¹ Ernst, J., Johannes der Täufer. Interpretation – Geschichte – Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) 4–38 and 39–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Ibid., 10–12.

³ Ibid., 13–16. This possibility is mentioned on p. 13. But ‘die für diese Möglichkeit angeführten Gründe … sind nicht zwingend’ (p. 13).

⁴ Ibid., 40–55. For the analysis of Matt 3.11 and Luke 3.16 see pp. 48–55. According to Ernst, for John the ίσχυρότερος in this verse is (most probably) still God the Judge. He will baptize with the holy Spirit and fire.

⁵ Kloppenborg, J. S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance (Foundations & Facets; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988)Google Scholar xxxi and 4–21. On p. xxiv he writes: ‘Following the convention of the SBL Q Seminar, Q texts are designated by their Lukan location.’ We adopt this procedure in our paper.

⁶ Ibid., 6.

⁷ Ibid., 16.

⁸ Cf., e.g., the position taken in Kloppenborg, J. S., The Formation of Q. Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Stud. Antiq. Christ. 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Neirynck, F., ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, Logia. Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus (ed. Delobel, J.; BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1982) 29–75Google Scholar: ‘On the level of the individual saying it is common practice to give a tentative description of Mark's redactional activity by comparing the saying in Mark with the Q version, but how do we prove Mark's dependence on Q, and not on a traditional saying or on some pre-Q collection of sayings?’ (p. 45). See also Lührmann, D., ‘The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q’, JBL 108 (1989) 51–71, esp. 53.Google Scholar

¹⁰ We may just refer to Metzger, B. M., Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, corrected ed. 1975) 73Google Scholar. And what about Χριστοῦ in v. 1: proper name or title?

¹¹ Otherwise recently, e.g., Arnold, G., ‘Mk 1,1 und die Eröffnungswendungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften’, ZNW 68 (1977) 123–7Google Scholar (see 123–4); Guelich, R. A., ‘“The Beginning of the Gospel” Mark 1:1–15’, BR 27 (1982) 5–15Google Scholar, esp. 6–8; Tolbert, M. A., Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 239–48Google Scholar. It is true that elsewhere in the Bible ‘as is written’ does not appear at the beginning of a sentence and, moreover, the absence of οüτως (cf. Luke 11.30; 17.26; John 3.14) is strange. On the other hand there is most probably no καί before ἐγένετο at the beginning of v. 4; vv. 1 and 2–3 would form an even more peculiar unit than vv. 2–3 and 4 do.

¹² A good overview is given in Kahmann, J. J. A., ‘Marc. 1,14–15 en hun plaats in het geheel van het Marcus-evangelie’, Bijdragen 38 (1977) 84–98Google Scholar (see 88–90). I wonder whether the often quoted Hos 1.2a (LXX: ἀρχὴ λόγου Κυρίου πρὸς Ωσηε; a free rendering of the Hebrew text) is a good parallel. Further, according to Arnold, ‘Eröffnungswendungen’, Mark 1.1 is not an ‘Überschrift, Buchtitel’ but an ‘Eröffnungswendung’, an opening clause. Yet, Mark calls his writing ‘the gospel of …’.

¹³ For a survey of the opinions see Dautzenberg, G., ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums. Mk 1,1–15 und die Konzeption des Markusevangeliums’, BZ 21 (1977) 219–34Google Scholar, and 22 (1978) 76–91 (esp. 219–25). Cf. also Koester, H., ‘From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels’, NTS 35 (1989) 361–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 367–70 and 380–1; id., Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development (London: SCM/Philadelphia: TPI, 1990) 9–14Google Scholar; Dormeyer, D., ‘Die Kompositions-metapher “Evangelium Jesu Christi, des Sohnes Gottes” Mk 1. 1. Ihre theologische und literarische Aufgabe in der Jesus-Biographie des Markus’, NTS 33 (1987) 452–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Aufgrund der metaphorischen Komposition lassen sich die Genitive in 1.1 und 1.14 nicht mehr nach subjektivus oder objektivus bestimmen’ (p. 461; see ibid, for bibliography). Can this thesis be defended on a grammatical basis?

¹⁴ Cf., e.g., R. Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 111–12; Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT II/1; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1976) 72–3Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK II/1; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978) 39Google Scholar; Egger, W., Frohbotschaft und Lehre. Die Sammelberichte des Wirkens Jesu im Markusevangelium (Frankfurter Theol. Stud. 19; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1976) 55–6Google Scholar; Guelich, , ‘The Beginning’, 7; T. Söding, Glaube bei Markus. Glaube an das Evangelium, Gebetsglaube und Wunderglaube im Kontext der markinischen Basileiatheologie und Christologie (Stuttg. Bibl. Beitr. 12; Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1985) 135–6.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 88–9.

¹⁶ So many exegetes today; see, however, Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 229–31, who also takes vv. 1–15 as a unit but refuses the term ‘Prolog’.

¹⁷ First proposed by Schweizer, E., ‘Anmerkungen zur Theologie des Markus’, Neotestamentica et Patristica. FS Cullmann (SuppNT 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also in Schweizer, , Neotestamentica (Zürich, Zwingli, 1963) 93–104Google Scholar; and ‘Die theologische Leistung des Markus’, Ev. Theol. 24 (1964) 337–55Google Scholar; also in Schweizer, Beiträge zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Zürich: Zwingli, 1970) 21–42Google Scholar. See also the influential proposals by Perrin, N., esp. The New Testament. An Introduction (New York: Harcourt, 1974) 143–67.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 63: ‘Überschrift des Evangeliums’.

