Ólafur Jónsson
(1722–1800)
3 The Manuscript Filiation
of Niðrstigningar saga
This chapter looks into the manuscript filiation of Niðrstigningar saga. To fa-
cilitate constant comparison and testing of their readings, reference to the five
manuscripts of Niðrstigningar saga will hereafter, and in the apparatus, be
made through the letters A, B, C, D, and E as follows: A = AM 645 4to; B =
AM 623 4to; C = AM 233 a fol.; D = JS 405 8vo; and E = AM 238 V fol.
Agreement of the Two Redactions
The complicated relationships between the manuscripts of Niðrstigningar saga
have already been surveyed in several studies. Gabriel Turville-Petre has ob-
served that regardless of the high variance of the texts transmitted in A, B, C,
and E, they should be considered as deriving from a single ancient translation.
In order to support this argument, he makes reference to the presence of the
two sections of text, previously considered as the “first” and “second” interpo-
lations.1 As a matter of fact, the text of Niðrstigningar saga contains a total of
four interpolations, surveyed in chapter 5 in order of appearance in the text.
They all derive from foreign narrative material and are consequently absent
from the entire Latin tradition of the Evangelium Nicodemi. They are found,
however, in the Icelandic text masterfully interwoven throughout the original
plot.2 As shown in the collations below, except for the lacunae due to loss of
manuscript material, the four interpolations are shared by all other manuscripts
in the tradition. Moreover, there is reasonable evidence to suppose that the
material lost also contained the interpolated text.
The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 39
The First Textual Interpolation
A 52r/32–3 Þar var tvennt fyrer at þar var elldr brenna⟨n⟩di at banna manni
hveriom at⟨gøngo paradisar⟩ enn englar at veria øllom dioflom oc øndom
synðogra manna.3
B lacuna
C lacuna
D 4r/24–6 Þar var tvennt vardhald ad veria fiandanum inn ad ganga i hlid
paradísar oc syndugum mỏnnum.4
E 1r/9–10 Eg sa elld brennanda sa er bannade hverium sem einum manne
ingaungo ok einglar Guds vardveittu þessi hlid bædi firir dioflu⟨m⟩ ok
syndugum monnum.5
The Second Textual Interpolation
A 52v/17–19 Satan iotunn helvitis hofðingi er stundom er meþ VII høfðom
enn stundom meþ III enn stundom i drekalike þess er omorlegr er oc ogor-
legr oc illilegr a allar lunder.6
B 10r/19–21 Sat⸌h⸍an heims hofþingi er stundum er þar met VII hau⸌f⸍þom
ęþa III i hreþiligo drekaliki oc omorligo á allar lundir.7
C lacuna
D 4v/22–4 Satan helvítis hỏfdinge sá er stundum er med III hỏfdum enn
stundum i drekalíke þess sem ofurlegr er oc illr á allar lundir.8
E 1r/23–5 Helvítis hofdígni leidtogi daudra i liking hrædilegs dreka ok miog
auskurlegs sa er stundum syndiz þeim med VII hofdum enn stundum med
III i manzliki.9
The Third Textual Interpolation
A 53r/20–7 Þat var mioc i þat mund døgra er himenenn opnaþisc. Þa com
fram fyrst hestr hvitr enn hofðinge sa reiþ hesti þeim er morgom hlutom
er gofgari enn gørvaster aller aþrer. Augo hans voro se⟨m⟩ elldz logi. Hann
hafði corono a høfþi þa er morg sigrsmerki matte of syna. Hann hafði cleþi
þat umb aunnor uta⟨n⟩ er bloþstocet var. A cleþi hans yfer mioþmenni voro
orþ þessi riten. Rex regum et Dominus dominantium. Hann var solo biar-
tare. Hann leidde eptir ser her mikinn oc aller þeir er honom fylgþo riþo
hestom hvitom oc voro aller cleddir silki hvito oc voro liosir mioc.10
B 11r/8–18 Þat var mioc i þat mund dęgra at himinn opnaþisc. Þa rann fram
hestr hvitr er reíþ higgiligr maþr sa er hveriom var vegligri oc tigologri.
