Nicodemus, gospel of (Hastings' Dictionary)

i. Namre.—£van- gelium Nicodemi is a title which meets us for the first time in the 13th cent. (Vincentius Bellova- censis, Spec. hist. viii. 40 ff. [c. 1264], Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, 54, ed. Graesse, p. 241 {c. 1275]), and is in general use in manuscripts of the 15th cent.

It is there employed to designate an apocryphal writing which in the older manu- scripts is entitled ὑπομνήματα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (πραχθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, or the like), Gesta Salvatoris (que invenit Theodosius Magnus imperator in Jerusalem in pretorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis). From Epiphanius (Her. 1. 1) we obtain, as an older abbreviation of this title, the name “Axra Πιλάτου, and from Greg. Turon. (Hist. France. i.

21, 24) the name Gesta Pilati, which, however, in the light of the texts that have come down to us, cannot be intended in the sense that Pilate was the author. All that is attributed to Pilate is the preservation of the work in the archives of the pretorium. On the contrary, the author of the alleged Hebrew original is named from the first as Nicodemus, the translator as Ananias (Aeneas) Protektor.

Besides the above, we find in the manuscripts numerous other titles, such a8 ὑπόωνημεα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀποχαθήλωσιν αὑτοῦ συγγραφώσα παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωνάννου τοῦ θιολόγου ; Passio (et resurrectio) Jesu Christi; Acta passionis ; Historia (relatio) de passione ; as well as Evangelium Nazare- orum. ii. CONTENTS.—The writing gives a detailed account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate (chs.

1-11, called below 15), and of the action of the Sanhedrin subsequent to His death, which leads to the certain proof of His Resurrection and Ascension (chs. 12-16, called below 1»). To this is added by way of appendix an account by two men who had been raised from the dead, Charinus and Leucius, of the descensus ad inferos of Jesus (chs. 17-27, called below 2).

1s, After an indication of the date, in the form of an expan- sion of Lk 81, the narrative opens with Christ being brought before Pilate on the charges of claiming the title of king, breaking the Sabbath, and abrogating the ancestral law of Israel. 6 reverence shown to the Lord by Pilate’s footman, to which the Jews take exception, is supported by the miracle of the standard lowering itself before Jesus (ch. 1).

The pro- ceedings turn, in the first instance, upon the reproach of illegitimacy, which is refuted by twelve witnesses of the marriage of Mary with Joseph (ch. 2). After a paraphrase of Jn 1890-88 (chs. 8, 4), Nicodemus (ch. 6; cf Jn 75°) and various persons healed Ὁ; Jesus (ch. 6), among them Veronica, the woman with the issue of blood (ch. 7), come forward on behalf of Jesus.

After all Pilate’s endeavours to deliver Jesus and to change the sentiments of the Jews, including a fierce invective against their ingratitude, have proved in vain (chs. 8. 9), Pilate NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF washes his hands in innocence and passes sentence of crucifixion between the two malefactors, Dysmas and Gestas (ch, 10).

In the account of the crucifixion, which in the main follows Lk 23, the only noteworthy points are Pilate’s contrition, when the centurion makes his report, and the incorrigibility of the Jews, who pronounce the darkening of the sun a natural phenomenon ch. 11). : 1», Joseph of Arimathwa’s care for the burial of Jesus consti- tutes the transition to the second division : the Jews persecute him and Nicodemus and the others who had given evidence in favour of Jesus.

Joseph is put in close cus , but after the Sabbath he is not to be found, in spite of the sealed door (ch. 12), At the same time Pilate’s soldiers bring news of the ou tomb, without, indeed, nae their story credited by the Sanhedrin (ch. 13). Scarcely this testimony silenced by bribery, when three men of Galilee appear, the priest Phinehas, the rabbi Addas, and the Levite Aggai, who been witnesses of the ascension of Jesus on Mt. Maicch (Mamulch).

