¹ Maury, Alf., Nouvelles Recherches sur l’époque … d’Évangile de Nicodême, in Memoires de la Société des Antiquaires de France, t. 20 (Paris, 1850), pp. 341–392Google Scholar.

² Lipsius, R. A., Die Pilatus-Acten kritisch untersucht (Kiel, 1871)Google Scholar.

³ Const. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1853)Google Scholar followed the analysis of Thilo, J. C., Codex Apocryphus NT (Leipzig, 1832), 2Google Scholar v. Greek and Latin texts had previously appeared, edited by Herold, Grynaeus, Hess, Fabricius and Birch.

⁴ Rossi, Fr., I Papiri Copti del Museo Egizio di Torino (Torino, 1887), 2 v. Cf. vol. i, pp. 7–90Google Scholar; vol. 2, pp. 237 if.

⁵ Revillout, E., Acta Pilati, as Pt. ii of his Apocryphes Coptes, in Patrol. Oriental. (Paris, 1913), vol. 9, pp. 57–140Google Scholar. This is the only known Coptic Ms. to have the Hypomnemata complete.

⁶ Conybeare, F. C., Acta Pilati (Armenian), in Studia Bibl. et Eccles., v. iv (Oxford, 1896), pp. 59–130Google Scholar.

⁷ Lake, K., Texts from Mt. Athos; Some Chapters of the Acta Pilati, in Studia Bibl. et Eccles. vol. v (Oxford, 1903), pp. 152Google Scholar ff.

⁸ Rahmani, I. E. H, Apocryphi Hypomnemata Domini Nostri, s. Acta Pilati, as Studia Syriaca, Fasc. ii (Monte Libano, 1908)Google Scholar.

⁹ Javachishvili, I. A., Sinis mt’is K’art’ul Xelnacert’a Aġceriloba (Tiflis, 1947)Google Scholar apud Garitte, G., Catal. des Mss. Géorgiens Littéiaires du Mt. Sinai (Louvain, 1956) pp. 225 ffGoogle Scholar. and abbrevs. References to a Georgian version by Revillout (op. cit., p. 60) and by Baumstark, A., Die Christl. Litt. des Orients (Leipzig, 1911), vol. 2, p. 103Google Scholar, were in error. The Sinaitic Ms. used by Javachishvili contains the only known ancient copy of the Georgian Nicodemus. But Janashia, , Description des Mss. Géorgiens du Musée d’État de Géorgie (Tiflis, 1946)Google Scholar describes two modern copies of the version: #282 (yr. 1800) and #354 (yr. 1802) at the Tiflis Museum. They are from the same original as the Sinaitic, but have variant readings. From a study of the Sinai codex, we date its prototype about the ninth C. The Georgian, oldest known dated (1031) form of this work, is essential to the textual critic.

¹⁰ Hone, W., in his Ancient Mysteries … founded on Apocryphal NT Story (London, 1823)Google Scholar, devotes cc. v & vi to tracing the influence of the Gosp. of N. especially upon the art and drama of the Middle Ages. Thilo (op. cit., p. cxviii) recognized this influence, saying: “Praeter Evangelistarum narrationes de passione … haud exigua auctoritate in ecclesia olim fuit testimonium Actorum Pilati….” Cf. Migne, J. P., Diet, des Apocryphes (Paris, 1856), v. i, pp. xxixGoogle Scholar ff.: “… Nul ouvrage n’a joui d’un plus beau et d’un plus long triomphe ….” Westcott, A., The Gosp. of N. & Kindred Documents (London, 1915), p. 2Google Scholar: “It may be confidently affirmed that in the Middle Ages the Gosp. of N. was as well, if not better known than the Canonical Gospels….” Kroll, J., Gott & Hoelle (Leipzig, 1932), p. 83Google Scholar: “Von einer Darstellung, der im sogenannten Evangelium Nic … kann man mit Bestimmtheit sagen, dass sie einen ungeheuerlich weitreichenden Einfluss besessen hat … eine ueberragende Bedeutung….” Wells, J. E., A Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven, 1926), p. 326Google Scholar: “The Gosp. of N … had a tremendous influence on mediaeval faith, on mediaeval art of all kinds, and on mediaeval drama … attested by pictorial representation in miniatures, mosaics, Ms. illuminations, ivory carvings, enamel, stained glass and painting.” It was from these Pilate Apocrypha that emerged “St. Pilate” and “St. Prokla” (Pilate’s wife) of the Greek, Coptic and Abyssinian Churches; “St. Dismas” and “St. Veronica” of the Greek and Roman Churches.

