Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1991, Page 207

193
on Historia Scholastica (HS),12 the latter part, i.e., the Pilate legend, on a
so-called »historia apocrypha« (HA), the supposed source of the
legend injacobus de Voragine’s Le genda Aureal Acomparison of 714
with 226 and 41 reveals that 714 is doser to 41 than to 226. Jon
Helgason, p. 345, suspects that many of the errors in 41 go back to its
lost original. Some of these errors are found also in 714, which serves
to support his theory, e.g.:
HS: ... qui canos tingebat (1545A)
226: ... er lita leti hæru sina (8130)
41: drepa Konu sijna o[g] Born (255rl)14
714: ... Sem bæde liete Drepa konu sina og Børn (90r8-9)
12 J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina 198 (1855).
13 This »historia apocrypha« version of the Pilate legend is found in two publications
(cf.Jén Helgason, pp. 362-364): In Anzeigerfur Kunde der teutschen Vorzeit 7 (Karlsruhe,
1838), Franz Joseph Mone published »Erzåhlungen zu den Sagen vom Pilatus und
Judas«. Of the two versions of the Pilate legend presented here what Mone calls »Die
ausfiihrliche prosaische Sage« (cols. 526-529) is based on the twelfth-century codex
ignot. 86 in Munich. This edition is not complete, some passages being rendered in a
German summary. In Anzeiger fur deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 2 (Berlin,
1876), pp. 149-212, Anton Schonbach discussed the Pilate legend and its development
on the basis of a large number of manuscripts and editions. In the manuscript37/45 4to
in Graz from the fifteenth century Schonbach found a text identical with that of the
manuscript on which Mone had based his edition. On the basis of this Graz manuscript
Schonbach printed the passages which Mone had rendered in German.
It should be noted, however, that in the Icelandic version of the legend there are
three passages which are notfound in the codex ignot. 86 and 37/45 4to in Graz: 1) The
passage which records that Pilate reported all the events of the Passion to Tiberius and
thatTiberius tried in vain to have Jesus declared agod (96sl-9 7 22 in the edition) is not in
these manuscripts. Since this is not an uncommon addition to the legend, it would be
reasonable to assume that it was also contained in the source for the GS version. 2) The
passage which says that Herod Antipas divorced King Aretas’ daughter in order to
marry Herodias and that Aretas and Herod Philip declared war on Herod (9010'20 in the
edition) does not appear in the Latin Pilate legend. 3) The chapter relating that Pilate
hung up a picture of the emperor in the Temple and that he took money from the
Temple to build an aqueduct (9724-995 in the edition). The obvious place to look for
these two passages would be the HS, but the relevant passages in this work are not as
detailed as they are in the Icelandic, and the Icelandic accounts appear doser to those
found in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae. It would seem unlikely that the Icelandic
translator would tum to Josephus for these two passages, and it would be reasonable
to assume that there was in existence an expanded version of the HS from which he
drew his material. This supposition is supported by other parts of GS based on this
work.
14 Here the GS text of 41 begins; seejdn Helgason, pp. 367-368.