With injunctions of silence they are sent back with all speed to Galilee (ch. 14). But upon the proposal of Nicodemus, and after the example of Elisha, who allowed Elijah to be sought for 2 K 215-18), a general search is instituted, which lasted for three ys, and, although abortive as far as Jesus was concerned, led to the discovery of Joseph of Arimathwa, who, being then brought in state to Jerusalem, relates in what wondrous wise ἘΣ τ poe ee Ἐρπε πον ἐπι τλοον ch. 16).

Rabbi Levi reca Shad Wren te ae on about the child Jesus (Lk 254); the three men o ee, who are once more introduced, confirm on oath their former statements; Annas and Caiaphas seek in vain to set up a distinction between the translation of Enoch, Moses, and jah, and the disappearance of Jesus. 2. On Joseph's pro} there are now brought forward two men, Charinus and Leucius, sons of that aged Symeon, who had died but had been raised again, and have their dwelling- lace at Arimathwa.

Being adjured by the Sanhedrin to tel heir story, they describe, each for himself, the occurrences in the underworld at the death of Jesus om 17): how a light suddenly illuminating the darkness filled all the fathers with exultation, Isaiah Tepested Is 91, Symeon Lk 230%, John the Baptist Mt 21, Jn 129 (ch. 18); A ‘3 son Seth told of the promise made to him at the gate of paradise (ch.

19); then appeared Satan to announce to Hades (personified) the arrival of a new august captive; but Hades grew pale at the thought that this is the same Jesus who had just wrested Lazarus from her grasp (ch. 20); she sought to bar her doors while the fathers recited Messianic passages (Ps 10616, Is 261%, Hos 1314); then resounded twice over Ps 239, and, without Hades being able to prevent it, the Lord appeared in glory (ch.

21), and at her woeful cries laid hold upon Satan and gave him over to Hades, who then vented her fury upon this deviser of mischief (ch. 23); mean- while the Lord, who had been joyfully greeted by the fathers, set up the cross as the symbol of triumph, and id the son of the redeemed ascended with them from the underworld (ch. 24); the archangel Michael then conducted them to paradise, where they met first Enoch and Elijah (ch. 25), and then the penitent robber (ch.

26), Thus far the narrative of the two risen ones, who make their deposition—one of them to Annas, Caiaphas, and Gamaliel, the other to Nicodemus and Joseph—and then suddenly vanish. The two statements 88 written down agree word for word, the Jews are shaken in their convictions, Joseph and Nicodemus report everything to Pilate, who causes the narrative to be incorporated in the Acts of his pretorium (ch, 27). iii. VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS.—The writing is extant (a) in a Greek text (only chs.

1-16), repre- sented by some 12 MSS of 12th-l5th cent., of which Par. τ: 770 (C) may be counted the best; some, like Par. gr. 929 (E) and still more Par. gr. 1021 (D), contain complete transformations and ex- ansions, partly upon the lines of the canonical ospels, and partly upon those of other apocrypha, Mon. gr. 192 (A), very much overrated by Tischen- dorf, is re-touched as to style.

The so-called Ana- phora (et Paradosis) Pilati as well as the so-called Narratio Josephi are frequently found appended to the Evang. Nicodemi. (4) Nearest to the above text stands a Coptic version, edited by Fr. Rossi after a Turin papyrus manuscript, and made known b Mischendast, in & Latin translation by Peyron. This version is sup- posed to belong to the 5th cent.

(6, d) Then come two Armenian versions pub- lished by Conybeare after 3 MSS, in a Greek (Latin) rendering ; d being a revision of ὁ with the aid of Greek texts. _(e) Of far more importance is a Latin versior diffused in numerous MSS (in Bernard’s Bibl. Anglie et Hibernie alone more than 50 may be counted), and belonging perhaps to the 5th or 6th cent. The oldest MS is a palimpsest, Vind. pal. lat. 565, from the 7th cent., completely deciphered NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF and soon to be edited by Dr.

