The title of the "Gospel of Mark"

[rgprice]

In David Oliver Smith's Unlocking the Puzzle, he concludes based on analysis of the chiastic structure of Mark that the first line of Mark is really the original title: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He supports "the Son of God." though many others disagree and put it simply as "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ."

At any rate, are there any good reasons to dispute this view? Is there any reason not to think that the real title is, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ"?

It does sound like it makes sense to me:

The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah...

[Stuart]

It has long been my argument that Mark 1:1 is nothing more than the versification by prefixing ἀρχή to the title he found, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ "The Gospel of Jesus Christ". Mark found this title in the margin and simply prefixed ἀρχή.

Note: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is actually found in nomina sacra (ΙΥΧΥ) form in all early manuscripts
Note: the words "son of God" (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) were not originally in Mark, rather they are a variant explained by Ehrman as anti-Adoptionist.

I had actually come to the conclusion looking at the Marcionite versions of Luke and Paul. I discovered that Marcionite text in Paul only refers to a Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of God appears to be a later creation by the (Lukan) editor in Paul (Romans 1:1, 15:16; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 2:8-9, plus 1 Peter 4:17). The Gospel of Christ was almost certainly the original name of the synoptic prototype. This is the document referred to in Paul. It is also likely the title of the Marcionite gospel. (Harnack invented "the Gospel of the Lord" title for the Marcionite gospel, more to distinguish it than for accuracy.)

Further, when I was examining the missing scene of John's baptism in Marcion, I came to the conclusion that the Marcionite author omitted it, and transferred elements from the prototype which rough follows Mark 1:2, 4-15 to other place sin the gospel. He need to remove these to begin his gospel with the appearance of Jesus in Capernaum, which is why he moved the calling of the fisherman story to after chapter 4.

All this led me to the conclusion that Mark versified the title.

It should also be noted that the title names of our four gospels are not part of the original manuscripts. Instead we find the titles in a second hand in the top or bottom margin saying "according to Mark" or "according to John." The κατὰ <claimed author> titles only mattered when there were multiple gospels accepted and in circulation. The first needed no title. That Mark versified the title suggests there were already other gospels in circulation, so he called attention to the gospel by declaring it as such at the start.

[rgprice]

I do believe that "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ" is original, because this refers to Philippians 4:15.

What makes you think that the writer of Mark versified a title rather than later editors versified Mark's title?

[Ben C. Smith]

I am increasingly of the opinion that Mark 1.1-3 is not original to the gospel. Mark 1.1, though, is a title, I agree.

[Irish1975]

In David Oliver Smith's Unlocking the Puzzle, he concludes based on analysis of the chiastic structure of Mark that the first line of Mark is really the original title: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He supports "the Son of God." though many others disagree and put it simply as "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ."

At any rate, are there any good reasons to dispute this view? Is there any reason not to think that the real title is, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ"?

It does sound like it makes sense to me:

The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah...

Why accept the assumption that this text circulated independently prior to its publication in the tetraeuangelion of the first edition of the New Testament. It’s baseless bullshit and special pleading.

Titles are given by publishers, not authors (today and in antiquity). If you’re going to talk about an “original title,” different from the actual title given in the manuscripts, what kind of story about this book’s publication history are you peddling, or ignorantly presupposing?

And the actual title isn’t “the Gospel of Mark,” it’s “The Gospel According to Mark.”

I am increasingly of the opinion that Mark 1.1-3 is not original to the gospel. Mark 1.1, though, is a title, I agree.

Weird ass title.

[Secret Alias]

It could also be an ascribing of authorship i.e. when the apostle says I speak in Christ etc. Not that weird. We've just been misled

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Weird ass title.

I think it sounds very good in Greek.

"Ἀρχὴ" (beginning) sounds dark and deep. The "χ" is articulated further back in the mouth. But the other words are four genitives with the ending „-oo“ and ring like an airy and light singsong.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Any thoughts about it possibly being a nominal sentence? That is, the verb to be is omitted?

The beginnining of the gospel ... was as the prophets ...

and

I think it sounds very good in Greek.

I didn't want to bump the other thread about Mark's grammar for this, but I do appreciate your kind words there and want to acknowledge how much I've learned from your posts.