Re: Titles of the gospels
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:18 pm
Most likely the first Gospel (or I should say proto-Gospels) had no name or rather title.
When we look at early manuscripts we find the book titles are simple and placed in the white space margin at the beginning or end of the book (or both) often in another hand. Codex Sinaiticus for example has no title for Matthew, has a second hand (notice the tiny omicrons, and the spacing between words rather than scripta continua) white area title for Mark with ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ before the text and at the end of the book ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΜΑΡΚΟΝ (this time ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ is scripta continua ... he caught himself not following the form and does ΚΑΤΑΛΟΥΚΟΝ scripta continua, but still tiny omicron). And so on. This is pretty much what we see in the earliest manuscripts, well into the middle ages.
(to see the text go here http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0)
(note: I wish SPDoric showed in this forum, that font is closer to the early Greek manuscripts than SPIonic or the extended TNR I use here)
This suggests the titles are secondary, short crib note fashion, and primarily for distinguishing books from one another and for indexing purposes. As all the books were likely stand alone originally, and the titles only later.
Even if one doesn't subscribes to Marcionite priority, then following the logic of Clabeaux on the impact of titles, one can easily understand the Ephesians versus Laodiceans controversy on the basis of secondary title names. On collection, the Marcionite (pre-Marcionite in Clabeaux's model) had Πρὸς Λαοδικέας for a title, while a later collection, the Catholic had Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους. Ephesians migrated into the text (verse 1:1) to reinforce this preference. Clabeaux makes a strong argument in favor of Laodiceans as original following the Latin "Marcionite Prologues" for the original collection, as well as cross evidence in Colossians 4:16 which seems to have come about in an early collection and editorial phase. Similar albeit localized (some Western texts) controversy also exist with Romans title (and opening verses from which Ephesians opening seems to have been derived). I would simply summarize the evidence as indicating some flux in titles, and this came about because they were not there originally, because there were not collections at first composition.
So I am postulating here that titles are related to collection and the need for indexing, which eventually lent itself to a table of contents. But I do think the titles are pretty early, and the evidence is to be found in Mark 1:1 as to what that form originally was. But we have to backtrack for a moment before we look at that.
First, we have to shed ourselves of the notion of an "oral Gospel" which is to be frank a scholarly invention. It is based on the concept of the eye witness account theory of the Gospels. It is a solution to shut down other possibilities to explain multiple Gospels, and to give first person to Matthew and John, then second person with Mark (from Peter) and Luke (from Paul) reinforcing the eyewitness account memoir theory. But I think we have long since moved away from this suggestion to see these as more products of a later era (even late first century) with theological needs rather than pendantic accounts, as many of the episodes appear to be retelling episodes and themes from the Jewish scriptures, even when recast or the results flipped, while others come from popular fables. Whatever, the point is let's set aside the oral Gospel theory and work instead on the premise that the Gospels derive from some written source, or proto-Gospel (I have my own theory what the proto-Gospel was used for pre-evangelism, but that is neither here nor there, simply that I can imagine reasonable models where a proto-Gospel evolves and develops independent of evangelism and public use).
From that assumption of a proto-Gospel existing before the Gospels were published, and circulating within proto-Christian (already Christian IMO) communities (IMO these were monastic cults similar to the Ophite and Theraputae), evangelism erupted. And evangelism found a tool in the Gospel. Having already dispensed with the notion of an oral Gospel, one can read anew Paul in Galatians 2:2 "I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." This is not an "oral Gospel" but a written document. It is uniquely his (the author of the letter that is) Gospel, and those he brings it to are logically heads of the community he may have at one time sprung from and thus respected, or possibly from the mother community, as Jerusalem reference seems to imply. In fact he says in verses 2:6-7 "hose, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel." He is saying:
1) those of repute whom he showed his Gospel accepted his version
2) this implies they ALREADY KNEW the Gospel, even though his was the first one used to Evangelize!
So if the legend told in Galatians has any relationship to reality (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't) then it tells us a Gospel (i.e., some proto-Gospel) was known to community leaders, and that Paul personifies the first evangelists who carried a public version of the Gospel to teach and gain converts outside the community (that is normal people, rather than those committing to the monastic life). But Galatians also tells a tale of a 2nd Gospel, similar yet different, that perverts the first Gospel's message, or so Paul complains throughout the letter.
I am not of the opinion that Mark's Gospel was first, and in fact I think started from a section common with Matthew, that began originally with the phrase "in those days", which is preserved in Matthew 3:1 about John, but was moved by Mark to verse 1:9 for the introduction of Jesus. Mark instead opens with the versification of the title, "The Gospel of Christ" (ΤΟΥΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝΤΟΥΧΥ) which could also have been called the Gospel of the Lord, and that is simply a one letter change of Χ to Κ. No doubt Jesus or ΙΥ was an early pious scribal addition and could well have been in the text before Mark when he simply added the word "(this is) the beginning" (ΑΡΧΗ) and you get "Thus begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ" ΑΡΧΗΤΟΥΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝΤΟΥΙΥΧΥ or verse 1:1 of Mark, effectively versifying the title he found with a mere four letters. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ is a product of the collection of the Gospels.
So I guess in conclusion I am agreeing that Mark versified the original title, which may have preceded all of the ΚΑΤΑ titles. And the ΚΑΤΑ titles came about because of the need to distinguish each, and beginning the myth of eyewitness and second hand accounts.