Gildlin of Tiefenau; then come Mus. Brit. Royal 5 E xiii, belonging to the 8th cent., and a large number of MSS from the 9th, 10th, and 11th cents. Of those hitherto used, the purest text is exhibited by Einsied]. 169 (called Ὧν by Tischendorf), of the 9th or 10th cent. Here, too, we find many different recensions, the most characteristic instance of which, extending back to the 11th cent. and represented, inter al., by the ed.

ree of 1516, has, in addition, a chronology from Adam to Christ, based upon secret Jewish tradi- tion (ch. 28). A very frequent appendage is the letter of Pilate to the emperor Claudius (ch. 29). In one class of MSS the work is continued by the so-called Cura sanitatis Tiberii, the oldest text of the Veronica legend (von Dobschiitz, Christus- bilder, 157-203), in another by the so-called Vindicta Salvatoris, a narrative of the destruction of Jerusalem (‘Tischendorf, Zvang. apocr.? 471-486).

This Latin text in course of time gained in the West almost canonical authority, was co-ordinated with the other Gospels as an equally valuable source for the history of the Passion, and was thus taken up, e.g., by Vincentius Bellovacensis almost entire into his Speculum historiale. On it are dependent all the numerous translations and re- censions in prose and in verse which are met with in Western languages (cf. R. Wiilcker, Das Evangel. Nicodemi in der abendland. Litteratur, 1872).

This is true also, as it appears, of the Slavonic texts (cf. M. Ssperanskij, ‘The Slav. apocr. Gospels’ in Proc. of the viii archwol. Congress at Moscow, 1890, ii, Moscow, 1895 [Russ.]) Nay, even a late Byzantine recension (cf. g) is probably influenced by the above-named Latin text.

(f) Beside this Latin ‘ Vulgate,’ which, by the way, does not show in its Bible text any influence from the side of Jerome, stands a second Latin version, represented by Tischendorf’s manuscripts ABC and some others, which Tischendorf in utterly uncritical fashion has mixed up with the former in chs. 1-16. It is distinguished from the first- named Latin version both by the style of its translation and by the underlying Greek text, to which it adheres closely (most nearly allied are codd. CGI).

It sometimes utilizes the text of Jerome. The form of the Descensus (see 2, above) is here manifestly more recent than in e (above). (g) The latest text, very improperly placed alongside of a (above), is a Byzantine recension, which, extant in numerous MSS of 15th-17th cent., still constitutes part of the religious literature of the Gr. Church, and as such has sometimes been printed, ¢.g.

, under the title : Ἱστορία ἀκριβὴς περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν σταύρωσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τελεσθέντων (μετὰ εἰκόνων) συγγρα- φεῖσα τὸ πρῶτον ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίου τινὸς Αἰνέα, συγχρόνου τοῦ Κυρίου, μεταφρασθεῖσα μὲν εἰς τὴν Λατινίδα γλῶσσαν ὑπὸ Νικοδήμου Τοπάρχου τοῦ ἐκ 'Ῥώμης, μετενεχθεῖσα δ᾽ εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ὑπὸ ᾿Αβερκίου ἱερομονάχου ᾿Αγιο- ρείτον, Athens, 1889.

The earlier editors, Thilo and Tischendorf, were led to their overestimate of this text by the circumstance that it is the only one that contains the Descensus (chs. 17-27) in Greek ; but the latter is in a form decidedly later than either of the two Latin versions. The original Greek text, answering to the Latin e (above), emerges still from the Homilies of Eusebius of Alexandria (6th cent.) Cf. Augusti, Lusebii Emeseni que supersunt opusc.

Graca, 1829 ; Thilo, Ueber die Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandrien, 1832; Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixxxvi. 1. The Latin text was the first to be printed, and that during the 15th and 16th cents. at various presses, which only to a partial extent stood in relation to one another (see Hain, Repert. bihl., Nos. 11749, 11750, 11751, Leipzig 1516, Venice 1522, Antwerp 1538; Herold’s and Grynweus’ Ortho- VOL. Ill. —35 NICODEMUS, GOSPEL OF 545 doxographa, Basel 1555, 1569; J. A. Fabricius, Cod. apocr.

