Page:Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ.djvu/102

xcviii M. Nicolas discusses the question, but cannot accept the conclusion of Dr. Tischendorf. He says, "What seems to me most decisive against Tischendorf is, that Justin Martyr and Tertullian appeal, or believe they appeal, to an official document; without this their arguments have no meaning. Now of the two writings, the Report of Pilate to Tiberius alone affects this form." M. Nicolas is right. The Acts of Pilate, or Gospel of Nicodemus, cannot be what Justin and Tertulllan appeal to, because it is not an official document in any sense.

M. Maury considers the first and second parts of Nicodemus to be the work of one author; but Bishop Ellicott believes they are the work of two, and I agree with him. As to the former part of Nicodemus, the bishop follows the opinion of Dr. Tischendorf.

It is not needful for me to carry this enquiry further. I repeat then, that in my opinion the first part of the book was not written earlier than Maury says, and the second part somewhat later. Although the composition of two persons, they were early combined, and probably in the West. Their popularity is shown by the number of versions and MSS., and by the numerous quotations from them found in ancient authors.