¹⁹ Cf. Van Oyen, G., De summaria in Marcus en de compositie van Me 1,14–8,26 (Stud. N.T. Aux. 12; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1987) 44–52 and 129–53Google Scholar. Van Oyen gives an overview of the recent discussion: is 1.14–15 a conclusion of the ‘prologue’, or a real summary statement of Jesus' preaching and appeal, or a programmatic proclamation (‘Eröffnungslogion, Heroldsruf’)? See pp. 152–3 for his own balanced threefold position: transitional between prologue and 1.16–3.6; closely connected with 1.16–20; and theologically relevant for the whole gospel. For a break between 1.13 and 1.14 an additional argument is provided by Matera, F. J., ‘The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark's Gospel’, JSNT 34 (1988) 3–20Google Scholar. ‘In 1.1–13 the narrator communicates privileged information about John and Jesus to the reader’ (p. 5). The events of that prologue ‘are told solely for the reader's benefit; the characters of the story (Jesus excepted) are not aware of them’ (ibid.). What follows is public in nature.

²⁰ Pesch, R., ‘Anfang des Evangeliums Jesu Christi. Eine Studie zum Prolog des Markusevangeliums (Mk 1,1–15)’, Die Zeit Jesu. FS H. Schlier (ed. Bornkamm, G. & Rahner, K.; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1970) 108–44Google Scholar (see 112). Cf. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 10: ‘Das ingesamt konservative Verfahren der markinischen Redaktion, die dem Bewahren mehr Gewicht gibt als der Veränderung …’ In Mark 1.1–15 Pesch distinguishes (a) several traditions (vv. 2a, 3–5, 6; 7–8; 9–11 and, perhaps already connected, 12–13); (b) a pre-Markan redactor who composed the pericope vv. 2–15ab: by the insertion of v. 2bc and the addition of vv. 7–8 he strengthened the already christological interpretation of the Baptist tradition. This redactor then continued with the Jesus tradition (vv. 9–13) and composed, moreover, a concluding summary (vv. 14–15b); (c) the evangelist Mark, who received this composition, writes the opening verse 1, inserts in v. 9 probably τῆς Γαλιλαίας and in v. 10 perhaps εὺθύς, and adds v. 15c: καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὺαγγελίῳ. See Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 112–15 and 136–7. For the later Pesch, Markusevangelium, 103, v. 15c is no longer Mark's redaction.

²¹ Cf. Streeter, B. H., ‘St Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. Sanday, W.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911) 166–83Google Scholar. Streeter later changed his opinion: see The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924)Google Scholar. Sanders, E. P. and Davies, M., Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM/Philadelphia: TPI, 1989) 82Google Scholar, rightly call the earlier publication ‘a detailed and excellent study’. Schenk, W., ‘Der Einfluss der Logienquelle auf das Markusevangelium’, ZNW 70 (1979) 141–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, speaks of Mark's ‘Auseinandersetzung mit der Q-Redaktion’ (p. 453). For the opposite view see, e.g., Devisch, M., ‘La relation entre l'évangile de Marc et le document Q’, L'Évangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction (ed. Sabbe, M.; BETL 34; 2nd ed.; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1974, 1988) 59–91Google Scholar; Laufen, R., Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980) 79–83Google Scholar; Neirynck, ‘Study of Q’, esp. 41–53; Sato, M., Q und Prophetie. Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle (WUNT II/29; Tübingen:Mohr, 1988) 383–5Google Scholar (‘unbeweisbar und unwahrscheinlich’; Sato accepts an occasional ‘Wechselbeziehung’ between Q and pre-Markan traditions and ‘gegenseitige Rezeption und Überarbeitung’).

²² See the brief discussion with the bibliographical references in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 6. With regard to Mark 1.6 we refer to the recent but rather confusing study of Merendino, R. P., ‘Testi anticotestamentari in Mc 1,2–6Google Scholar’, RivBibl 35 (1987) 3–25Google Scholar, esp. 7–8. He opines (‘è … probabile’) that v. 6 ‘sia stato retocatto … da Marco’ (p. 8).

²³ See Devisch, M., De geschiedenis van de Quelle-hypothese (unpubl. S.T.D. dissert. K. U. Leuven, 1975) 402–21Google Scholar; Fleddermann, H., ‘The Beginning of Q’, SBL Sem. Pap. (1985) 153–9Google Scholar (he states: ‘Michel Devisch has shown … that the linguistic evidence does not support a Q text behind Luke 3:3–6’, p. 153). The fourth agreement is the most important; the second may suggest that both Matthew and Luke, independently, thought of the same Q passage (Jesus' Eulogy), but their reaction is much easier to understand if Q possesses a pericope on John's coming with the Isaiah quotation.

²⁴ ‘Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, 168. Streeter grounds that statement as follows: ‘Seeing that in no other case does the editor of Mark himself introduce a quotation or reference to the Old Testament it is probable that this [= the Isaiah-quotation] also occurred in Q.’ Yet one must refer to Mark 7.6–7 where ‘the editor of Mark himself’ introduces a quotation (of Isaiah!). Guelich, ‘The Beginning’, 8–9, thinks that the mixed quotation in 1.2–3 must be pre-Markan: ‘Mark's use of the OT is often much more subtle and not as direct’ (p. 14, n. 36). Is this so? Why could not Mark have done this? The introductory formula is very common in the NT; for Mark see also 9.13 and 14.21, but without citation.

²⁵ Cf. B. H. Streeter, ‘The Original Extent of Q’, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 185–206: ‘Since Q recorded John's preaching and the Temptation it would be very strange if no mention were made of the Baptism, which is the connecting link between the two’ (p. 187); see also Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium (HTKNT III/l; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1969) 161Google Scholar; Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK I/1; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985) 143Google Scholar; Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (EKK III/1; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989) 166 and 169–70Google Scholar; Koester, Gospels, 135: ‘It is reasonable to assume that Q must have introduced the appearance of John in some fashion.’

²⁶ On the ‘genre’ of Q see now esp. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. Cf. also his ‘Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source’, CBQ 46 (1984) 34–62Google Scholar, esp. 57–64 (Genre and Redaction).

