berlin/ New York 2009) 602. On the other hand the phenomenon of the so-called anti-Marcionite prologues (cf. J. Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe [Vetus Latina 6; Freiburg 1969]) tells something about the style and literary function of ‘prologues’ as such.