¹¹ Tischendorf admits (op. cit., p. 312 ap. cr.) that he took the title, Gesta Pilati, from Gregory of Tours’ History of the Francs, (cf. Bk. I, cc. 20 and 23): “Gesta Pilati ad Tiberium imperatorem missa.” Failing to observe that the passages in question were, first, interpolations, and second, made reference only to the Late Latin recension of the Nicodemus work, Tischendorf — and virtually every reviewer since then — wrongly bestowed this title upon all four of these recension forms. As to the corrupt condition of Gregory’s work cf. the Arndt & Krusch ed. (Hanover, 1884), pp. 23–29; also B. Krusch, Die handschriftlichen Grundlagen der Francorum, Historia, in Historische Vierteljahrschrift, XXVII, 4 (Jan., 1933), pp. 673–757Google Scholar; and Wiener, L., Contributions Toward a History of Arabico-Gothic Culture, v. III (Phila., 1920), pp. 32 f.; 262 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹² Due to the popular works of Vincent of Beauvais and Jacob de Voragine, who both referred to the Late Latin recension of our work as the “Gospel of Nicodemus,” that title has been the favorite one for all forms of the opus since the 13th C.

¹³ To establish this point is outside the scope of this article. Tischendorf used 3 Mss., his ABC, representing the original Latin Gosp. of N. Not recognizing them as such, he arbitrarily split them in two (at the end of c. xvi), submerged the readings of their “Part I” either into his eclectic text or the fine print of his ap. cr.; relegated their “Part II” to his secondary (Latin B) type of Descent text. Yet his generally good textual judgment forced him to construct his own text of “Pt. I” preponderantly upon ABC! For his “Pt. II” he wrongly gave preference to his cuttings from the Late Latin version (his “Latin A”). He also erroneously assumed the Descent appeared first in Greek.

¹⁴ Actually, two Late Latin recension Mss. of the 14th C. (Ambrosianus & Halensis) represent still a fifth form of the work, used also by Fabricius. This, the latest of all, interpolates a long and very poorly written chapter just before the final c. of the Acta P., i.e., the Letter of P. to Claudius. This very late development is of little significance.

¹⁵ Thilo (op. cit., p. cxxxv) reports Gerbertus’ claim that the Eins. contains “varias inscriptiones … quae ante sec. x saltern Romae conspicuae erant.” Tischendorf reiterates the “ante sec. x” as the date of the Ms. But Meier, G. (the Einsiedeln librarian), in his Codices Manu scripti Einsidlensis Catal. (Leipzig, 1899)Google Scholar, dates this part of the codex in the tenth C. It is one of 3 copies there at the time. Cf. vol. I, #326.

¹⁶ Op. cit., pp. ix, lviii, lxxi, lxxii, lxxiv; but esp. Tischendorf, C., Pilati circa Christum Iudicio … ex Actis Pilati (Leipzig, 1855) p. 5Google Scholar, where he repeatedly refers to both Mss. as “5th C.”

¹⁷ In a second edition (1876) T. added the balance of Peyron’s Latin translation to the notes.

¹⁸ Michaelis, W., Die Apokr. Schriften z. NT (Bremen, 1958), 2°Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cowper, B. H., The Apocryphal Gospels, etc. (London, 1870), p. lxxxviGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ That “Ananias” does date himself in the year 441 will be established later.

²¹ We use both Rossi’s and Revillout’s editions. We transcribe Coptic as if Greek, with these special equivalences: eta H, sima C, he Y, ō W, shai sh, fai F, hori h, janja J, čima gh, ti t; all other letters in upper case except the usual digraphs: th, ph, ch, ps, for Θ, Φ, Χ Ψ. This system avoids the need of any external mark for rough or smooth, and of any overstroke beyond those normal to Copt. It preserves as much of the eye-appeal of the Copt, as is feasible.

²² Thilo, op. cit., p. 577, ap. cr., says these words (Apophasis Pilatou) “recte omissa sunt” in his two best sources. Tischendorf, noting at this point that Ms. C was the only Greek source to have the caption, rightly suggests, “quod ex margine in textum transisse videtur.” Ms. J, unknown to him, also carries the corruption.