²⁷ Cf. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 284: ‘Der Evangelist Markus hat in seinen auf die Busstaufe und das Kommen des Geisttäufers ausgerichteten Verkündigungstext eine Notiz über die Kleidung und Nahrung des Täufers (Mk 1,6) eingeschoben. Der knappe Zwischensatz fällt nicht nur in stilistischer Hinsicht – Unterbrechung des Zusammenhangs von V. 4.5 und V. 7.8 –, sondern auch durch das biographische Interesse aus dem Rahmen’ (not mentioned, however, on pp. 8–9).

²⁸ Cf. Merklein, H., ‘Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Täufer und Jesus von Nazaret’, BZ 25 (1981) 29–46Google Scholar. For μετανοέω see the Markan usages in 1.15 and 6.12 (perhaps from Q 10.13 – see further in this study); for ‘forgiveness of sins’ see 2.1–10 and 3.28–29. We may also refer to the reconstruction in Greek of Polag, A., Fragmenta Q. Textheft zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1979, 2nd ed. 1982) 28Google Scholar, and its translation in English by Havener, I., Q: The Sayings of Jesus. With a Reconstruction of Q by Polag, A. (Good News Stud. 19; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987) 123Google Scholar: without v. 6c and in v. 6b ‘he went onto’ (from Luke 3.3).

²⁹ In our neutral proposal we try to avoid both Matthean and Lukan style. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, correctly writes: ‘Der ursprüngliche Wortlaut wird sich kaum noch rekonstruieren lassen’ (p. 42). After his careful study Devisch, De Quelle-hypothese, 493–7, retains only ‘Jesus said’. He is followed by Fleddermann, ‘The Beginning of Q’, 154–5.

³⁰ See the brief discussion in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 12. He mentions also ‘the placing of ὺμᾶς before βαπτίζει’. In our reconstruction we maintain ‘holy Spirit’.

³¹ Cf. Streeter, ‘Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, 168: this verse ‘has no meaning apart from the preceding verse, which therefore must have stood in Q and not have been derived … from Mark’.

³² Cf. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 12 (‘most authors’); Devisch, De Quelle-hypothese, 489–532; H. Fleddermann, ‘John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11/Luke 3:16–17)’, SBL Sem. Pap. (1984) 377–84.

³³ Compare, e.g., S. Schulz, Q. Die Spruch der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972) 366–8, who omits ὸπίσω μου and ‘holy Spirit’ and prefers ‘whose sandals I am not worthy to carry’. For a discussion on ‘holy Spirit and fire’ see, e.g., Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 53–4; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981) 473–4: ‘The likelihood is that both Spirit and fire were in the original “Q” form of the saying’ (p. 473); Fleddermann, ‘John and the Coming One’, 378–81 and 382.

³⁴ Cf. Schulz, Q, 368–9, on Luke's redactional infinitives and his postposition of αὺτοῦ in Q 3.17.

³⁵ This is the version of the Greek text in Fleddermann, ‘John and the Coming One’, 380. For Q 3.16 see also Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 96–7.

³⁶ Cf. P. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA 8; Münster; Aschendorff, 1972, 3rd ed. 1982) 198–233.

³⁷ Cf. recently Havener, The Sayings of Jesus, 62–7, where we find a radical presentation: in Q 3 John did not yet know who Jesus was. John saw himself as a forerunner of God (‘Lord’ in v. 4) and announced in the ‘more powerful one’ an apocalyptic figure. In Q 7 we are then confronted with an uncertain Baptist. Of course, for the Q redactor the Baptist is from the beginning the forerunner of Christ (see p. 87).

³⁸ Cf. the listing in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 16 (with bibliography). Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 166, mentions only ἀνοίγω; since in 3.22 Luke follows Mark ‘bleibt der Rückgriff auf Q unsicher’. Cf. Koester, Gospels, 135: ‘The agreements of Matthew and Luke are very slight and do not justify the inclusion [into Q] of this pericope.’

³⁹ Cf. Devisch, De Quelle-hypothese, 444–88.

⁴⁰ For Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 197, this is, together with τὸ πνεῦμα, the main argument: ‘eine ursprüngliche Zuordnung der Versuchungsgeschichte (= Q) zum Taufbericht’, and 218: ‘Lukas fand die Berichte von Taufe und Wüstenaufenthalt schon in der Redenquelle kombiniert vor’. See also Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (New Intern. Greek Test. Comm.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 150Google Scholar: ‘The slight agreements with Mt. against Mk. are insufficient in themselves to prove use of another source … But the way in which the temptation narrative (Q) presupposes the divine sonship of Jesus makes it likely that some reference to the Baptism followed the account of John's ministry in Q so as to give a link between John and Jesus …’; Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965) 99Google Scholar: ‘… nicht unmöglich, dass auch Q eine Taufgeschichte kannte …’; Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 150–1 (‘wahrscheinlich’); Kosch, D., Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (NT et orbis antiquus 12; Freiburg (Schw.): Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 236. See also note 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Otherwise Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 16: ‘The title “Son of God” in Q 4 does not require an explanatory narrative any more than does the title “Son of Man”, which is by far the more common title for Q’; A. Vögtle, ‘Die sogenannte Taufperikope Mk 1,9–11. Zur Problematik der Herkunft und des ursprünglichen Sinns’, EKK Vorarbeiten 4 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener/Zürich: Benziger, 1972) 105–39Google Scholar (see 109–10); Dupont, J., Les tentations de Jésus au désert (Stud. Neotest. Studia 4; Brugge: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968) 94Google Scholar: ‘Il faut reconnaître d'abord que la manière dont, selon cette source, le diable s'adresse à Jésus en lui disant, dans les deux premières tentations: ‘Si tu es le Fils de Dieu’, fait naturellement écho à la proclamation de la filiation divine de Jésus au moment du baptême’, but: ‘Il n'en reste pas moins que l'épisode du baptême et celui des tentations nous sont rapportés sous des formes très différentes; il n'y a pas d'unité organique entre les deux récits …’ (p. 95). Is this last consideration a sufficient reason to exclude the baptism's presence in Q?

