Gripla - 2023, Blaðsíða 202

200 GRIPLA
this text.61 The version of Andrés saga found in AM 239 fol. is “Andrés
saga postola I,” while the version in SÁM 1 is categorized as “Andrés saga
postola III.” Both Pétrs saga postula and Andrés saga postula preceed Tveggja
postula saga Jóns ok Jakobs in SÁM 1, suggesting that they were probably
written first. This, together with Ólafur’s hypothesis that different exem-
plars were used for these two texts, strengthens the assumption that PU3
had not yet been added to the manuscript when H2 copied Tveggja postula
saga Jóns ok Jakobs. Whether PU2, which contains Jóns saga baptista, was
already part of the manuscript at that point, cannot be determined, as this
saga was not included in SÁM 1. The likely possibility remains, though,
that H2 made use of AM 239 fol.’s first production unit before H3 ex-
panded its scope either for the first or the second time. H2 copied Tveggja
postula saga Jóns ok Jakobs also into another manuscript that is preserved
as two fragments, AM 653 a 4to and JS fragm. 7. Due to the fragmentary
state, it is impossible to assert whether the original manuscript included
other texts, and if so, what they were.
Conclusion
As the presented analysis has shown, AM 239 fol. consists of three major
production units from the second half of the fourteenth century. PU1
extends from fol. 1 to fol. 35. PU2 begins on fol. 36 and ends on fol. 52v15,
with the elongated “Amen”. PU3 begins on the same line as PU2 ends, on
fol. 52v15 with the “prologus” rubric. It extends from there until fol. 85 and
again from fol. 95 to fol. 109. The two parts of PU3 are separated by a later
production unit, PU4, which dates to the seventeenth century and supplies
the lost end of Pétrs saga postula. Table 1 provides an overview of the major
units and their production features.62 Note that both the end of Tveggja
postula saga Jóns ok Jakobs (ca. six leaves) and the beginning of Jóns saga
baptista (ca. one leaf) are missing.63 This reconstruction does not indicate
a quire boundary co-occurring with a text boundary, and, as is discussed
above, it remains uncertain where exactly the original boundary between
PU1 and PU2 was located.
61 Wolf, The Legends of the Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose, 30.
62 A more detailed version of this table can also be found on the Helgafell-project website:
https://hirslan.arnastofnun.is/.
63 These defects are marked with * in the table.