Augo hans voro sem logi a ęldi corono þa bar hann á hǫfþi er mǫrg sig-
rmerki matti syna. Hann ⸌h⸍afdi clęþi þat umb aunnor føtt utan er bloþs-
tokit var. A cleþi hans yfir m⸌i⸍oþminni voro orþ þessi ritin Rex regum et
40 Niðrstigningar saga
Dominus dominancium. Hann var solu biartari oc fylgþi honom ovigr her
riddara oc hofþu hvita hesta allir sniavi hv⸌i⸍tari.11
C lacuna
D 5v/21–6r/5 Þad var miỏg i þad mund dægra er himininn opnadist oc kom
þar framm hestr hvítr. Enn kongr sá er reid hesti þeim var mỏrgum hlutum
vænne enn aller adrer oc gỏfuglegre enn allt annad. Enn augu h⟨a⟩ns vóru
so sem loge. Hann hafde koronu á hỏfde sier þá er ytarleg var á syndum
oc mỏrg sigrmerke mátti hann sína á sier. Hann hafde særdann fót sinn
utan þad er blódstokid var. Yfir enni hans midiu var ritad. Kongur konga
og Drottin drottna. Hann var sólu biartare. Hann hafde hinn megtugasta
einglaher. Allir þeir er hỏnum filgdu ridu hvítum hestum. Aller skríddir
hvítu silke oc vóru lióser sem sól.12
E 1v/16–22 Þar var ok i þat mund dægra ok þennan tíma at himenn opnadiz.
Þa kom fram fyrst hestur hvitur enn sa kongur er reid hesti þeim er maur-
gum hlutum er fridari ok fegri en allir adrir ok tilgolegri. Augu hans voru
sem eldz loge hann hafdi koronu þa a hofdi er morg sigurmerke synde.
Hann hafdi þat klædi um onnur utan er blodstocket var. A kledi hans yfir
miodmenne voru þessi ord ritud. Kongur konga ok Drottín drottna. Hann
leiddi med sier her hinn mesta. Þeir ⟨er⟩ honum fylgdu ridu hvitum hestum
ok voru klæddir silke hvito liosir hardla.13
The Fourth Textual Interpolation
A 53v/12–19 Þa bra hann ser i drecalike oc gørdiz þa sva mikill at hann
þottesc liggia mundo umb heimenn allan utan. Hann sa þau tiþende ⟨er
gørdoz⟩ at Iorsolom at Iesus Christus var þa i andlati oc for ⟨hann⟩ þangat
þegar oc ætlaþi at slita ondina þegar fra honom. Enn er hann com þar oc
hugþez gløpa mundo hann oc hafa meþ ser þa beit øngullinn goddomens
fiscr a øngle eþa mus under treketti eþa sem melraki i gilldro eptir þvi sem
fyrer var spat. Þa for til Dominus Noster oc batt hann.14
B 11v/9–17 Oc bra ser í drekaliki oc gørdisc þa sva mikill at hann hugþisc
liggia mondo umb allan heiminn utan. Hann sa þau tiþendi er þa gorþosc
at Iorsaulom at Iesus Christus var þa í andlati oc flo hann þangat til þagar
oc villdi slęgia aundina fra honom. Enn þa er hann villdi gleypa hann oc
hafa meþ ser þa bęit hann aungul guþdoms hans enn crossmark fell á hann
ofan oc varþ hann sva veiddr sem fiskr a aungli ęþa melracki í gilldro eptir
þvi sem fyrir var spat. Þa for Drottinn oc batt hann.15
C 28ra/9–16 Þa bra hann ser i drekaliki oc hugdiz at vera sva mikill at hann
mundi liggia i hríng um helviti. Hann sa þau tidindi er gerduz at Iorsolum
at Iesus Christr var i líflati ok for þangat þagar hann matti ok hugdiz slita
The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 41
mundu aundina fra Iesu. Enn þa er hann kom ok hugdizst mundu gleypa
Iesum ok hafa hann med ser þa beit aungull guddomsins hann en kross-
markit fell ꜳ hann ofa
n ok vard hann sva veiddr sem fiskr ꜳ aungli edr mus
undir treketti edr melracki i gilldru eptir þvi sem fyrir var spád. Þa for til
Várr Drottinn ok batt hann.16
D 6r/28–6v/12 Oc brást i drekalíke oc svo giỏrdist hann mikill ad hann þót-