⁴¹ Polag, A, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977) 153Google Scholar. He assumes in the Markan tradition a strengthening of the visionary elements and reckons with the influence of the transfiguration pericope on the words of the heavenly voice.

⁴² Cf. Blank, J., ‘Die Sendung des Sohnes. Zur christologischen Bedeutung des Gleichnisses von den bösen Winzern Mk 12,1–12’, Der Jesus des Evangeliums. Entwürfe zur biblischen Christologie (München: Kösel, 1981) 117–56, esp. 137–8 and 155–6Google Scholar; repr. from Neues Testament und Kirche. FS Schnackenburg (ed. J. Gnilka; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1974) 11–41.Google Scholar

⁴³ Sellin, G., ‘Das Leben des Gottessohnes. Taufe und Verklärung Jesu als Bestandteile eines vormarkinischen Evangeliums’, Kairos 25 (1983) 237–53Google Scholar. We need not discuss here the thesis of this article. According to Sellin Mark used a pre-Markan gospel, very similar to the so-called Johannine ‘Semeia-Quelle’, with at the beginning a ‘Täuferbericht’.

⁴⁴ Sellin, ‘Das Leben’, 242, continues his reasoning: since the object of ε$$$δεν is the rent heavens and the Spirit in v. 10 but not the voice of v. 11, and since the heavenly voice has its original function in Mark 9.2–8 (v. 7), it would seem that Mark has anticipated that voice in his baptism pericope ‘um die Geistherabkunft zu einer geheimen Epiphanie zu machen’ (‘Das Leben’, 242). In the transfiguration pericope ‘aber hat die Stimme eine genuine Funktion: Es ist die aus der Sinai-Tradition stammende Stimme aus der Wolke’ (ibid.). Already in Horstmann, M., Studien zur markinischen Christologie. Mk 8,27–9,13 als Zugang zum Christusbild des zweiten Euangeliums (NTA 6; Münster: Aschendorff, 1969) 91–2Google Scholar: ‘In der … Einheit von Tauf- und Versuchungsgeschichte … nimmt sich die Himmelsstimme wie ein Fremdkörper aus, so dass man den Eindruck gewinnt, dass der Evangelist in V 11 den christologischen Gehalt dieser Perikopen zusammengefasst wissen möchte’ (p. 91). We very much hesitate, however, to remove the heavenly voice from the postulated baptism pericope in Q.

⁴⁵ Cf. the enumeration of the data in Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 20 (‘most authors’) and his discussion on pp. 256–62; and id., ‘Nomos and Ethos in Q’, Gospel Origins & Christian Beginnings. FS J. M. Robinson (Forum Fascicles 1; ed. J. E. Goehring, C. W. Hedrick a.o.; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990) 35–48Google Scholar, esp 46: ‘There is now a broad consensus that the story is the latest addition in the evolution of Q’. Koester, Gospels, 137, maintains that the temptation story requires a common source but that ‘it is difficult to prove that this source was Q’. He adds:‘… the entire opening section must be assigned to the redaction of this document’.

⁴⁶ Cf. J. Dupont, Les tentations, 82 (on Matt): ‘La faim de Jésus devait fournir l'occasion des tentations …’.

⁴⁷ Cf. Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 225–31; Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 43–64; Van Oyen, Summaria, 129–53. Otherwise, e.g., besides Pesch, Schlosser, J., Le Règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1980) 91–126.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For Mark's way of redacting we may perhaps refer to Rom 10 where in v. 15 Isa 52.7 is cited with the verb εὺαγγελίζομαι and where then in v. 16 Paul takes up the idea with the noun εὺαγγέλιον. Cf. Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 231–3 and 76–9. He states: ‘Obwohl das Mk-Ev literarisch jünger ist als die Paulusbriefe, ist die in ihm bezeugte Konzeption vom εὺαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ traditionsgeschichtlich älter als die in den Paulusbriefen erkennbare Konzeption vom εὺαγγέλιον’ (p. 79). See also id., ‘Der Wandel der Reich-Gottes-Verkündigung in der urchristlichen Mission’, Zur Geschichte des Urchristentums (QD 87; ed. G. Dautzenberg, H. Merklein, K. Müller; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1979) 11–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 231–3; Schenk, W., ‘Gefangenschaft und Tod des Täufers. Erwägungen zur Chronologie und ihren Konsequenzen’, NTS 29 (1983) 453–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Mark 1.15 is ‘redaktionell markinisch … und literarisch von den entsprechenden Formulierungen der Sendungsrede in Q (Mt 10.7; Lk 10.9; vgl. 9.2) her formuliert. …’ (p. 455). It is possible that in Q 10.9 εὶς ὺμᾶς (present in Luke 10.9, absent in Matt 10.7) is original; cf. Q 11.20: ἅρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ' ὺμᾶς. See Polag, Christologie, 69, n. 212; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 129, n. 48. Otherwise, e.g., Schulz, Q, 407.

⁵⁰ If this view is correct one can no longer speak of two separate, independent traditions, Q and the ‘vormarkinische Tradition’, as is done, e.g., in Merklein, H., Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft. Eine Skizze (SBS 111; Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelw., 1983), 25Google Scholar (cf. 37). Further, it strikes us as strange that F. Mussner, ‘Ansage der Nähe der eschatologischen Gottesherrschaft nach Markus 1,14.15. Ein Beitrag der modernen Sprachwissenschaft zur Exegese’, Gottesherrschaft – Weltherrschaft. FS R. Graber (ed. J. Auer, F. Mussner, G. Schwaiger; Regensburg: Pustet, 1980) 33–49Google Scholar, in his discussion of the tradition behind the clause ‘the rule of God is at hand’, does not even mention Q (see pp. 44–6).

