Bible, accessed 18 December 2016, available at http://drbo.org.
Acknowledgments
1 Heilagra manna sögur, vol. 2, 1–20; Haugen, ed., Stamtre og tekstlandskap, vol. 2,
Tekster og tabellar, 17–59; Haugen, ed., “Niðrstigningar saga,” 250–6; Roughton,
“AM 645 4to and AM 652/630 4to,” 872–86.
Introduction
1 di Paolo Healey, “Anglo-Saxon Use of the Apocryphal Gospel,” 98.
2 On the formation of the Latin text, see Izydorczyk, “The Evangelium Nicodemi in
the Latin Middle Ages.” Zbigniew Izydorczyk is currently preparing a critical edi-
tion of the Latin apocryphon for the CCSA.
3 A detailed census of the copious manuscript tradition of the Evangelium Nicodemi
has been covered by Izydorczyk, Manuscripts of Evangelium Nicodemi.
4 The name Niðrstigningar saga is first attested in the rubric of Copenhagen,
AM 645 4to (f. 51v), from around 1220. The title was first employed by Carl R.
Unger in his edition of the text. See Niðrstigningar saga I and II.
98 Notes to pages xiv–5
5 See chapter 1, “The Latin Evangelium Nicodemi in Medieval Europe.”
6 Karl Tamburr has recently discussed the use of the Harrowing of Hell in the
Evangelium Nicodemi; see Tamburr, The Harrowing of Hell, 102–47.
7 As suggested in “The Jarteinabœkr Þorláks byskups” in chapter 6.
1 The Latin Evangelium Nicodemi in Medieval Europe
1 See the discussion in Izydorczyk, “The Unfamiliar Evangelium Nicodemi,” 170–6.
For a brief summary of the textual features of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and
the Gospel of Nicodemus, and for English translations, bibliographical references,
and a useful index, see Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 84–99, 164–204.
2 On the figure of Nicodemus in the Gospel of John, see Renz, “Nicodemus:
An Ambiguous Disciple?” 255–83.
3 The title Evangelium Nicodemi is used in two of the most influential historical and
hagiographical chronicles of the Middle Ages, Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum
historiale and Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda aurea, both compiled during the
second half of the twelfth century. On the different titles of the text, their history,
and the misleadingly inconsistent use in previous research, see Izydorczyk,
“Introduction,” 2–3.
4 On the genesis and textual history of the oriental translations of the Greek Acta
Pilati, see the useful summary in Hennecke, Handbuch zu den Neutestamentlichen
Apokryphen, 143–52.
5 On the surviving Greek manuscripts of the Acta Pilati, see Izydorczyk and Dubois,
“Nicodemus’s Gospel,” 28–9.
6 The oldest manuscript of the Greek tradition is in fact a text pertaining to Greek
A, today Munich, BStB, cod. graec. 276, dating back to the twelfth century and
transmitting chapters I–XVI. The two recensions are edited in von Tischendorf,
Evangelia Apocrypha, 202–70, 270–300. A new edition of the Greek Acta Pilati
is currently being prepared by Brigitte Tambrun-Krasker for the CCSA.
7 The second prologue of Greek A is transmitted exclusively in two manuscripts,
today Paris, BnF, gr. 770 from 1315 and gr. 947 from 1574. Izydorczyk and Dubois,
“Nicodemus’s Gospel,” 28.
8 A marginal note (f. 58r) refers to Abbot Meinhard as the commissioner of the man-
uscript in “loco novivillarensi” – that is, Neuwiller-lès-Saverne. See, for instance,
Unterkircher, Die datierten Handschriften, 27.
9 The texts of section four of the Vienna palimpsest are edited by Philippart,
“Fragments palimpsestes,” 390–411.
10 Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores, vol. 10, no. 1485.
11 On this issue, see Campbell, “To Hell and Back,” 129–32 and, more recently,
Izydorczyk, “Two Newly Identified Manuscripts,” 253–5.
Notes to pages 5–9 99
12 Izydorczyk, Manuscripts of Evangelium Nicodemi.
13 See the discussion in Izydorczyk, “The Unfamiliar Evangelium Nicodemi,”
and Izydorczyk, “The Evangelium Nicodemi in the Latin Middle Ages,” 43–102.
Latin A corresponds to von Tischendorf’s Db and Dc, respectively, Einsiedeln,
Lincei e Corsiniana, 1146 (fourteenth century), whose readings are available in
the apparatus of the edited text in von Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 312–95.
