In Mark 1:1, υ?ο? θ?ο? (‘Son of God’) may not be original. Though it is supported by significant external evidence, its omission is also supported by diverse kinds of external evidence: early Alexandrian manuscripts (?* sa<SUP>ms</SUP>), the so-called ‘Caesarean’ manuscript (Θ), a number of Church Fathers and ancient versions. Further, υ?ο? θ?ο? does not fit the style of Mark since Mark elsewhere uses το? θ?ο? instead of θ?ο? (3:11; 5:7) except in 15:39 where the word θ?ο? may have originally been spoken in Latin (that does not have the definite article) by a Roman centurion. Though υ?ο? θ?ο? could have been omitted by homoeoteleuton, the omission of ‘Son of God’ did not occur elsewhere in the NT whereas the addition of ‘the Son of God’ took place in Mark 8:29 as P. M. Head pointed out. T. Wasserman argued that in Mark 8:29, ‘the Son of God’ in some manuscripts is a harmonization to Matthew 16:16. The possibility of scribal addition, however, cannot be excluded. ‘The Son of God’ in Matt 16:16 reflects the redactional tendency of adding ‘the Son of God.’ The copyists of Mark may also have had such a tendency.
Anarthrous construction is often used for titles. Since ?ρχ? (‘beginning,’ ‘basis’) does not have the definite article and has no verb, Mark 1:1 is likely to be a heading. Mark does not have any section heading elsewhere, and thus Mark 1:1 may be a heading for the whole text of Mark. R. A. Guelich argued that v. 1 is connected to v. 2 since καθ?? γ?γραπται (‘as it is written’) is always connected to the preceeding elements elsewhere in the NT. The καθ?? (‘just as’) clause, however, is also used elsewhere in connection with its subsequent phrase, so(?) vv. 2-3 can be connected to v. 4. This possibility is supported by the parallelism between v. 3 and v. 4.
The word ?ρχ? can mean “a basis for further understanding” as in Heb 5:12; 6:1. This meaning fits with the function of Mark 1:1, and thus this word, as a part of the heading of Mark, can be translated as ‘introduction’.
In the LXX, the words, ??αγγ?λ?ον and ??αγγ?λ?ια refer to (good) news, and in Isa 40:9 (the LXX), the verb ??αγγ?λ?ζ is used for preaching new exodus message. In Mark, ??αγγ?λ?ον refers to the message about Jesus (8:35; 10:29;13:10; 14:9) or the message proclaimed by Jesus (1:14-15). Hence, ‘good news’ is a proper translation for ??αγγ?λ?ον. However, since ??αγγ?λ?ον had a religious nuance on account of its usage for the emperor’s birth, enthronement, visiting, in connection with the Roman emperor worship, ??αγγ?λ?ον may also be translated as ‘gospel’ that has a religious nuance.
‘Gospel about Jesus’ (the objective genitive) seems to be a better translation for ??αγγ?λ?ον ?ησο? than ‘gospel (proclaimed) by Jesus’ (the subjective genitive). Since Mark 1:1 is the heading of Mark, ‘the gospel about Jesus’ better fits its context than ‘the gospel proclaimed by Jesus.’ ‘The message proclaimed by Jesus’ cannot represent the whole of Mark, but it can be called ‘the message about Jesus.’
In Mark, the word Χριστ?? is not yet used as a name of Jesus but as a title for the eschatological saviour sent by God (8:29; 14:61). Since the word ‘Christ’ is often misunderstood as a name of Jesus, ‘Messiah’ may be better than ‘Christ’ as a translation for Χριστ?? .
In conclusion, the original text of Mark 1:1 may have been ?ρχ? το? ??αγγ?λ?ον ?ησο? Χριστο? , and it can be translated as ‘Introduction to the Good News about Jesus the Messiah.’ As a heading of Mark, it needs to be capitalized and spaced apart from verse 2.