⁵¹ For Mark and ‘repentance’ see note 28.

⁵² So the subtitle of the article by Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Baptism of John. An Essay in Detection’, NTS 4 (1957–1958) 263–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ B. H. Streeter, ‘The Literary Evolution of the Gospels’, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 210–27, citation on p. 220. We may quote the full sentence: ‘Just, then, as Q was written to supplement, but not to supersede, a living tradition, so Mark was written to supplement, but not to supersede Q, or some deposit of material very like Q’ (pp. 219–20). In this study, Streeter puts forward the idea that Mark quotes Q from memory or that he had matter parallel to Q, ‘usually a shorter but at the same time a less original-looking form’ (p. 219). Are these guesses to the point?

⁵⁴ This is uncertain since the Exodus context is so different. In Q the text diverges to a large extent from Malachi (LXX): omission of καί and ἐγώ (not all manuscripts in the LXX), and instead of ἐπιβλέψεται the verb κατασευάσει which is more like the Hebrew text.

⁵⁵ Note the change of τοῦ θεοῦ ὴμῶν into αὺτοῦ (= Jesus Christ).

⁵⁶ See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 78: ‘Mk 1,2c dürfte … mit Rücksicht auf die Korrespondenz zu V 3b (τὴν ὁδόν σου – τὴν δὁὸν αὺτοῦ) gekürzt sein.’

⁵⁷ Schenk, ‘Einfluss’, 159: ‘… die Anrede in der zweiten Person (ist) Q-Gestaltung …’ According to Schenk (pp. 159–60) the introduction γέγραπται is also taken from Q 7.27 and ‘in der typisch markinischen Verbindung mit καθώς’ repeated in 9.13 and 14.21. Mark 1.2–3 becomes thus for Mark a very weighty ‘Legitimationszitat’. Cf. Gnilka, Markus, 44: Mal 3.1 gives Mark ‘die Möglichkeit, den eben genannten Gottessohn von Gott angeredet sein zu lassen. Zudem kann er mit seiner Hilfe die Beziehung des Täufers zum Propheten Elija herstellen.’

⁵⁸ If one assumes dependence on Q for Mark 1.2 the unlikely thesis of Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 239–48, according to which the ‘messenger’ is in the first place Jesus himself, is even less convincing.

⁵⁹ Of course, the basic text of Q remains somewhat uncertain.

⁶⁰ See note 28. We may refer here, by way of example, to the study of van Iersel, B., ‘Theology and Detailed Exegesis’, Concilium 10 (1971) no. 7, pp. 80–9.Google Scholar In his reconstruction of a pre-Markan account (not Q!) he rejects vv. 2–3 (quotation), parts of v. 4 and v. 6, which leaves us with the following text: ‘And it happened that John baptized a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (p. 84). Then follow v. 5 and vv. 7–8. See also the earlier version of this study ‘Aanvang van de verkondiging over Jezus Christus’, Vox Theologica 39 (1969) 169–79.Google Scholar

⁶¹ This is convincingly worked out by Fleddermann, ‘The Beginning of Q’, 282–4: Mark knew and used Q 3.16bcde in its final version.

⁶² Cf. Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 119: ‘Vom Gerichtsprediger Johannes ist in unserer Überlieferung freilich (bezeichnenderweise) nicht die Rede’ (Pesch means the pre-Markan tradition independent from Q). Streeter, ‘Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, 168, calls Mark 1.7–8 ‘a mutilated fragment’ from the Q passage. See also Hoffmann, Studien, 19–20; Buse, I., ‘St. John and “the First Synoptic Pericope”’, NT 3 (1959) 57–61Google Scholar: ‘Mark i. 7–8 is only loosely connected with what precedes …. The whole Marcan account gives an impression of abbreviation …. Like his narrative of the temptations of Jesus Mark's story of the baptism of Jesus reads like a summary’ (p. 61).

⁶³ Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 20–2: in Mark ‘werden nicht zwei Personen, sondern zwei Taufen einander gegenübergestellt’ and ‘unter der Voraussetzung, Markus kannte Q, liesse sie (= Mark 1.7–8) sich sogar als Glättung und Verbesserung der verschränkten Q-Form verstehen’ (p. 21); Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 144: ‘The order (in Q) … which separates the parallel clauses about baptism is more likely to be original’; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 126. Otherwise Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 98: ‘Der streng antithetische Parallelismus membrorum der Markusfassung ist das Ursprüngliche; durch die Verschränkung der beiden Logien wird diese prägnante, für Priorität bürgende Form zerstört’ (discussion on pp. 97–8).

⁶⁴ Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 32–3 (somewhat hesitant). Pesch, Markusevangelium, 83, notices (in the pre-Markan tradition) a ‘temporale Umdeutung des ursprünglichen lokal, im Sinne der Nachfolge und Jüngerschaft zu verstehenden ὀπίσω μου’. He points also to the ensuing ‘Umformung’ of ἔρχομαι to ἔρχεται. According to Gnilka, Markus, 42, in this verbal change by Mark ‘artikuliert sich sein Historisierungstendenz’; cf. p. 47: ‘Vorangestelltes ἔρχεται historisiert die Aussage vom ἐρχόμενος …. Sie wird in 9 wieder ἧλθεν ‘Ιησοῦς.’

⁶⁵ Cf. Fleddermann, ‘John and the Coming One’, 383: ‘Mark likes to use redundant participles and there is a fairly close analogy to κύψας in Mark's redundant use of ἀναστάς (1:35; 2:14; 7:24; 10:1) …’; Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 121: it corresponds with the Markan redactional tendency ‘die dienende Zuordnung des Täufers Jesus gegenüber zu betonen’.