NT, 1719, 1. 238-300 and oft.) Fre- quently printed also is a German translation, agreeing with the Leipzig edition of 1516 (Hain, No. 11751 and oft., Marburg 1555, 1561, 1568), and another German translation of the 17th cent., e.g. Hamburg [c. 1720]. An Anglo-Saxon text was issued by Ed. Thwaites, Oxford, 1698. 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. vii. COMPOSITION AND INFLUENCE.

—The com- position of the first part (15 and 1°) is not par- ticularly HAREY = the continual leading in and out of the accused, the accumulated testimonies by persons who had been healed, the twice-repeated entrance of the three men from Galilee, all go to show that the author lacked the art of moulding his material aright.

On the other hand, the second part (2) is not ee in itself well constructed, but it contains here and there—for instance, in the de- scription of the conflict between Satan and Hades— passages of poetic value which have found their paral els in Milton and Klopstock.

Here, too, the iction attains a higher level, whereas elsewhere the style is that of dry, at times almost weari- some, narrative, and the language, in imitation of the canonical Gospels, flows on in a series of short sentences without any attempt at a periodic structure. Yet, in spite of —or perhaps just because of—this readily intelligible kind of nar- ration, our Guspel exercised from an early poe onwards enormous influence.

We have already apes of its wide diffusion in manuscripts and the frequent use made of it in literature, especially subsequent to the 13th cent. The Passion plays of the 15th cent. show that the contents of the Gospel of Nicodemus had passed into the popular consciousness as an ποτ element of the Life of Jesus. Plastic art also has found its motives here: not pay are we acquainted with two miniature series illustrating the Evangel. Nicod. in a Toledo and a Milan MS of the 13th cent.

, but already upon the sculptures (probably of the 6th cent.) of the Ciborium of St. Mark’s at Venice, the so-called columne cochleate (Garrucci, Storia dell’ arte crist. vi. tav. 4972), there is found a scene which formerly was wrongly taken to represent the Petri εἰ Pauli, ed. Lipsius, i. 135 ff., 196 ff., and in Evang. Nicod. ch.

29 (so Lipsius), or, if one prefers to see in this letter an excerpt from Tertullian (so Harnack), Tertullian derived the notion of Acts of Pilate from the Apology of Justin, with which he was acquainted. As yet it has not been possible to prove the existence of any literary connexion whatever between what Justin and Tertullian, appealing to such Acts of Pilate, relate, and what is contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus.

The requisite ae appeared, on another side, to be supplied by the discovery of the Evangel. Petri, whose contents, in so far as they go beyond the canonical tradition, some, notably H. v. Schubert, would trace back to the ancient Acta Pilati, a merely hypothetical Grundschrift of our Evangel. Nicod.; od spe on the other hand, Th. Zahn (Das Evangelium des Petrus, 1893) holds the later Pilate literature to be influenced by the Evangelium Petri.

As a matter of fact, the parallels cited from the ‘ Pilate literature’ by no means suffice to prove that the Evangel. Petri utilizes traditions that had been committed to writing, and that these coincided with the Grundschrift of our Evangel. Nicodemi. The points of contact find their com- olete explanation on the assumption that the ashion of embellishing and interpreting the his- tory of the Passion, as this comes out clearly in Justin, was known both to the author of the Evangel.

Petri in the 2nd, and of the Evangel. Nicod. in the 4th (5th) cent. Finally, J. Rendel Harris has started the hypo- thesis that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is only the reproduction in prose of a version of the Gospel in Homeric centones, and that it was this last-named work, dating as early as the 2nd cent.