These incongruences in Tischendorf’s text were first noted by von Dobschütz,
“Nicodemus, Gospel of,” 545.
14 The term was first applied to Latin A in Bullitta “Crux Christi muscipula fuit
diabolo.”
15 Kim, ed., The Gospel of Nicodemus.
16 K Prologue 13/5–14.
17 All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.
18 See the discussion in Izydorczyk, “The Evangelium Nicodemi in the Latin Middle
Ages,” 49–50.
19 Editions of the Latin Vita Adae et Evae have been prepared by Meyer, “Vita Adae
et Evae,” 185–250, and, more recently, by Pettorelli, ed., “La vie latine d’Adam
et Ève,” 18–104. On the development and circulation of the legend, see Quinn,
The Quest of Seth.
20 K XIX.1 38/17–28.
21 Variant texts of Sermo CLX are available in the PL, where they are incorrectly
attributed to Augustine in vol. 39, cols. 2059–61 and Martin of Léon (†1203) in
vol. 208, cols. 925–32 with the title Sermo vicesimus quintus. De Resurrectione
Domini. The pseudo-Augustinian Sermo CLX De Pascha II was well known in
Anglo-Saxon England and has been recognized as one of the sources underly-
ing the Old English Martyrology, which dates to the ninth century, and the
Seventh Blickling homily for Easter, Dominica Pascha, which dates to the tenth.
Respectively, see Cross, “The Use of Patristic Homilies,” 107–28, and Dabley,
“Patterns of Preaching,” 478–92.
22 K XXII.1 42/22–43/3.
23 K XXIII.1 43/7–44/36.
24 K XXIV.1 45/19–20.
25 See Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon, 36–8, 130–40.
26 See note 34 of this chapter.
27 See the discussion in Cross, “Saint-Omer 202,” 82–104. The text of Saint-Omer
202 is edited in Two Old English Apocrypha, on the verso side of pp. 138–247.
The Old English text is best represented by Cambridge, UL, Ii. 2. 11 (ff. 173r–
193r), a manuscript copied in Exeter during the third quarter of the eleventh
century. The readings of the other two manuscripts of the Old English Evangelium
100 Notes to pages 9–11
Nicodemi – London, BL, Cotton Vitellius A XV (f. 60r–86v), that is, the first sec-
tion of the Nowell Codex from the middle of the twelfth century, and London, BL,
Cotton Vespasian D XIV (ff. 87v–100r), from the middle of the twelfth century –
are available in the apparatus of Two Old English Apocrypha, on the recto side
of pp. 139–247.
28 The manuscript was possibly chosen by the English copyist on account of the
numerous homilies by Bede and Gregory the Great. See the discussion in Cross
and Crick, “The Manuscript,” especially pp. 31–5.
29 On its acquisition from the Continent, see, for instance, Rella, “Continental
Manuscripts,” 112. The text of London Royal 5 E. XIII is available as variant read-
ings of Saint-Omer 202 in the apparatus of Two Old English Apocrypha, 138–247.
30 The manuscript is mentioned in Gijsel, Die unmittelbare Textüberlieferung, 137.
31 Whitman, nicknamed “Teutonicus,” a native of what is today Germany, was the
third Abbot of Ramsey between 1016 and 1020, as recorded in the cartulary of
the abbey. See Hart and Lyons, Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, 173.
32 See Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen, vol. 1, Die bayerische
Diözesen, 151.
33 See, respectively, Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen, vol. 2, Die
vorwiegend Österreichischen Diözesen, 230, 234.
34 See, for instance, Homburger, Die illustrierten Handschriften, 159–61.
35 Around the year 827, Hilduin of Saint Denis supervised the first Latin translation
of a Greek manuscript containing the works of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,
granted by the Byzantine Emperor Michael the Stammerer (†829) to Louis the
Pious (†840). However, the Latin translation turned out to be too literal and
barely comprehensible, and around 860, a new translation and commentary of
the same work was commissioned by Charles the Bald (†877) to Johannes Scotus
Eriugena. Johannes Scotus was undoubtedly one of the most learned men of his
time and a proficient translator of Greek texts, which included commentaries of
Maximus the Confessor (†622) and Gregory of Nyssa (†ca. 395). On Hilduin and
Johannes Scotus, see, for instance, Marenbon, “Carolingian Thought,” 183–4.