⁶⁶ Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 121–2, hesitates between the eschatological ‘Geistbesitz der Christen’ and Christian baptism. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 16, rightly, it would seem, is not sure that Mark ‘an das kirchliche Taufsakrament gedacht hat’. He writes: ‘Wegen des Fehlens weiterer Hinweise im Evangelium halte ich es für wahrscheinlicher, dass er die allgemeine eschatologische Geistausgiessung im Auge hatte.’

⁶⁷ ‘Anfang’, 114.

⁶⁸ Fleddermann, ‘John and the Coming One’, 383.

⁶⁹ Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 90–1: ‘kein zwingender Hinweis auf Jes 63,19b’ (p. 91). The Septuagint version has ἀνοίγω!

⁷⁰ Matera, ‘Prologue’, 14. Cf. Jackson, H. M., ‘The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle of the Cross’, NTS 33 (1987) 16–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 21–4; Motyer, S., ‘The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost?’, NTS 33 (1987) 155–7.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 126: ‘Der Geist kommt zu Jesus (εἰς αὺτὸν …), zu ständigem, bleibendem Besitz. Jesus wird als der eschatologische Geistträger ausgezeichnet’ (but otherwise id., Markusevangelium, 91). Feuillet, A., ‘Le baptême de Jesus d'après l'Évangile selon Saint Marc (1,9–11)’, CBQ 21 (1959) 468–90Google Scholar, however, notes: ‘… Marc emploie volontiers εἰς pour ἐπί … Il ne convient done pas d'insister sur la différence avec Matthieu et Luc …’ (p. 477). We are not convinced with regard to a possible εἰς–ἐπί equivalence.

⁷² Pesch, Markusevangelium, 97. He continues: ‘und zwar in planmässiger Steigerung: die Offenbarung am Jordan gilt Jesus allein, die auf dem Verklärungsberg den drei vertrauten Jüngern, nach Jesu Selbstbekenntnis vor dem Hohen Rat, nach seinem Tod spricht der heidnische Hauptmann (als Vorbild der Gläubigen) das Bekenntnis aus …’ Before this he had written: ‘unbeabsichtigt oder vom Evangelisten beabsichtigt’! Cf. also Gnilka, Markus, 60.

⁷³ This explanation goes against the common opinion. Zerwick-M., M.Grosvenor, , A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Bibl. Inst., 1981) 101Google Scholar, e.g., explain the εὺδόκησα: ‘if not a constative (global) aorist, the aorist probably representing Semitic perfect of a verb denoting a state, and so may = present: “I am well pleased with, my favour rests on”.’

⁷⁴ See, e.g., Gnilka, Markus, 56: ‘Jedenfalls darf man als Vorlage nicht den Bericht der Spruchquelle … annehmen, da dieser ganz anderen Inhaltes ist’; and the long discussion in Dupont, Les tentations, 80–97, whose conclusion is: Mark's tradition ‘constitue donc simplement à nos yeux une source parallèle’ (p. 94). Cf. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 219: ‘Mk hat gewiss nicht diese (= Q) gelesen, sonst hätte er wohl anders erzählt’; also Pesch, Markusevangelium, 89 and 96, n. 49; H. Mahnke, Die Versuchungsgeschichte im Rahmen der synoptischen Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Christologie (Beitr. Bibl. Ex. Theol. 9; Frankfurt a/M-Bern-Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1978) 21–3Google Scholar; and, recently, E. Best in the preface to the second edition of The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (SNTSMS 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990) xv.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Otherwise, e.g. Mahnke, Versuchungsgeschichte, 39–42 and 210, n. 65, who, however, on pp. 183–90 shows preference for the position that in a late stage both baptism and temptation were added to Q: ‘Die Versuchungsgeschichte setzt eine Begebenheit voraus, in der der Gottessohntitel verwendet wird …’ (p. 187).

⁷⁶ In 1.35, 45; 6.31, 32 we have ἕρημος τόπος (see also 6.35).

⁷⁷ Dupont, Tentations, 83, writes: ‘En parlant du service des anges, la notice de Marc n'invitait pas à penser que Jésus eut à souffrir de la faim au désert.’ Is this so? If, as is often assumed, v. 13b (‘and he was with the wild beasts’) indicates Jesus’ victory over the temptation, then v. 13c (‘and the angels ministered to him’), with or notwithstanding the imperfect διηκόνουν, constitutes a reaction to something connected with that temptation, more specifically, it would seem, to Jesus' fasting or hunger. This holds, I think, even if Mark now alludes to angels once ministering to Adam and Eve in the garden as was thought in Jewish speculation.

⁷⁸ Bauer-Aland think that the verb does not always (and not in Mark 1.9) point to ‘violence’.

⁷⁹ Mark never writes διηκόνουνδιάβολος. One is rather perplexed at the statement of Pesch, Markus-evangelium, 98: ‘Σατανᾶς begegnet im Mk-Ev nur traditionell …’ See the opposite and more correct view in, e.g., Gnilka, Markus, 57: ‘Satan – der von Markus bevorzugte Teufelsname …’.

⁸⁰ Cf., e.g., Feuillet, A., ‘L'épisode de la tentation d'après l'Évangile selon Saint Marc (1,12–13)’, EstBibl 19 (1960) 49–73Google Scholar, esp. 72–3: ‘… la compagnie des bêtes sauvages n'est dans le second évangile que la conséquence et comme une expression équivalente de la défaite du Tentateur’ (p. 73). The imperfect tenses in v. 13bc cause ‘a certain inherent inconsistency’. See Best, Temptation, xvii.

⁸¹ Cf. Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 13–132; Markusevangelium, 95–6: ‘… die plausibelste Erklärung des kurzen, dunklen Textes …’ (p. 95); Gnilka, Markus, 58; Guelich, ‘The Beginning’, 9; Best, Temptation, xvi-xvii.

