Mk 1:1 and the debate on a ‘Markan prologue’ 95 2. Critique of the ‘Markan prologue’-concept The ‘Markan prologue’-concept cannot simply be continued, but it needs to be evaluated critically. Certain aspects should be discussed here: (1) The term prologue can only be used if it is reflected precisely in terms of its hermeneutical implications. Robert A. Guelich is right by stating: “Behind the choice of terminology lies the basic question of the section’s relationship to the rest of the Gospel. Whereas ‘prologue’ and ‘preface’ connote a more self-contained section, ‘introduction’ and clearly ‘beginning’ signal a more integral relationship between this material and the rest of the Gospel. The answer ultimately lies in the significance of the opening verse”27. According to Guelich the choice of characterizing the introductory part is also relevant for defining its relation to the whole Gospel narrative. Mk 1:1 hereby plays an important role and acts as a key-verse – not only for chapter 1, but for the whole gospel. Erich Klostermann shows exemplarily how these different aspects of interpreting Mk 1:1ff. in its micro-context, and classifying it literarily, are related to each other: Klostermann (1907) votes – like e.g. Bernhard Weiss earlier28 or Ernst Lohmeyer later29 – for taking Mk 1:1-13 as a ‘Einleitung’ or ‘Vorgeschichte’30. Klostermann does not classify the intro- ductory part as a ‘prologue’, and at the same time avoids interpreting the Markan Gospel as a biographical writing. Thus, it seems that the choice of the above mentioned terminology (e.g. ’Vorgeschichte’, prologue etc.) is obviously correlated to the overall valuation of Mark’s literary genre. This indicates that those terms cannot simply be used interchangeably31. Additionally, the terminology for defining Mk 1, and classifying the gos- pel genre as a whole, are dependent on the particular ways of subdividing Mk 1 literarily. (2) In regard to ancient literary-theory, we should be careful in using the term ‘prologue’: A prologue is, first of all – like a prooemium or an 27 R. A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas 1989) 4. 28 Cf. B. Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen (Berlin 1872) 37ff. 29 Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK 2; Göttingen 1937) 9. Lohmeyer simply defines 1:1-13 as ‚Anfang des Evangeliums’. 30 „Mc beginnt nicht wie ein Biograph mit Heimat, Familie und Beruf Jesu, obgleich er sie kennt, und sagt auch nichts von seiner äußeren Erscheinung, wie doch bei dem Täufer. Er berichtet nur Dinge, die Jesus von vornherein als den Messias beglaubigen“, E. Kloster- mann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen 1907/51971) 3. 31 S. note below.