Sedulius Scotus, the eminent poet and Latin grammarian, was also much learned
in Greek, and after his arrival in Liège from Ireland around 848, he is credited
with the transcription of a voluminous Greek Psalter, today Paris, BdA, 8407,
which also included the Canticles and the “Our Father” in Greek and Latin. See
most recently McNamara, The Psalms in the Early Irish Church, 62–4. Martianus
Hiberniensis is known for having produced an impressive Greek-Latin glossary at
the cathedral school of Laon, today Laon, BM Suzanne Martinet, 444. See most
recently Bonnet, “Survivance du grec au IX siècle,” 263–78. Martianus was also
accounted for the composition of the Scholica graecum glossarum, a list of mostly
Greek words with their relative explanations extracted from the previous works
Notes to pages 11–13 101
of eminent commentators such as Isidore of Seville and Martianus Capella. This
attribution has been subsequently disregarded by Contreni, who instead suggested
the Benedictine monastery of Ripoll in Catalonia as the possible place of composi-
tion. See the discussion in Contreni, “Three Carolingian Texts,” 802–8.
36 David N. Dumville has proven that the Harrowing of Hell section in the early
ninth-century English Book of Cerne is derived from a lost eighth-century Latin
text of Irish provenance, which was later assembled with the pseudo-Augustinian
Sermo CLX De Pascha II. See Dumville, “Liturgical Drama and Panegyric
Responsory,” 374–406. On the early knowledge and circulation of the Latin
Vita Adae et Evae in Ireland, see Wright, “Apocryphal Lore and Insular Tradition,”
130, and Wright, The Irish Tradition, 23.
37 See Bernhard Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen, vol. 1, Aachen- Lambach,
412n1985. The manuscript once belonged to the German scholar and philologist
Friedrich Lindenbrog (†1648), who may have acquired it from a monastery
during one of his visits to Paris. The codex was then deposited in the library
of the Gottrop castle in Schleswig and was taken to Copenhagen only in 1735.
See Jørgensen, Catalogus codicum latinorum, 15.
38 See Izydorczyk, Manuscripts of Evangelium Nicodemi, items 119, 215, 268, 255,
and 425, respectively.
39 Ibid., items 75, 73, and 199, respectively.
40 See, for instance, von Dobschütz, “Nicodemus, Gospel of,” 545. The manuscripts
used by von Tischendorf in his edition, referred to as A (Vatican City, BAV, Vat.
lat. 4578, from the fourteenth century), B (Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 4363, from
the twelfth century), and C (Venice, BNM, 4326, from the end of the fourteenth
century), are in fact all manuscripts pertaining to Latin B. Their readings are
available in von Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 312–95.
41 As pointed out in Izydorczyk, “The Evangelium Nicodemi in the Latin Middle
Ages,” 51.
42 Respectively, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, S. M. 599 (ff. 8r–25r),
possibly from the Convent of San Marco in Florence; Vatican City, BAV, Vat.
lat. 4363 (ff. 93ra–96va) and Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 5094 (ff. 1r–18v), both
from an unknown location; London, BL, Add. 29630 (ff. 93r–103rb); Paris, BnF,
lat.14864 (ff. 109r–128r); and Salzburg, Bibliothek der Erzabtei St. Peter, a V 27
(ff. 111r–139r).
43 Cambridge, CCC, 288 (ff. 39r–54v) from Christ Church in Canterbury, and Oxford,
Bodl, Rawlinson D. 1236 (ff. 60r–72r) from Saint Mary’s Abbey in Dublin.
44 The manuscripts written in Italy are Paris, BnF, lat. 6041 A (ff. 178va–179vb);
Vatican City, BAV, Vat lat. 4578 (ff. 35r–38rb); Venice, BNM, Marc. lat. II 65
(olim 2901) (ff. 59r–78r); and Venice, BNM, Marc. lat. XIV 43; It II 2 (olim 4326)
(ff. 156r–171v). The manuscripts written in England are Cambridge, UL, Mm.
102 Notes to pages 13–14
VI. 15 (ff. 87r–100v) and London, BL, Royal 8 B. XV (ff. 165r–175r). The manu-
script written in Spain is Vallebona, Santa Maria de Vallebona, 3 (ff. 75rb–96v).
