B. Assmann[1] likewise places it in the twelfth century on account of linguistic reasons: "Aus der sprache ersehen wir, dass sie [i.e., die handschrift] im 12. jahrhundert geschrieben ist." Napier, who has examined the entire MS with care, says of it:
Homily MS, written early in the twelfth century. The greater portion is written by one hand, which extends to f. 163b. .... Then follow six short homiletic bits in different hands: the first from f. 163b to 165; the second f. 165; the third fol. 165b to 166; the fourth f. 166 to 168; the fifth f.168b to 169; the sixth and last f. 169b.[2]
Förster follows Napier in assigning the manuscript to the early part of the twelfth century, and he also attempts to fix the locality of the text:
Der in Frage kommende Hauptteil der Handschrift .... ist im Anfang des 12. Jahrhunderts, vermutlich im mittleren Süden Englands, aus sehr bunt gemischten Vorlagen von einem Kopisten zusammengestellt.[3]
In another connection he says that the region in or around Dorset
würde gut passen zu dem mutmasslichen Ensttehungsorte unserer Handschrift, den ich im mittleren Süden - aufs Geratewohl habe ich an Winchester (?) gedacht — suchen möchte.[4]
I shall have occasion to revert to this point again. Napier's date for the MS may, I think, be accepted as the probable one - at all events, until more definite evidence shall prove it to be incorrect.
Objection has been raised[5] to the presumption[6] on my part that the Vespasian MS version (which for convenience we may with Förster call C) contains only the second part of the Gospel of Nicodemus. The version does represent Part I of the Evangelium Nicodemi, but in a very much abbreviated form. That is to say, C omits entirely that part of the narrative which corresponds to the first ten pages of MS A[7] and to about the first fourteen of MS B.[8] The fact that begins the narrative just where there is a considerable lacuna in the other versions has, I think, some bearing on the question of the relation of C to the
