If they started from the first day they were written with the title, it would not make any difference. Pseudepigrapha, look it up. What church fathers mused about much later are hardly any authoritative guarantee of accuracy, and in truth, there are many reasons to doubt their conclusions, through textual analysis, etc. I can't seem to find actual credentials for your blog writer that says he would know a damn thing about biblical historical analysis, or have the access to texts Erhman has to study on the matter, either. Correct me on the credentials if he has some, I just tried to find any reference to a degree in the historical field and came up flat empty. The closest I see is a masters in divinity he says had an emphasis on church history. Those are not historian's credentials, in the least. His theory on why there weren't titles is the same one theologists cited for why mark lacked from 16:9 on in the manuscripts, that they just had lost the ends of the scrolls, or they'd worn away, until the two oldest bibles in codex form were shown to not have them, either. Complete BSer.