Steven Carr

Kata Mark, Kata Luke, Kata Matthew and Kata John are very unusual ways to title works.

While I know that the titles do vary in early manuscripts, the titles do all have this most unusual way of naming works. I'm not aware of any other sorts of works which have 'kata name' in their titles.

Did 4 independent people decided to title works like that?

Or is it more likely that the names all come from one person, who obviously did not write any of the 4 works?

Ben C Smith

Yes, they are.

See below.

Not likely.

I am not certain they all came from the same person, but I think it is most likely that they came after the publication of at least 2 of the gospels. The second gospel would have to be distinguished from the first.

The κατα syntax is very similar to the way the different Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures were often named after the translators; they were the scriptures according to the LXX (κατα τους εβδομηκοντα), according to Aquila (κατα τον Ακυλον), and according to Symmachus (κατα τον Συμμαχον). Just as these translators were seen as having rendered the same basic book (the Old Testament) into Greek, so the evangelists were often seen as having rendered the same basic message (the gospel).

Modern scholarship is almost unanimous on the gospel of Mark having come first; and right there in Mark 1.1 is what could be read as a title: Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any gospel written after Mark whose writer or readers wanted to call it a gospel would have to distinguish it somehow; hence gospel according to Mark and gospel according to X (Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas, Peter... fill in the blank).

Or so it seems to me.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Named after the translators?

So the translators did not name the translations after themselves? Somebody else added that title 'kata Aquila'?

It seems likely to me that it was one person who decided to add those titles.

It is hard to believe 3 people would have independently come up with the same idea that these works were all rendering the same basic message and so needed a 'kata' so the reader would know which was which, remembering to change the first one , which originally would not have needed a 'kata'.

I take it that the non-canonical Gospels do not have 'kata Peter' 'kata Thomas' etc in their titles in the early manuscripts of them.

Do they?

Ben C Smith

Yes.

Not sure, actually. It seems likely, but I do not know for certain.

Actually, that seems quite unlikely to me, for reasons to be given below.

I agree that it is very unlikely that 2 or more people came up with these titles independently.

Of course they do. This is why it is doubtful that only one person gave all these titles. Rather more likely is that one person gave 2 or more of the gospels such titles, and the pattern was followed by others. (IOW, I disagree with you that the titles all derive from one person; but I agree with you that the titles are not independent constructions.)

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Strictly speaking the superscriptions (not titles) of these works are τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, κατὰ Μαθθαῖον etc..

They do? According to Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk)(n. 10) 65-72, they were all completely uniform in the second century, the only difference being between the use of the full tilte τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον etc. and the shorter ones (i.e., κατὰ Μάρκον, κατὰ Μαθθαῖον etc). Are you sure you are not confusing the order of arrangement in which these Gospels appear in canon lists?

There are of course a number of forensic speeches that do (e.g. Lysias' Κατὰ τῶν σιτοπωλῶν;ΠΡΟΣ ΔΙΟΚΛΕΑ ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝΡΗΤΟΡΩΝ ΝΟΜΟΥ: IsocratesΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΣΟΦΙΣΤΩΝ. See too #s 4, 6, 9-10, 21-28, 45-48, 54, 56, 58-59 of the speeches of Demosthenes) but kata is used there with the genitive form of a name.

I'm still searching for titles of works that that contain kata + accusative, but one might consider the work by Plutarch that is now known as De esu carnium. And this formulation is most definately used as the supersciption of his Life of Hippocartes (cf. Soranus Vita Hippocratis t.1).


Why do you assume that these are only two alternatives? Have you looked at what appears on this matter in Martin Hengel's Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jeffrey

DCHindley

Steven,

Are you working from a sourcebook of some kind? The reason I ask is because you say "Kata Mark, Kata Luke, Kata Matthew and Kata John are very unusual ways to title works," David Trobisch, in First Edition of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), says

The complete titles of the Gospels in the manuscripts read as follows: euanggelion kata Maqqaion, euaggelion kata Markon, euaggelion kata Loukan, euaggelion kata Iwannhn. They consist of three elements: the first element, Euaggelion, designates the literary genre; the third element refers to the authorial source; and Kata connects the two. Each of these three elements is very unusual.

You ask "The [later translations of the Jewish scriptures] are n]amed after the translators? So the translators did not name the translations after themselves? Somebody else added that title 'kata Aquila'?" Trobisch says

Indicating the authorial source by Kata and the accusative is extremely rare for book titles. The closest parallel is found in the formula used by Christian authors when referring to various competing Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures: kata tous hEbdomhkonta [according to the seventy], kata Akulan [according to Aquila], kata Summacon [according to Symmachus], kata Qewdotiwna [according to Theodotion].

To say "It seems likely to me that it was one person who decided to add those titles. It is hard to believe 3 people would have independently come up with the same idea ..." Trobisch says

The possibility that the titles were independently formulated this way by the authors of the Gospels may be safely ruled out. It would be too much of a coincidence for two independently working publishers to have decided on the same unusual genre designation, the same authorial source, and Kata as the syntactical connector.

I get the impression you read Trobisch and weren't sure you really understood what he was saying (lots of Greek and all). It is OK to admit you have been reading a specific author but want other opinions for comparison. Jeffrey picked up on this and mentions Martin Hengel's Studies in the Gospel of Mark.

Trobisch had concluded

The uniform structure of the titles [not just of the gospels, but also of the other books of the NT] points beyond the individual writing to an overall editorial concept and was not imposed by the authors of the individual writings. The titles are redactional. In most cases the genre designations, the alleged authorship, and the structure of the titles cannot be derived from the text with certainty. This strongly suggests that the present form of the titles was not created by independently working editors but that they are the result of a single, specific redaction.

However, he contrasts his own position with that of Hengel

Martin Hengel strongly rejects the idea that the uniformity of the Gospel titles, which he readily agrees existed toward the end of the second century, might he explained as the result of a centralized redaction promoted by the influence and power of the church [he is referring to some of Hengel's German works. And many historians will wholeheartedly agree with Hengel. The Christian church of the second century had not yet developed the structures that would later be used to promote and enforce specific practices and creeds. There was no central personality who could have exercised so much power. Hengel argues that even if it could be conceded for a moment that a widely successful effort actually had been made to declare a certain [Pg 42] selection of writings as authoritative for all, it would be all the more surprising that not one record of this event has survived, not even in the form of a legend.

Hengel's close study of the Gospel titles covers the available evidence comprehensively and has helped focus the attention of scholars on a long-neglected problem. However, the conclusion he reaches is the exact opposite of the conclusion reached in this present study.

DCH

hatsoff

What exactly is the mss. evidence for titles? I was under the impression that "κατὰ Μαθθαῖον" was likely a truncated version of "Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον". And i was not aware that the other three Gospels ever were titled simply "κατὰ _____".

Ben C Smith

According to Hengel (page 66), Vaticanus has the short form for all four gospels. Sinaiticus has the short form in the inscriptions of all four gospels, but the long form in the subscriptions of Mark, Luke, and John. The short form in the subscription of Matthew Hengel chalks up to scribal carelessness in note 11.

Hengel says that all other normative manuscripts bear the longer form of the titles for all gospels to which they attest. These manuscripts include P66 (gospel according to John), P75 (gospel according to Luke and gospel according to John), and P4 + P64 + P67 (gospel according to Matthew).

Ben.