The Greek text was first published by A. Birch, Auctarium codicis apocr. i., Haynie 1804 ; better, J. C. Thilo, Codex apocr. NT, i., 1832 (Gr.-Lat., with an extremely valuable and learned com- mentary; reproduced, without the latter, by Giles, Codex apocr. NT, London 1852, i. 150- 219). Fuller materials have been drawn from the MSS by Tischendorf (Zvangelia apocr., 11853, ? 1876), but are so uncritically used that one does better to adhere to Thilo’s text. A new critical edition is in course of preparation by the present writer.
iv. DATE.—Relation to the ancient ‘ Acta Pilati.’ —All known texts of Evangel. Nicod., if one may trust the note as to its discovery, which is given in the form of a prologue, go back to a work dating from the time of Theodosius Π. (425).
Where the prologue is wanting, this is due to subsequent rejection of it, as, for instance, in the majority of Latin MSS. which have still preserved in the title the reminiscence of Theo- dosius.
This work must, however, have been only a revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (Her. 1. 1, cf. Pseudo-Chrysos. in Pascha hom. vii. 2, ed. Montfaucon, viii. Spuria 277d) presupposes the existence of a text similar to what we possess.
According to Lipsius, the older recension differed from the later in wanting not only the prologue but also chs. 17-27 (2 above), eee also chs. 12-16 (1> above), but this cannot be proved ; the omission of 2 in a bcd indicates merely that their common archetype was shortened as compared with the text of 425. That some MSS of g mark a section at ch. 12, that from this point e and / more clearly Ee company, that 15 attaches itself more closely to the canonical tradition, whereas 1» like 2 gives a freer rein to fancy,—all this finds its explana tion in the nature of the subject.
Eusebius, when in the year 325 he wrote his Hist. Ecclesia, was not yet acquainted with our writing. He mentions a report of Pilate to the emperor Tiberius (HZ ii. 2, according to Tertull. Apol. 21), heathen Acts of Pilate, which, in de- rision of the Christians, were introduced by the emperor Maximin into the schools (id. 1. 1x. 3, ΙΧ. v. 1, vii. 1: Πιλάτου καὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήμιτα ; the so-called Leo source [Leo Gramm., ed. Bonn. 83; Theod. Melit., ed. Tafel, 60; Ekloge Hist., ed. Cramer, Anecdot. Par. ii. 293 ; Georg. Mon., ed. Muralt 378] names as the forger a goéta, Theoteknos, in the time of Maxi- minian ; cf. also Acta Probi, Tarachi et Andronici, 37, ‘ Acta Sanctorum’ 11th Oct. v. 579). Eusebius knows nothing, however, of a Christian writing. In face of this, stringent proof is demanded for the existence of our writing prior to the time of Eusebius, more especially as much of it cannot have been composed in its present form before the 4th or 5th Spe ae
This proof has been supposed to be found on one side in the mention of “Axra Πιλάτου in Justin, Apol. i. 35, 48 (cf. 38), and of Acta Pilati in Tertull. Apol. 21. Upon this evidence, Tischendorf does not hesitate to attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd cent., and thinks that valuable os ne ments to the canonical account of the trial of Jesus may be derived from them. In opposition to him, Scholten, Lipsius, Lightfoot ( pera Fathers, i. 55), and Harnack have argued that the existence attributed by Justin to such Acts of Pilate is only a hypothetical one. Tertullian either had before him a report of Pilate to the emperor similar to the letter preserved in the Acta
646 NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF
and (2) that the resurrection of Jesus was proved on undeniable evidence even to His enemies. If we may assume, with Lipsius, a polemical backward allusion to the heathen Acts of Pilate spoken of above, much is explained in the narrative of the trial, which otherwise pede unintelligible: e.g. how Pilate examines in detail the reproach of illegitimacy brought against Jesus (in answer to which, not the miraculous birth but only the mar- riage of Mary with Joseph is established !), as well as the charge of Sabbath desecration, whereas the accusation of inciting to rebellion hardly obtains a hearing at all. Of Zendenz in the sense of any special ecclesiastical or theological shade of opinion one cannot speak ; traces of Judaistic Christianity (Brunn, Miinter, Hofmann) are wanting equally with echoes of Gnosticism. The wring is rather an interesting document of a general-Christian character, from which definite and sharply formu- lated theological notions are absent. From the point of view of the history of dogma it is an anomaly, whether one assigns it to the 2nd, the 4th, or the 5th cent. As an offset to this, however, it could be brought under the head of that species of narrative literature, composed for purposes of religious edification, which especially from the 4th cent. onwards obtained favour in Christian circles. The nearest parallel is supplied by the Acta Martyrum. As in these, so also in the Evangel. Nicod., a description of the judicial process occu- pies the foreground (4*) ; the usual account of the tortures inflicted upon the martyrs is in this instance, owing to the peculiarity of the subject, replaced by the proofs of our Lord’s resurrection (4°); and, finally, the Descensus (2) corresponds to the miracles wrought by the martyrs after their death. An eranipeligal character in the sense of an equal authority with the canonical Gospels is certainly not claimed by the work itself; such a character was first imposed upon it by the un- critical search for legends in the 13th century.