Happy New Year! With reference to an article by Simon Gathercole and Michael Kok’s new book, James McGrath and Michael Barber have recently written substantial posts on the titles of the Gospels (cf. now also Jonathan Bernier’s perceptive post). As a contribution to this discussion, today’s key quotation will look at the way in which Michael Wolter differs from the influential viewpoint of Martin Hengel (cf. here and here) in his treatment of the probable date of these titles. I found this to be an especially fascinating quotation and am curious to learn what others think of the way that Wolter attempts to reverse Hengel’s logic at a key point.
Translation and German Text
The Gospel According to Luke: The formulations εὐαγγέλιον κατά + name or κατά + name are the same in all the gospels. It can be inferred from this that they arose and were attached to the respective works at the earliest (not “at the latest” as Hengel 1984, 47 thinks) at the point in time when at least two different gospels existed alongside one another. The superscripts had the task of distinguishing the gospels from one another and avoiding mix-ups. This procedure took place not earlier than the first half of the second century (see also Petersen 2006, 273), for in the superscripts the word εὐαγγέλιον is used as a designation for a literary work and elsewhere this meaning is relatively certain first in the middle of the second century in Justin (Apologia i 66.3) and at best perhaps already attested in the 120s in the Didache (cf. Kelhoffer 2004; see also section 6.1 below).
Das Lukasevangelium (p. 4): Die Formulierungen εὐαγγέλιον κατά + Name or κατά + Name sind in allen Evangelien gleich. Daraus lässt sich schließen, dass sie frühestens (nicht “spätestens”, wie Hengel* 47 meint) zu dem Zeitpunkt entstanden sind und den jeweiligen Werken beigegeben wurden, als mindestens zwei verschiedene Evangelienschriften nebeneinander existierten. Die Überschriften hatten die Aufgabe, die Evangelien voneinander zu unterscheiden und Verwechslungen zu vemeiden. Dieser Vorgang wird nicht früher als in der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts stattgefunden haben (s. auch Petersen* 273), denn in den Überschriften wird das Wort εὐαγγέλιον als Bezeichnung für ein literarisches Werk gebraucht, und einigermaßen sicher ist diese Bedeutung ansonsten erst in der Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts bei Justin (1. Apol. 66,3) und höchstens vielleicht schon in den 120er Jahren in der Didache belegt (cf. dazu Kellhoffer, “How Soon…”; see auch u. Abschn. 6.1).
Grammatical Analysis: I will provide a detailed analysis of the crucial first two sentences as a model sentence. The plural subject is Die Formulierungen … Name. The verb is sind/are. Here in takes the dative allen Evangelien/all the Gospels. The predicate is gleich/the same. I usually render lassen + infinitive as “can be x-ed”: here lässt sich schliessen = it can be inferred + daraus/from this. dass/that indicates what can be inferred. sie = they (= Die Formulierungen … Name). The verbs entstanden sind/arose (or emerged) and beigegeben wurden/were attached (or added) move, as usual, to the end of the subordinate clause. frühestens = at the earliest. nicht “spätestens” = not “at the latest”. wie Hengel meint = “as Hengel thinks/says, believes/holds/reckons/fancies” (not sure what is the best translation of meinen here; “fancies” seems to strong and “believes” has its drawbacks; but “says” or “reckons” might be better than “thinks”). zu dem Zeitpunkt … als = “at the point in time … when“. The dative plural den jeweiligen Werken/”the respective works indicates” what they are attached to. mindestens zwei verschiedene/at least two different modifies the plural noun Evangelienschriften = gospels (gospels seemed better than gospel writings or gospels writings), which is the subject of existieren/existed. nebeneinander = alongside one another (or next to one another). As a rule I use “one another” when more than two things are in view and “each other” when only two things are in view (since two or more are in view I used “one another” here).
Substantive analysis: As I noted above, I am curious what others think about Wolter’s argument that the uniform character of the formulations indicates that they were attached “at the earliest” (Wolter) rather than “at the latest” (Hengel) when at least two different gospels existed alongside one another.
For other posts (in alphabetical order by last name) on the titles of the Gospels, see e.g. Michael Barber (cf. here), Jonathan Bernier, Nicholas Covington, Simon Gathercole, Bart Ehrmann (cf. here, here, here), Matthew Ferguson, Michael Kok, Michael Kruger (cf. here), James McGrath, Keith Reich.
For my Roundup of “Top Posts Posts” from 2014, see here.
For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.
For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.
Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.
German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! Unfortunately, I have found it increasingly difficult to write a new post each Monday, but I hope to be able to write at least two or three Monday blog posts each month. We’ll see. Best, Wayne.
German for Neutestamentler 
Thanks Wayne,
In Four Gospels Hengel takes a different view on the rationale for the agreement in the Gospel titles – imitation. Mark is distributed from the first with EUAGGELION KATA MARKON; Matthew is put into circulation bearing the same format; Luke secondarily the same (not so designated when presented to Theophilus, but distributed by him under the customary title); and John the same. So the identical titles arise from imitation of the original Markan title.
In relation to Wolter’s viewpoint (as expounded above) Hengel argues (well, ‘states’ might be better) that it would be quite impossible for Luke to be given the title EUAGGELION KATA LOUKAN towards the middle of the second century, this would be quite inexplicable.
The reason for this (for Hengel) is that it seemed to him quite unlikely (inexplicable) that anonymous and unlabelled gospels could have circulated without there being a diversity of labelling in the manuscript tradition. (This is linked to the fact that Hengel, rightly, emphasises that the gospels circulated individually, not predominantly in four-fold gospel codices).
Is it possible that Mark was distributed with the title “Euangelion” and that the “Kata Markon” was added once one of the other evangelists began circulating their documents? Or could Mark have initially been circulated without a title? If “Euangelion” is a technical term that arose after the fact to describe the existing genre of “gospel,” as Wolter suggests, then it would require Mark to have no superscription (or a different one that was later replaced). To me, it makes the most sense for tradition to have conserved an original title, “Euangelion,” but out of necessity appended “kata Markos” after the the next gospel began to circulate.