Mk 1:1 and the debate on a ‘Markan prologue’ 99 3. Exegetical observations on Mk 1:1-3 So far we have argued for taking Mk 1:4 as the starting-point of the Markan narration. Hence, we need to look at Mk 1:1-3 specifically in order to interpret and classify its literary function as the opening pas- sage of the Markan Gospel. In order to do so, we will summarize the controversial points of the exegetical analysis of Mk 1:1-351: How is the introductory part of the Markan Gospel defined, struc- tured, and subdivided (1:1 and 1:2-13/15; 1:1-3; 1:1-13 or 1:1-15)? How is it separated from and affiliated to its micro-context (Mk 1:2ff.; 1:4ff.; 1:14ff. or 1:16ff.)? How is this introductory part classified terminologically (‘Einlei- tung’/introduction, ‘Vorgeschichte’, ‘Anfang des Evangeliums’, preface, initium, exordium, prooemium/prooißmion, ‘Buchüberschrift’, prolo- gue)? How do these classifications interfere with the overall literary (e.g. biography, novel, historiography) and/or theological interpretation of the Markan Gospel? (a) The literary separation of Mk 1:1 In difference to Lk 1:1 and John 1:1, Mk 1:1 is – similar to Mt 1:1 – an uncompleted, or better, elliptic close that consists of a subject (aörxhß) with probably two52 sequential genitive-objects. Such a kind of an elliptic sentence is not repeated in the Markan or Matthean Gospel-narratives later on. Thus, Mk 1:1 has a special structure and, certainly, a specific literary function53. Mk 1:1 Mt 1:1 aörxh? Bißblow touq euöaggelißou geneßsevw §Ihsouq Xristouq §Ihsouq Xristouq [uiÖouq jeouq] uiÖouq Daui?d uiÖouq §Abraaßm. 51 Problems of textual criticism to Mk 1:1, however, will not be discussed in this paper. Cf. to this the different approaches of e.g.: A. Yarbro Collins, “Establishing the Text. Mark 1:1”, T. Fornberg/D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts. The Function of Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts (Oslo 1995) 111-127; N. Clayton Croy, “Where the Gospel Text Begins. A Non-Theological Interpretation of Mark 1:1“, NT 43 (2001) 105-127, 106-110. 52 Concerning my remarks to textual criticism in Mk 1:1 cf. Becker, Markus-Evangeli- um, 103 note 139. 53 To the literary subdivision of Mk 1:1 cf. also Clayton Croy, “Where the Gospel Text Begins”, 110-115. I am, however, hesitant to take Mk 1:1 as a “post-Markan gloss” (114). – To a semantic analogy to Mk 1:1 in the Priene Calendar Inscription (OGIS 458) cf. C. A. Evans, “Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription. From Jewish Gospel to Greco- Roman Gospel”, JGRChJ 1 (2000) 67-81.