, that Justin and Tertullian had in view—an ingenious suggestion, which, however, is exposed to the serious objection that the existence of such Christian Homeric centones cannot be proved earlier than the 4th (5th) century. y. SourcEs.—The author uses, first of all, our four canonical Gospels, for the history of whose text certain passages of the Evangel. Nicod. are not without importance. The question as to the source of the other matter has not yet been suffi- ciently investigated.

In details concerning the trial of Jesus, such as the form of summons and that used in pronouncing sentence behind the velum, the usage of the 4th (5th) cent. is reflected ; the scattered Hebrew words with their Greek rendering appended we should be disposed to trace back to Origen’s Hexapla. In the miracle of the standard lowering itself before Jesus, Miinter has seen a parallel to the mark of honour paid by Pompey to the philosopher Posidonius. The de- tails invented in chs.

12-17 (4° above) find their , explanation for the most part in the motives of the Gospel narrative and the evidence of prophecy. Only for 2 does the external garb, to speak of nothing else, make it probable that we should have recourse to a written source, current pre- sumably under the name of Leucius Charinus, the alleged author of various apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. The Gnostic character which has been claimed for the latter by Miinter, Lipsius, v.

Schubert, and others, is denied by Harnack. The point requires fresh examination in connexion with the whole history of the Descensus conceptions. vi. PURPOSE.—The Gospel of Nicodemus in its present form is aT meant only for religious edification.

In this way wide currency was given to two apologetic ideas, which already in the canonical Gospels show themselves with increasing clearness: (1) that the heathen judge, being per- fectly convinced, after examination, of the inno- cence of Jesus, was compelled only by the obstinate wickedness of the Jews to pass sentence of death ; NICOLAITANS scourging of Jesus, but is really nothing else than His being led before Pilate, as described in Evangel. Nicod.

, with the obeisance of the footman and the miracle of the standard. The influence which Ussoff alleges to have been exercised by our Gospel upon the miniatures of the Codex Ros- sennenela is certainly rightly questioned by Hase- off. See, further, art. PILATE (ad /in.) LirgraturE.—G. L, Brunn, Disquisitio hist.-crit. de indole, @tate, et usu libri apocr. vulgo inscripti Evangel. Nicod., Berlin, 1794; Minter, Wahrscheinliche Zusatze zu Christi Lei eschichte nach Nicod, Evangel.

, 1816; Thilo, Codex apocr, NT, i., 1882, cxviii-clx, 487-800; A. Maury, Nouvelles recherches sur 0 ἃ laquelle a été composé Pouvrage connu sous le titre d’évangile Nicod?me, 1850; R. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, Leipzig, 1851, Pp. 334- 471 (an abstract in German, with commen after Thi the same writer’s art. in Hauck’s PRE® i. Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum ead qu ex Actis Pilati, Lips.

1855; Scholten, De oudste getuigenissen aande de Schriften des Niewwen Testaments, 1866; R. Lipsius, Dié Pilatus-Akten kritisch untersucht, Kiel, (21886); Fr. Huidekoper, Indirect testimony of history to the genuineness the Gospels (Works, 1887, il. 106 ff.), Acts of Pilate from ἃ transcript of the Codex designated by Thilo as Paris Ὁ (the g of above article), 1887 (tb.); H. v. Schubert, Die Compos. des trin. Evangelien, Fr ta, 1893 (has also ap {n English), p. 175 ff.; Ad. Harnack, Gesch. ἃ.

altchrist. Litt, τ, 21-24, 865, 907, 922, m. i. 603-612; G. Kriiger, Geach, ἃ. altchrist. Litt. 86; Ad. Graf zu Erbach-Fiirstenau, ‘|’ Evangelo di Nicodemo’ in Archivio storico dell’ arte, ii. 3 (1896), 225-237 ; Haseloff, Codex Rossanensis, 1898, p. 9 ff.; J. Rendel Harris, The Homeric Centones and the Acts of Pilate, London, 1599 (reviewed by the present writer in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, p. 888 ff.) von DogscHUtz.