⁸² See for the recent discussion Best, Temptation, xv-xxiii: ‘The Testing’.

⁸³ Even with the reading καί (so N²⁵; in N²⁶ δέ) at the beginning of v. 14 there is still a break. See Kahmann, ‘Marc. 1,14–15’, 85–6. The verb παραδίδωμι in Mark has often the nuance of persecution, imprisonment or death; cf. Berényi, G., ‘Gal 2,20: a Pre-Pauline or a Pauline Text?’, Biblica 65 (1984) 490–537Google Scholar. See (a) for John: 1.14; (b) for Jesus: 3.19; 9.31; 10.33; 14.10, 11, 18, 21, 41, 42, 44; (c) for the disciples: 13.9, 11, 12. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 37, writes: ‘Der Täufer ist in seinem gewaltsamen Lebensende der Prototyp des leidenden Menschensohnes Jesus.’

⁸⁴ See references in n. 47. Before his own analysis Van Oyen, Summaria, 120–6, briefly discusses three works on Markan style: Pryke, E. J., Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel. A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark (SNTSMS 33; Cambridge: Univ., 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peabody, D. B., The Redactional Features of the Author of Mark: A Method Focusing on Recurrent Phraseology and Its Application (Diss. Southern Method. Univ., 1983)Google Scholar; and Dschulnigg, P., Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums. Eigentümlichkeiten der Sprache des Markus-Evangeliums und ihre Bedeutung für die Redaktionskritik (Stuttg. Bibl. Beitr. 11; Stuttgart: Kath. Bibl., 1984, 2nd ed. 1986)Google Scholar. Besides these more recent publications Van Oyen also often refers to Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. Contributions to the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon, 1899; 2nd ed.Google Scholar; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968)Google Scholar; Neirynck, F., Duality in Mark. Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL 31; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1972)Google Scholar; Gaston, L., Horae Synopticae. Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels (SBS Sources Bibl. Stud. 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1973)Google Scholar; Friedrich, M., ‘Tabellen zu markinischen Vorzugsvokabeln’, in Schreiber, J., Der Kreuzigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums (BZNW 48; Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1986)Google Scholar, Exkurs: pp. 395–433.

⁸⁵ Cf. Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 40: A comparison with the parallel passages in Matt and Luke ‘zeigt wie stark’ Mark 1.14–15 ‘in bezug auf Inhalt und Struktur durchkomponiert ist und sich auf Wesentliches konzentriert’, and also p. 45: ‘die einzelnen nebeneinandergestellten Aussagen beleuchten einander: dass die Zeit erfüllt ist, wird näher erklärt durch die Aussage, dass die Gottesherrschaft sich genaht hat. Die Umkehr wird genauer beschrieben als Glauben an das Evangelium.’ So many commentators.

⁸⁶ Cf. Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 46–51; Van Oyen, Summaria, 45–9. Behind that Jesus tradition possibly lies the earthly Jesus. See also Gnilka, , Jesus von Nazaret. Botschaft und Geschichte (HTKNT Supplementband III; Freiburg-Wien-Basel: Herder, 1990) 154Google Scholar, n. 29.

⁸⁷ In v. 15 the article is certainly anaphorical: believe in the gospel just mentioned in 1.14.

⁸⁸ Cf., e.g., Guelich, ‘The Beginning’, 12; Lemcio, E. E., ‘The Intention of the Evangelist Mark’, NTS 32 (1986) 187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘… Mark distinguishes between the gospel which Jesus proclaimed about the inauguration of God's Rule and the Evangelist's own kerygma that God had begun in Jesus’ (p. 189).

⁸⁹ For this paragraph see Lührmann, ‘Mark and Q’, 66–9, and Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 232. Dautzenberg further writes: ‘In theologie- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Hinsicht erscheint Mk l,14f als Weiterentwicklung der in Q erkennbaren Aufnahme und Deutung der Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu’ (p. 233).

⁹⁰ Lührmann, ‘Mark and Q’, 67–8.

⁹¹ Cf. Lührmann, ‘Mark and Q’, 68: ‘So whereas in Q the nearness of the kingdom of God is the content of the disciples’ preaching, who directly continue Jesus' preaching, in Mark the nearness is bound to the gospel which they have to proclaim.’

⁹² Cf. Kahmann, ‘Marc. 1,14–15’, 91, who underlines that the clause ‘the time is fulfilled’ is a ‘hapax legomenon’ in the NT. He aptly distinguishes on pp. 93–7 two Markan uses of the absolute ὁ καιρός: the already fulfilled time in which God's kingdom is at hand (1.15); and the future end time (13.33 and 12.2) in which the kingdom of God will come with power (cf. 9.1). With these two time-moments, connected with one another in tension, Mark ‘covers’ the time-period of the Church.

⁹³ It would seem that this implication (the imperatives) is not just reaction to what has occurred (the perfect tenses). What is asked for is also preparation for the eschatological future. Contra, e.g., Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 44–6. See Mussner, , ‘Ansage’ and also ‘Gottesherrschaft und Sendung Jesu nach Mk l,14f. Zugleich ein Beitrag über die innere Struktur des Markusevangeliums’, Praesentia salutis. Gesammelte Studien zu Fragen und Themen des Neuen Testamentes (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1967) 81–98.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See n. 49. The verb πιστεύω does not occur in Q (but see πίστις in Q 7.9 and 17.6). Whether ‘die auffällige Einmaligkeit der Konstruktion πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὺαγγελίῳ’ (Pesch, Markusevangelium, 103) pleads for tradition is less than certain. In view of the phrase πίστις ἐν (see Col 1.4; Eph 1.15; 1 Tim 3.13 and 2 Tim 3.15) the expected sense ‘believe in the gospel’ is by far the most probable. On the expression of Mark see also Gnilka, Markus, 64–6; Merklein, ‘Die Umkehrpredigt’, 39; Koester, ‘Kerygma-Gospel’, 369, n. 4, and id. Gospels, 13, n. 2; Schlosser, Règne, 105; Söding, Glaube bei Markus, 133–42. Just as for the genitive in v.1 (obj. and subj. see, e.g., pp. 222–3 and 234–5) and for εὺαγγέλιον in v. 1 and vv. 14–15 (christological and theological, see, e.g., pp. 209–27), so also for πιστεύω in v. 15 Söding in his long expositions wrongly, I think, connects the two meanings of believing and trusting, ‘beide Komponente …, die der Annahme des “Kerygmas” und die des Vertrauens auf die frohe Botschaft des Evangeliums’ (p. 142; cf., e.g., pp. 299–305).