tist meiga liggia um allan heim utann. Þá sá hann þa atburde er giỏrdust
ad Jórsỏlom ad Jesus var þá i andláte sínu á krossenum helga. Þá for Satan
þangad oc þótte hỏnum nu allt vel á horfast oc ætlade ad slíta ỏndina frá
hỏnom. Þá com svo fyrer hỏnum ad hann þóttist ⟨hafa⟩ gleipt hana i kvid
illsku sinnar oc hafa med sier. Enn þá beit aungullin guddómsins Satan
of fiell krossmarkid á hann ofan oc vard Satan so veiddr sem fiskr á augle
edr mús undir fellu enn þad vard epter þvi sem fyrir var sagt ad þessu næst
fór Drottinn til helvítis oc batt þar óvin alls mannkyns fiandan.17
E 1v/34–6 Þa likti hann sik i mynd ogurligs dreka þeim er jafnat er at mikeleik
vid Midgard⟨z⟩ orm sa er sagt ⟨er⟩ at ligi um allan heiminn. Hann sa þa
takn þau er voru i Jorslalaborg ⟨at⟩ Drottinn Varn ⟨var⟩ i andlati ok jams-
kott. explicit E.18
Disagreement of Readings between the Two Redactions
Gabriel Turville-Petre was the first scholar to note that, except for their agree-
ment in terms of content, the readings of E were considerably closer to those
of the Latin text and that this vicinity may have resulted from a secondary
learned revision of the original translation. To exemplify the closeness of E to
the Latin text, he called to attention the fact that although the character of
Inferus is depersonified in the older redaction – described as a host of devils,
monsters, and evil beings, as for instance in A 52v/19–20: “viþ iotna oc viþ
diofla oc viþ rikistroll ⟨oc⟩ gørvoll þau er i helvite voro” (“with the giants, the
devils, and the mighty trolls, and all of those who were in Hell”) – he is men-
tioned in E as a single character named “Helvíti” (“Hell”).19
The following instances exemplify the evident discrepancies between the
older redaction of Niðrstigningar saga, which is represented by manuscripts A,
B, C, and D, against the newer revised redaction represented by E. In the first
six instances, the readings of E are more accurate and adherent to the Latin text
throughout, and in the last three cases, they preserve important sections of the
text absent in the older redaction. These readings should be considered as sec-
ondary innovations and integrations typical of E, rather than relicts of the older
translation subsequently lost in A, B, C and D. In fact, as suggested later, the
42 Niðrstigningar saga
high level of accuracy of E derives from a thorough revision of the text of the
older redaction, whose readings were carefully corrected ex libro on the basis
of another exemplar of the Latin Evangelium Nicodemi.
Furthermore, there is evidence that rather than using a Latin text of type T
– which, as argued in chapter 4, was consulted and (at least partially) employed
for the compilation of the older redaction of Niðrstigningar saga – the scribe
of E seems to have used a Latin codex transmitting the Majority Text, K.20
Evidence of this is seen in the very example proposed by Turville-Petre to sup-
port his theory of the two redactions. Interestingly, Inferus is personified in the
Majority Text of the Latin tradition, but he is already depersonified in T.21
Nevertheless, K and T agree in all instances highlighted by the collations
below, and references will consequently be made exclusively to the folios and
lines of T.
