100 Eve-Marie Becker While the first genitive-object in Mk 1:1 (touq euöaggelißou) might be best understood as a genitivus qualitatis or a genitive of ‘Inhalt’ or ‘Zweck’54, the second genitive-object acts in relation to the first genitive as a genitivus subiectivus or obiectivus or auctoris55. The decision about the precise function of the genitive is hard to make56. Mt 1:1 is immediately followed by the beginning of the genealogy (Mt 1:2ff.; cf. also Gen 5:1LXX) which is mentioned before (geneßsevw), and which is, moreover, semantically directly connected with Mt 1:1 through the lexeme §Abraaßm (Mt 1:1, 2). The introductory construction in Mk 1:2a (kajv?w geßgraptai), however, is not explicitly connected to Mk 1:1 even if 1:2a might act cataphorically, i.e. it points to Mk 1:2b, as well as anaphorically, i.e. it refers to Mk 1:1. At the same time Mk 1:1 can hardly be subdivided from 1:2f., because it is an elliptic sentence that is in need of being continued. Thus, there are certain possibilities for relating Mk 1:1 to its micro-context (1:2-4).57 All in all, Mk 1:1 and Mt 1:1 are similar regarding their formal structure and can both be subdivided from their particular micro-context (Mk 1:2ff.; Mt 1:2ff.)58. Both verses act as a ‘Buchüberschrift’59, even if further literary functions cannot be excluded. Finally, the semantic meaning and literary function of aörxhß in Mk 1:1 need to be discussed: If we follow J. K. Elliott in interpreting aörxhß in the Gospel of Mark as a “temporal expression”60, aörxhß can – first of all – not be understood as a ‘mythical element’61. Secondly, we should ask: 54 Cf. F. Blass/A. Debrunner/F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen 182001) §165ff. 55 Cf. also Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 33. It has to be discussed if “der Genitiv... das Subjekt oder Objekt des Evangeliums bezeichnet”, Gnilka, Das Evangelium Bd. 1, 43. 56 “Die Unterscheidung zwischen objektivem und subjektivem Genitiv ist letztlich – ähnlich Apk 1,1 (aöpokaßluyiw §Ihsouq Xristouq) – grammatisch kaum zu treffen“, Becker, Markusevangelium, 105. 57 Cf. O. Wischmeyer, “Zitat und Allusion als literarische Eröffnung des Markusevan- geliums“, J. Jacob/M. Mayer (eds.), Im Namen des anderen. Die Ethik des Zitierens (Ethik – Text – Kultur 3; München 2010), 175-188, 179, n. 28: „(1.) 1,1 ist ein selbständiger Satz… 1,2-4 stellt ein Satzgefüge dar… (2.) 1,1.2 und 3 bilden ein Satzgefüge… (3.) 1,1 ist der selb- ständige elliptische Titelsatz. 1,2 und 3 bilden ein Satzgefüge. V. 4 bringt den erzählenden Neueinsatz”. Cf. to this already: A. Wikgren, “ARXH TOU EUAGGELIOU”, JBL 61 (1942) 11-20; Clayton Croy, “Where the Gospel Text Begins”, esp. 110f. 58 Recently in difference to this: Wischmeyer, “Zitat”. 59 In regard to Mt 1:1 the question was raised, if this verse acts as a ‘Buchüberschrift’ to the overall Gospel story or simply to Mt 1, cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 1. Teilband. Mt 1-7 (EKK I/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn5 2002) 117ff. 60 J. K. Elliott, “Mark and the Teaching of Jesus. An Examination of LOGOS and EUAG- GELION”, W. L. Petersen etc. (Eds.), Sayings of Jesus. Canonincal and Non-Canonical. Essays in Honour of T. Baarda (NT.S 89; Leiden etc. 1997) 37-45, 43. 61 This was suggested by P.-G. Klumbies, Der Mythos bei Markus (BZNW 108; Berlin/ New York 2001) 303ff.