In the Vatican Library, there is a
little-known manuscript, Sir.
162, from the 700s, which is the sole surviving copy of a composition
called Revelation of the Magi. Dr. Brent Landau
(Th. D., Harvard Divinity
School), of the University
of Texas at Austin, has studied this text in detail, and
translated it into English. His
translation was published in 2010 by HarperCollins as part of the book The Revelation of the Magi – The
Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem.
Manuscript Sir. 162 was studied in the
mid-1860s by Otto Tullberg, a Swedish scholar, and Revelation of the Magi was described by M.R. James in 1927 under
the name Liber de Nativate Salvatoris.
similar composition is embedded in the Latin composition known as Opus Imperfectum in
Matthaeum, which was produced in the 400s.
was Revelation of the Magi
composed? Dr. Landau has proposed that Revelation of the Magi was composed in
Syriac in the late 100s or early 200s, with a later expansion (mainly consisting of the final episode of the book) made in the 300s or 400s.
It is an interesting narrative. Readers who want to learn more about it may
Landau’s book, or the summary here
(the summary of the translation begins on p. 20 of the PDF) or his dissertation (here). My focus is on a specific feature: its use of the contents of Mark 16:9-20.
In Rev. Magi 15:8, there is a
reference to Christ as “the one in whose name signs and
portents take place through his believers.”
This alone would be a strong allusion to Mark 16:17. But even clearer is a passage in 31:10 – part
of the portion which was added in the 300s – where the apostle Thomas (called
“Judas Thomas” in Rev. Magi) is
depicted saying ““Therefore, my brethren, let us fulfill the commandment of our
Lord, who said to us: ‘Go out into the
entire world and preach my Gospel.’”
This is a plain utilization of Mark 16:15 (although in Landau’s
dissertation a footnote treats it as a utilization of Matthew 28:18).
|Dr. Brent Landau|
None of which you would learn about
from the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland NTG, or
the UBS GNT, or the Tyndale House GNT (which breaks from its strange practice of presenting no patristic evidence by inserting, between Mark 16:8
and 16:9, an annotation which is taken from minuscule 1.) Yet again the apparatus of Nestle-Aland’s NTG
and the apparatus of UBS’s GNT and the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT are
silent about a significant piece of early evidence supportive of Mark
It is no wonder that many preachers
in Europe and America still reject Mark 16:9-20: they have been
misled for over a century by commentators who relied on selective presentations
of the relevant evidence. But hopefully
they will not be so gullible as to continue to trust sources that have
demonstrated their untrustworthiness again and again and again.
Great fine; Keep up the good work. Blessings.
Come on, I know you are convinced about the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark, but to take a wild timeframe estimate from one guy and not only accept it, but condemn the Editions based on that. Your bias and a surprising lack of humility are not a good look
Instead of accusing Landau of positing a "wild" timeframe (on what grounds??) why not read his Harvard dissertation (see the embedded link), think it over, and *then* tell me what's wrong with his reasoning, eh.
It was a real invitation.
Post a Comment