Accuracy of the Younger Redaction Against the Older Redaction
A 52r/21–2
B
C
D 4r/8
E 1r/3
T 99r/25
i heliar
lacuna
lacuna
i heliar
i myrk⟨r⟩ um ok i
in tenebris et umbra
myrcrom22
myrkrum23
skugga daudans24
mortis25
A 52v/2–3
B 10r/1
C
D 4v/3–5
E 1r/12
T 99v/3
Ec em til þess
lacuna
Eg er settr til ad Eg er skipadur
Ego enim
setr at sia um
setr at lita hvers
siá um þad ad
yfir mannlegum
constitutus sum
hvers mans
manz hag27
syndugr eingin
likama29
super corpus
hag26
fari i paradísu28
humanum30
A 52v/4–5
B 10r/4
C
D 4v/7
E 1r/14
T 99v/4–5
þo at hann se
þot hann se
lacuna
þó hann se
at betriz likams sott pro dolore corporis
allsiucr31
siucr32
siukr33
hans34
sui35
A 52v/5–6
B 10r/5
C
D 4v/8
E 1r/15
T 99v/5–6
fyrr enn liþner
fyrr enn liþnir
lacuna
fyrr enn lidnir
nema æfstum
nisi in nouissimis
verþa heþan36
ero heþan37
eru upp hedan38
dogum okomins
diebus temporum40
tíma39
A 53v/9–10
B 11v/7
C 28ra/6
D 6r/24
E 1v/31–2
T 101r/1–2
Þeir raco þa
om.42
Þeir raku þa
Oc ráku hann
Ok eptir þat rak þad Et eiecit Inferus
braut høfði⟨n⟩
hofdingia sinn
edr dróu í burt
Satan hofdíngia
Sathan de sedibus
gia sinn or
or helvíti43
úr helvíti44
sinn ut af sætum
suis46
helvite41
sinum45
A 52v/4
B 10r/3–4
C
D 4v/6–7
E 1r/13–14
T 99v/4
til handa føþur
til handa fauþor lacuna
til handa fỏ⟨d⟩
at þu smyrir fodur
ut perungas patrem
þinom47
þinom48
ur þínum49
þinn Adam50
tuum Adam51
The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 43
Accuracy of the Younger Redaction Against the Older Redaction
A 52v/27
B 10v/6
C
D 5r/8
E 1r/30–2
T 99v/21–2
om.
om.
lacuna
om.
þviat alla mattuga
omnes enim
jardar hofdingia
potentes in terra
hefi eg halldit undir mea potestate
mino vallde þa er
subiecti tenentur
þu fluttir nu yndir
quos tua potentia
orpna med þinum
uinctos a
d me
styrk52
perduxisti53
A 52v/22
B 10r/24
C
D 5r/2
E 1r/27
T 99v/16–17
om.
om.
lacuna
om.
Hrygg er aund min
Tristis est anima
allt til dauda54
mea usque ad
mortem55
A 52v/28
B 10v/7
C
D 5r/8
E 1r/32–33
T 99v/23–24
om.
om.
lacuna
om.
Enn ef þu ert
Si ergo potens es tu
mattugur hverr er
qualis est homo ille
þessi⸌madur⸍Jesus
Ihesus qui timens
er ottaz dauda ok
mortem potentiam
stendur þo i moti
tuam aduersatur57
þier ok þinu valldi56
Significant Errors within the Older Redaction
The following section examines the textual transmission of Niðrstigningar
saga on the basis of the classic genealogical method of textual criticism first
conceived by Karl Lachman and subsequently elaborated by Paul Maas.58
The errors below have already been identified in the thorough study on the
stemmatics of Niðrstigningar saga undertaken by Odd Einar Haugen, who has
highlighted all possible textual corruptions of the text in each single witness
and has established a stemma codicum of the tradition on the basis of multivari-
ate data analysis.59 Nevertheless, in this discussion reference will be made ex-
clusively to what can unequivocally be considered as indicative or significant
textual corruptions, defined by Paul Maas as “conjunctive” and “separative er-
rors.” The first group includes errors shared by two or more witnesses, notably
characterized by the improbability of being produced independently by two or
more scribes during the time of transcription of the text, and therefore a mono-
genetic origin has to be postulated. On the other hand, the second group in-
cludes both monogenetic and polygenetic errors, which separate one or more
witnesses from the rest of the tradition. By definition, they should conceivably
be errors impossible to be emended conjecturally by their scribes during the
time of their transcription.60
44 Niðrstigningar saga
Significant Errors in A, B, and D
In contrast to C, there are two conjunctive and separative errors shared by
manuscripts A, B, and D, indicating that they derive from a common ancestor.61
Moreover, an important omission in A, B, and D, which might not have been
conjectured during the time of composition of C, can be counted as a single,