or the beginning of the twelfth century, and it is in reality a matter of precious little importance.
If we are correct in the supposition that all three MSS are copies of one and the same older version, the question arises as to the probable date of the original MS. Wülker[1] and ten Brink[2] think that the OE. prose translation of the Gospel of Nicodemus was made in the first half of the eleventh century. Förster[3] thinks it might have been written any time between 950 and 1050, and, inasmuch as that was the period in which most of the known OE. prose pieces on religious subjects and many translations from the Bible were produced, we are quite safe in assigning the original MS to the same period. At any rate, I have not succeeded in collecting any data that would justify me in fixing the date more exactly.
Version C has many points of interest for students concerned with the history of the English language, and especially for lexicographers. It contains many words and turns of speech which clearly foreshadow the rapidly approaching Middle English period. There are, indeed, several words that do not appear in any of the "Anglo-Saxon" dictionaries. I have sufficient space only to call attention to the most unusual of these words.
1. Barimathia (p. 13) is a peculiar form of the proper name Arimathia which occurs several times in C (Arimathia not at all), and for which I have been able to find no source. Arimathia is the form used by both the other versions. It is probably only a corruption.[4]
2. dernelegere (p. 13) for forligere of A and B = "adultery" is given in Bosworth-Toller, but is an unusual word.
3. Syndonissce (p. 24) is not in the dictionaries, nor have I been able to find the word anywhere. It occurs in the following
- ↑ Das Evangelium Nicodemi, p. 13; cf. Grundriss, p. 498
- ↑ Early English Literature, Vol. I, p. 111.
- ↑ Förster is in error when he says (p. 320), "Hulme reproduziert ten Brink's Datirung in der ersten Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts,'" inasmuch as I have never before experssed an opinion on this point. Cf. Publications, pp. 464 f. and 541.
- ↑ From Joseph ab Ar(i)mathia or Abar(i)mathia (so in Johannis Glastoniensis. Cf. Nitze, Modern Philology, Vol. I, p. 251). In the Old French metrical romance of Perlesvaus Joseph of Arimathia appears, according to Nitze, as Joseph d'Abarimacie, while Robert's Joseph has the form Joseph de Bérimathie. Cf. Nitze, op. cit., p. 250.