²³ Since we draw several conclusions regarding date of provenience of various sources from their manner of treating the names of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, we must briefly establish the date of their invention. Pertinent documents fall naturally into three stages: i) authors to whom the names are unknown; 2) authors who name the thieves in a manner opposite to present usage or reflect the same; 3) authors who use the names in their modern application. Under the first heading come: The Armenian fragmentary Homily on the Holy Robber, the three forms of the Descent of Christ to Hell, the Coptic homily on the Cross and the Robber, The Book of Gamaliel (including the Lament of the Virgin and the Martyrdom of Pilate), the Martyrology of Usuard, the De Vita Eremitica of Aelred Rhievallensis. All these works, except the last, date from the seventh to about the tenth century. Under the second heading belong the Syriac Nicodemus, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, Gk. Ms. J of the Commentaries, and the Georgian version of the same. The first three call the good thief Tita(s) or Gestas, the evil thief Duma(s), Dysmas or Dymachus. The last calls the good thief Doumachs. J is of the 14th C. Under the third grouping come our earliest copy of the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea on the Robbers (12th C.) and all the Mss. and versions of the Commentaries not mentioned above (“10th C.” on down). Scrutiny of all these documents compels these conclusions: 1) The names were invented about the opening of the 10th C; at first were used in an opposite manner to what now prevails; but by the 12th C. had become well standardized in the modern usage: 2) these names were not present in the autographs of any of the 4 forms of the Nic. work. Their presence now, in a variety of spellings and applications, is due to later interpolations, as the works passed from scribe to scribe.

²⁴ Rossi, op. cit., p. 84, was probably correct in assuming that the caption entitling this homily ascribed it to Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who died in 412. Such ascriptions are common — and commonly false. The internal evidence of the work establishes a date of writing not earlier than the ninth C, as we show here.

²⁵ Cowper, op. cit., p. cvi, whose judgment in such matters is generally excellent, would date the Anaphora in the 9th Harnack, C. A., Gesch. d. altchr. Litt., 2 v. (Leipzig, 1893), v. i, p. 23Google Scholar, contents himself with the decision that the Anaphora belongs “in the Middle Ages, and presupposes the Acta Pilati.”

²⁶ Cf. Hyvernat, H., Album de Paléographie Copte (Paris, 1888)Google Scholar, PI. VII # 3; PI. IX #2 col. 1 (dated 1006) and PI. XI. Cf. further Tisserant, E., Specimina Codicum Orientalium (Bonn, 1914)Google Scholar, esp. p. 69b (dated too early), p. 72 (gth or 10th C). On pp. 73 and 75, others of about the 10th C. But cf. esp. Ciasca, A., Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica (Rome, 1885–1904, 4 vol.)Google Scholar, v. 2, Tab. XXVI, a fine sample of our period. Cf. also vol. iii-TabuIae (P. J. Balestri, ed.) Plates 24, 25 (nth C), PI. 31 (nth C.) and esp. PI. 69 (nth C.) which is almost a duplicate of the Torino # 2 hand.

²⁷ Zoëga, G., Catalogus Codicum Copticorum, etc. (Rome, 1810). Cf. pp. 169Google Scholar ff. for elucidation. That Zoëga was in fact Peyron’s vade mecum is graciously memorialized by the noted lexicographer in the Intr. to his Lexicon Linguae Copticae (Taurini, 1835), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar: “Qui Zoëgae librum syllabatim non legerit, frustra ille confidet se posse Copticum lexicon condnnare….” Peyron describes our Ms. #2 in this place, but says nothing at all about its date. Rossi was equally circumspect. But Revillout at least implies (op. cit., p. 63) his acceptance of Tischendorf’s erroneous dating.

²⁸ Op. cit., pp. ix, xxx, lviii, lxxii, etc. and cf. Note 16 above.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. lxxiv, 313.

³⁰ Op. cit., p. cviii. Par. #1652 and T’s Vienna palimpsest represent an independent and late translation of the Gk. Comm. Nic.

³¹ While AB derive from the same mother as C, they show, in scores of variants, deletions and interpolations, many later readings than the parallel ones in C.

³² Cf. Note 6 above. Conybeare used 3 Mss., but his gamma was virtually identical with his beta, and was of much later date.

³³ Op. cit., pp. 65 f.

³⁴ Cf., e.g., the Armenian Synaxary in Patr. Orient. V, 3, Bayan, G., ed. (Paris, 1910)Google Scholar, dated Arm. 765 (1316 Julian).

³⁵ Edou. Dulaurier, Recherches sur la Chronol. Armén., etc. (Paris, 1889), p. xiiiGoogle Scholar: “Or leur année fixe, qui s’ouvre le 11 août julien, ne remonte pas au delà du XIIe siècle….” Also, p. 8.