When we look at early manuscripts we find the book titles are simple and placed in the white space margin at the beginning or end of the book (or both) often in another hand. Codex Sinaiticus for example has no title for Matthew, has a second hand (notice the tiny omicrons, and the spacing between words rather than scripta continua) white area title for Mark with ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ before the text and at the end of the book ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΜΑΡΚΟΝ (this time ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ is scripta continua ... he caught himself not following the form and does ΚΑΤΑΛΟΥΚΟΝ scripta continua, but still tiny omicron). And so on. This is pretty much what we see in the earliest manuscripts, well into the middle ages.
(to see the text go here http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0)
(note: I wish SPDoric showed in this forum, that font is closer to the early Greek manuscripts than SPIonic or the extended TNR I use here)
This suggests the titles are secondary, short crib note fashion, and primarily for distinguishing books from one another and for indexing purposes. As all the books were likely stand alone originally, and the titles only later.
Even if one doesn't subscribes to Marcionite priority, then following the logic of Clabeaux on the impact of titles, one can easily understand the Ephesians versus Laodiceans controversy on the basis of secondary title names. On collection, the Marcionite (pre-Marcionite in Clabeaux's model) had Πρὸς Λαοδικέας for a title, while a later collection, the Catholic had Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους. Ephesians migrated into the text (verse 1:1) to reinforce this preference. Clabeaux makes a strong argument in favor of Laodiceans as original following the Latin "Marcionite Prologues" for the original collection, as well as cross evidence in Colossians 4:16 which seems to have come about in an early collection and editorial phase. Similar albeit localized (some Western texts) controversy also exist with Romans title (and opening verses from which Ephesians opening seems to have been derived). I would simply summarize the evidence as indicating some flux in titles, and this came about because they were not there originally, because there were not collections at first composition.
So I am postulating here that titles are related to collection and the need for indexing, which eventually lent itself to a table of contents. But I do think the titles are pretty early, and the evidence is to be found in Mark 1:1 as to what that form originally was. But we have to backtrack for a moment before we look at that.
First, we have to shed ourselves of the notion of an "oral Gospel" which is to be frank a scholarly invention. It is based on the concept of the eye witness account theory of the Gospels. It is a solution to shut down other possibilities to explain multiple Gospels, and to give first person to Matthew and John, then second person with Mark (from Peter) and Luke (from Paul) reinforcing the eyewitness account memoir theory. But I think we have long since moved away from this suggestion to see these as more products of a later era (even late first century) with theological needs rather than pendantic accounts, as many of the episodes appear to be retelling episodes and themes from the Jewish scriptures, even when recast or the results flipped, while others come from popular fables. Whatever, the point is let's set aside the oral Gospel theory and work instead on the premise that the Gospels derive from some written source, or proto-Gospel (I have my own theory what the proto-Gospel was used for pre-evangelism, but that is neither here nor there, simply that I can imagine reasonable models where a proto-Gospel evolves and develops independent of evangelism and public use).
From that assumption of a proto-Gospel existing before the Gospels were published, and circulating within proto-Christian (already Christian IMO) communities (IMO these were monastic cults similar to the Ophite and Theraputae), evangelism erupted. And evangelism found a tool in the Gospel. Having already dispensed with the notion of an oral Gospel, one can read anew Paul in Galatians 2:2 "I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." This is not an "oral Gospel" but a written document. It is uniquely his (the author of the letter that is) Gospel, and those he brings it to are logically heads of the community he may have at one time sprung from and thus respected, or possibly from the mother community, as Jerusalem reference seems to imply. In fact he says in verses 2:6-7 "hose, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel." He is saying:
1) those of repute whom he showed his Gospel accepted his version
2) this implies they ALREADY KNEW the Gospel, even though his was the first one used to Evangelize!
So if the legend told in Galatians has any relationship to reality (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't) then it tells us a Gospel (i.e., some proto-Gospel) was known to community leaders, and that Paul personifies the first evangelists who carried a public version of the Gospel to teach and gain converts outside the community (that is normal people, rather than those committing to the monastic life). But Galatians also tells a tale of a 2nd Gospel, similar yet different, that perverts the first Gospel's message, or so Paul complains throughout the letter.
I am not of the opinion that Mark's Gospel was first, and in fact I think started from a section common with Matthew, that began originally with the phrase "in those days", which is preserved in Matthew 3:1 about John, but was moved by Mark to verse 1:9 for the introduction of Jesus. Mark instead opens with the versification of the title, "The Gospel of Christ" (ΤΟΥΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝΤΟΥΧΥ) which could also have been called the Gospel of the Lord, and that is simply a one letter change of Χ to Κ. No doubt Jesus or ΙΥ was an early pious scribal addition and could well have been in the text before Mark when he simply added the word "(this is) the beginning" (ΑΡΧΗ) and you get "Thus begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ" ΑΡΧΗΤΟΥΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝΤΟΥΙΥΧΥ or verse 1:1 of Mark, effectively versifying the title he found with a mere four letters. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ is a product of the collection of the Gospels.
So I guess in conclusion I am agreeing that Mark versified the original title, which may have preceded all of the ΚΑΤΑ titles. And the ΚΑΤΑ titles came about because of the need to distinguish each, and beginning the myth of eyewitness and second hand accounts.