45 The three manuscripts from Italy are Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale,
Fondo Nazionale II, II.453 (ff. 156–160); Paris, BnF, nuov. acq. lat. 1154 (ff. 10v–
16r); and Vatican City, BAV, Reg. lat. 1037, 97–107. The four manuscripts from
Czech Republic and England are respectively Cambridge, UL, Ff. VI. 54 (ff. 61r–
111r); Oxford, Bodl, Canon. Pat. lat. 117 (ff. 9r–15r); Brno, Státní vědecká kni-
hovna, Mk 99 (ff. 145r–154v); and Praha, Knihovna metropolitní kapituly, N. LIV
(ff. 1r–21r). The French manuscript is Paris, BnF, lat.1652 (ff. 31rb–49vb).
46 Izydorczyk, “The Unfamiliar Evangelium Nicodemi,” 169–91. Its text is hitherto
unedited; a first critical edition is currently being prepared by Justin Haynes. See
his introductory remarks on the problems and characteristics of the tradition in
Haynes, “New Perspectives,” 103–12.
47 The manuscript was subsequently transferred to the Girona Cathedral in the
middle of the eleventh century. On the manuscript, see for instance Schapiro,
“The Beatus Apocalypse of Gerona,” 3:319–28. The last edition of the text is
Romero-Posé, Sancti Beati a Liébana Commentarius.
48 As noted in Izydorczyk, “The Evangelium Nicodemi in the Latin Middle Ages,”
52.
49 The standard text of the Epistola Pilati is available in K XXVIII 49/1–59/36.
50 The author of von Tischendorf’s chapter XXVIII erroneously refers to “the first
book of the Septuagint,” alluding to the description of Noah’s ark in Genesis
6:14–15 as the source of the quoted passage rather than Exodus 25:10, as the
wording of the passage seems to indicate. Indeed, in his Commentarii in Danielem,
4.23–4, Hippolytus of Rome bases his calculation on Exodus 25:10. S
ee Marcel,
Hippolytus Werke vol. 1, Kommentar zu Daniel, 244–8.
51 On the influence of Fleury and Saint-Germain-des-Prés on the Ripoll scriptorium,
see Beer, Die Handschriften des Klosters, 38–9, 92–5. On that of Laon, see
Laistner, “Rivipullensis 74,” 31–7.
52 Respectively, Paris, BnF, lat. 3214 (ff. 132vb–139vb) and Paris, BnF, lat. 4977
(ff. 227r–232va) from the fourteenth century; Paris, BnF, lat. 3628 (ff. 109r–122v)
from the fifteenth century; Prague, Státní vědecká knihovna, III.C.18 (ff. 278ra–
288rb) from the fourteenth century; and Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, O 35 Sup.
(ff. 65v–85r) from the fourteenth century.
53 Izydorczyk, “The Latin Source,” 265–79. The only other text edited in the manu-
script is the Vita beatae Ame virginis (ff. 79r–89r), immediately preceding the
Evangelium Nicodemi (ff. 90r–104v) in the manuscript. See Dolbeau, “Vie latine
de sainte Ame,” 25–63. A first edition of Latin T is now available in Izydorczyk
and Bullitta, “The Troyes Redaction.” In the following discussion, I refer to the
folios and lines of Troyes 1636.
Notes to pages 15–16 103
54 T 90r/2–11.
55 The majority of the earliest manuscripts are of French origin: Troyes, Médiathèque
du Grand Troyes, 1636 is from the twelfth century; Paris, BdA, 128 (39
A.T.L.); Cambridge (MA), Harvard University, Houghton Library, lat. 117; and
Charleville-Mézières, BM, 61 were written in the fourteenth century; while Paris,
BnF, nuov. acq. lat. 1755 was produced in the fifteenth century. Except Hannover,
Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, I 247, which dates to the fourteenth cen-
tury, all other German manuscripts are from the fifteenth century: Berlin, SPK,
Theol. lat. fol. 688; Berlin, SPK, Theol. lat. fol. 690; Stuttgart, Württembergische
Landesbibliothek, HB I 119; Halle/Saale, Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen,
P 7; Paderborn, Erzbischöfliche Akademische Bibliothek, Inc. 31; Wolfenbüttel,
HAB, Cod. Guelf. 38.8 Aug. 2°; Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 83 Gud.
lat.2°; and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 279 Helmst. Only three manuscripts
were produced outside this area: one in England, Cambridge, TC 0.9.10; one in
Bohemia, Cambridge, CCC, 500 at the end of the fourteenth century; and one