⁹⁵ Cf. Lührmann, ‘Mark and Q’, 68: ‘… wherever in the following chapters Mark says that Jesus preached or taught without mentioning any specific content, 1.15 is to be inserted as the message to the people of Galilee.’

⁹⁶ Cf. Egger, Frohbotschaft und Lehre, 53: ‘Traditionsgeschichtlich liegt die Bedeutsamkeit von Mk l,14f darin, dass hier ein kurzer literarischer Beleg dafür gegeben ist, dass Ausdrücke der Missionssprache zur Formulierung von Aussagen über den irdischen Jesus verwendet werden’; Mussner, ‘Ansage’, 48, n. 18: ‘Der zweifache “Eröffnungstext” in Mk 1 (i.e., v. 1 and v. 15) bringt eine enorme Spannung in die markinische Vita Jesu, bestimmt ihre innere Struktur und stellt, was die Lösung dieser Spannung angeht, die grösste theologische Leistung des Markusevangeliums.’

⁹⁷ Cf. Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’, 78–9: Mark 1.14–15 ‘ist aus den Voraussetzungen des palästinischen Judenchristentums und der Jesustradition erklärbar und ableitbar’. For a valuable reflexion on the literary and theological ingredients on the Markan ‘gospel’ see, e.g., Egger, Frohbotschaft, 47–9; Van Oyen, Summaria, 45–6 and 136–8; and Dormeyer, ‘Die Kompositionsmetapher’. According to him ‘Gottesherrschaft’ is the ‘Inhaltskern’ of Mark's gospel, ‘ein zentrales Inhaltssegment, das aber für Bedeutungsanreicherung … offenbleibt’ (p. 455).

⁹⁸ ‘Anfang’, 115.

⁹⁹ Hedrick, C. W., ‘The Role of “Summary Statements” in the Composition of the Gospel of Mark: A Dialog with Karl Schmidt and Norman Perrin’, NT 26 (1984) 289–311, 294.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Schenk, ‘Einfluss’, 161: Q contains ‘die einzigen bekannten vormarkinischen Quellenstücke und damit wohl den gewiesenen Ausgangspunkt und die beste Grundlage, um die markinische Redaktionsarbeit einigermassen kontrollierbar sicher zu bestimmen’.

¹⁰¹ ‘Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, 168–9.

¹⁰² Cf, e.g., Gnilka, Markus, 45: ‘Da Markus von der Gerichtspredigt nichts berichtet, wird die Wegbereitung ganz im Sinn der Vorläuferschaft interpretiert, die auf den messianischen Kyrios ausgerichtet ist.’

¹⁰³ Cf., e.g., the more recent studies on John, such as Wink, W., John the Baptist (SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: University, 168)Google Scholar; Becker, J., Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Bibl. Stud. 63; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972)Google Scholar; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer; more briefly, Gnilka, Jesus, 79–86.

¹⁰⁴ Wink, John the Baptist, 17.

¹⁰⁵ One thinks here, of course, of the study of Vielhauer, P., ‘Erwägungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums’, Zeit und Geschichte. FS Bultmann (ed. Dinkier, E.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1964) 155–69Google Scholar; reprinted in Vielhauer, , Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Theol. Büch. 31; München: Kaiser, 1965) 199–214Google Scholar. See also note 72.

¹⁰⁶ Pesch, ‘Anfang’, 138. Cf. Dautzenberg, ‘Die Zeit des Evangeliums’; Dormeyer, ‘Die Kompositionsmetapher’; Lemcio, ‘Intention’, 201.

¹⁰⁷ Kloppenborg, Formation, 262 states: It is a virtual consensus that Q in its final stages ‘was moving toward a narrative or biographical cast. The fusion of Q with the Marcan narrative in Matthew and Luke only continued what had already begun in the last stages of Q redaction.’

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Hoffmann, Studien, 16, n. 8; Schenk, ‘Einfluss’, 163.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ We have done what Schenk, ‘Einfluss’, 163, also intended to do: ‘Worauf es zunächst ankam, war darzulegen, dass sich eine vernachlässigte Fragestellung unter den derzeitigen Bedingungen durchaus als sinnvoll mögliche und hilfreiche Fragerichtung anbietet.’ We may refer to some of our earlier studies on Markan passages: ‘Die Logia-Quellen von Markus 13’, Bib 47 (1966) 321–60Google Scholar; Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28; Rome: Bibl. Inst., 1967)Google Scholar; Marcus interpretator. Stijl en boodschap in Mc. 3,20–4,34 (Brugge: Desclée de Brouwer, 1969)Google Scholar; ‘Redaction and Theology in Mk., IV’, L'Évangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction (ed. M. Sabbe; BETL 34; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1974, 2nd ed. 1988) 269–308Google Scholar; ‘Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7,1–23’, ETL 53 (1977) 24–82Google Scholar, reprinted in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (ed. J. Dupont; BETL 40; Leuven: Leuven University, 2nd ed. 1989) 358–415 and 428–9Google Scholar; ‘Q-Influence on Mark 8,34–9,1’, Logia. Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus (ed. J. Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University, 1982) 277–303.Google Scholar