³⁶ There is no such noun in Armenian.

³⁷ The addition of the words, “to God” appears here only. Just above this, where the Gospel is first cited, both Mss. have, “Glory in the highest,” agreeing with Luke xix 38.

³⁸ We have been kindly apprised by Prof. Der Nersessian that in the Armenian version of the Gospels, the word Hosanna is missing in Matthew, as well as in Luke.

³⁹ Cf. our Note 23 above, on the Dysmas-Gestas problem.

⁴⁰ It is possible that the key word “Areg,” replacing March/April in Prologue B may be due to a copyist of the 12th C. rather than to the original translator. If that were to be established, we would readily agree that all other evidence in Conybeare’s Mss. could be held as compatible with a date for the version as early as the late 10th C.

⁴¹ Cf. Note 8 above.

⁴² Rahmani erroneously assumes I) that the prologue of Ananias was a later addition, 2) that the rulers named therein were the earlier pair of the same names. There is no factual basis for either supposition.

⁴³ James, M. R., The Apocryphal NT (Oxford, 1924), p. 94Google Scholar, errs in saying, “All of these (including the Syriac, just mentioned) conform to Tischendorf’s Recension A.” The Syriac is totally unlike the Greek text.

⁴⁴ Section 23 of the Arabic opus gives the names thus. Syr. has: c. ix, Duma(s) & Tita(s) (dwm’ wṭ yṭ’); c. x, Dumachos (dwm’kws); c. xvi, Titus & Dumachos (ṭyṭws wdwm’kws). But Lake’s Ms. J (14th or 15th C.) also has Dysmas as the evil thief, with Gestas as the good. The Georgian version makes “Gespas” the evil, “Doumachs” the good one.

⁴⁵ Cowper, op. clt., pp. lxxvii ff., points out that the fact that the Arabic Gospel twice mentions (Sec. 24) the Moslem village of El-Matarîyah, some 9 km. N. E. of Cairo, dates the book as no earlier than the 9th C. But since Cairo itself was built only in the year 969, even Cowper’s date is too early.

⁴⁶ Wright, W. in his Contributions to the Apocryphal Lit. of the NT (London, 1865)Google Scholar edited these letters from Br. Mus. Syr. Ms. Add. #14,609, which he dated tentatively as “6th or 7th C.”

⁴⁷ James, M. R., Apocrypha Anecdota II, in Texts & Studies V, 1 (Cambridge, 1897)Google Scholar, edited Bibl. Nat. Cod. Gk. #929. Cf. p. xlvi.

⁴⁸ Gk. Ms. C’s basileias is in error for hupateias (as witnessed by the Copt.), for Theodosius’ 17th yr. of reign (424/425) can in no way be reconciled with either the 5th or 6th of Valentinian (429/431).

⁴⁹ Maury, in 1850, accepted 425 as the year referred to. He lacked the Coptic evidence, and followed Lat. Ms. Par. #1652 (15th C.) which has the obviously corrupt reading: “sub imperio Flavii Theodosii, anno decimo octavo, et Valentiniano Augusto.” To accept such a text in lieu of the Coptic or the dated Gk. Ms. C — as James and others have done — is purely capricious.

⁵⁰ A. de Capitani d’Arzago, Epigrafia cristiana (Milan, 1946), p. 15Google ScholarPubMed. As an exception to his rule, d’Arzago cites, as “la più antica inscrizione datata che rechi il nuovo uso popolare,” Cil. Africa VIII 8630 which he places in the year 452, and has: DIE iii M (E) N (SIS) AVG.

⁵¹ Funk, F. X., Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen, etc. (Rottenburg, 1891). Cf. esp. pp. 316, 366Google Scholar.

⁵² Sophocles, E. A., Gk. Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Pds. (New York, 1957, 2°)Google Scholar, 2. v.

⁵³ Herwerden, H. van, Lexicon Graecum Suppletorium et Dialecticum (Lugd., Batav., 1910)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ DuCange, Carl. Du Fresne, Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graecitatis (Lyons, 1688)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Cf. Wiener, op. cit., Note 11 above, v. III, pp. 46 f. on the Photius-Philostorgius corruptions.

⁵⁶ Amélineau, E., De Historia Lausiaca (Paris, 1887)Google Scholar, esp. p. 71.

⁵⁷ Sophocles is certainly in error in dating the De Mag. in 527. Cf. Wuensch, R., Ioan. Lydi De Magistrat. (Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar praef.