Survival and Success of an Apocryphal Childhood of Jesus: Reception of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Middle Ages 3110752727, 9783110752724

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text
Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure
Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West
Appendix. The Edition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Latin, Greek, and Church Slavonic manuscripts used in this book
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Marijana Vuković Survival and Success of an Apocryphal Childhood of Jesus

Studies of the Bible and Its Reception

Editorial Board: Constance M. Furey, Joel Marcus LeMon, Brian Matz, Thomas Römer, Jens Schröter, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric Ziolkowski

Volume 21

Marijana Vuković

Survival and Success of an Apocryphal Childhood of Jesus Reception of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Middle Ages

ISBN 978-3-11-075272-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-075278-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-075285-4 ISSN 2195-450X Library of Congress Control Number: 2021951143 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Logo: Martin Zech Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

To Sandro, Salome, and our life in Oslo

Acknowledgements This book is a revised doctoral thesis defended at the University of Oslo, the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art, and Ideas. Its writing commenced in 2013 and was brought to completion in 2017. The research and writing were facilitated thanks to the generous grant of the Research Council of Norway, which supported the project “Tiny Voices from the Past: New Perspectives on Childhood in Early Europe,” under whose thematic umbrella my thesis was written. Besides the Research Council of Norway, the financial assistance of the Faculty of Humanities and the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art, and Ideas of the University of Oslo for supporting my research-related travels are greatly appreciated. My advisor, Reidar Aasgaard, gathered a fantastic crew in Oslo to work on the project in a stimulating and welcoming atmosphere. I wish to refer to Reidar and the team members Ville Vuolanto, Oana Maria Cojocaru, Christian Laes, Cornelia Horn, Marcia J. Bunge, Merethe Roos, and to acknowledge wonderful moments of exchange and encouragement we had during those years. Some of my most momentous personal episodes sparked those years in Oslo. It may have been a mere coincidence that I was gifted a child of my own while studying childhood and children of the past. My studies and my newly attained motherhood solidified immense personal growth and transformation. Thanks to these fortunate and some other heavy personal episodes, those years in Oslo changed me for good. For better or worse, friends and colleagues’ presence and support meant the world to me. In the final phases of my writing, I benefited from the valuable advice of Ingela Nilsson, who was a source of exceptional inspiration and encouragement. I immensely appreciated the critical comments I received from Stephen Davis, Mary Dzon, and Christine Amadou before and during my doctoral defense. I owe much to Liv Ingeborg Lied, who introduced me to the world of New Philology. Cornelia Horn facilitated my research stay in Berlin in 2015, for which I am very grateful. Finally, my appreciation goes to all my friends and colleagues at the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, the Department of Theology of the University of Oslo, and the Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society (MF). My research would not be possible without the source material from different manuscript libraries. For the courtesy of providing access to medieval manuscripts and other resources, I wish to thank the following manuscript libraries: Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris), Bibliothèque Saint-Geneviève (Paris), Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St Petersburg), https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-001

VIII

Acknowledgements

State Historical Museum (Moscow), Bibliothèque municipale (Dijon), Burgerbibliothek (Berne), Corpus Christi College (Cambridge), and Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Vienna). Lastly, my tiny family of three who accompanied me during those seasons was the motive and the inspiration for my work and my life. I wish to acknowledge Sandro and Salome for everything I did during those years, including this book.

Contents Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

1

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 40 The oldest witness 43 Late antique Syriac tradition 47 Georgian evidence 51 56 Eleventh-century Byzantine evidence Eleventh-century Latin evidence 59 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the thirteenth-century Byzantium 64 67 Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts Slavonic evidence 76 Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts 83 89 Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Latin manuscripts Apocryphal manuscript geography and the changing genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 93 Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure Pseudo-temporal order 104 119 Narrative logic Pseudo-duration 127 Intra- and inter-lingual connections 157 Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas Presence of Joseph and Mary 164 Jesus’ obedience to his parents 170 Parents’ punishment and encouragement 178 Jesus’ siblings 183 Jesus and his peers 185 Jesus and teachers 189 Jesus’ education 193 Jesus’ physical work 203 Jesus’ anger and cursing 204 Jesus’ family and community 209

101

161

X

Contents

Housing 215 222 Healing and sorcery Theology, non-contested matters, and the humanization of the child Jesus 224 Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

229

Appendix The Edition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Latin, Greek, and Church 236 Slavonic manuscripts used in this book Bibliography 289 289 Manuscripts Secondary literature Index

309

289

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text The subject of this book is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a second-century apocryphal Christian story about the childhood of Jesus.¹ Its focal point is the boyhood of the foremost figure in Christianity: Jesus. It is the only exhaustive account of Jesus’ childhood in Christian literature, although it does not present historically based details of Jesus’ childhood.² Understanding the person and the nature of Christ was a central theological preoccupation of the early Christi-

 The second-century dating of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel is based on Irenaeus’ testimony in his Against Heresies (1.20.1). This evidence, however, does not attest that the written text existed, nor it reveals the textual form in the second century. Irenaeus refers to the episode of Jesus and the teacher. As for the title, I use the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT), as the most conventional title in the scholarship. Different scholars name the text differently. Elliott prefers the title The Childhood Deeds of Jesus. Pheme Perkins thinks that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a modern title given to what may have been called The Childhood Deeds of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some other scholars yet call it Paidika (S. Davis, S. Voicu, G. van Oyen). Horn and Phenix call this text the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas. Gero notes that different versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas have various titles. Only the Arabic infancy narrative is explicitly called the Gospel of the Infancy. Some scholars question its ascription to Thomas, as well as its name “Gospel.” See James Keith Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2006), xiii; Pheme Perkins, “Christology and Soteriology in Apocryphal Gospels,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 196 – 212, 197; Geert van Oyen, “Rereading the Rewriting of the Biblical Traditions in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Paidika),” in Infancy Gospels, eds. Claire Clivaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011): 482– 505; Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac and Related Texts Offering Traditions about Jesus,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, eds. Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter, with Jakob Spaeth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010): 527– 555; Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, eds., The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 5; Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, eds. and tr., The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 5; Stephen Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems,” Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): 46 – 80, 59.  The question of whether apocryphal literature can contribute to our understanding of the historical Jesus has been much debated, with a great deal of emotive language. See Reidar Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2009), 2; Simon Gathercole, “Other Apocryphal Gospels and the Historical Jesus,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 250 – 268, 250. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-002

2

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

an period.³ However, in the earliest days of Christianity, not the birth and childhood but primarily Jesus’ death and resurrection were of theological interest.⁴ The attentiveness to Jesus’ childhood emerged soon after. Scholars mostly agree that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was constructed to supplement the gaps in the life of Jesus described in the canonical Gospels.⁵ The curiosity about Jesus’ birth and infancy is attested already in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. However, unlike the synoptic Gospels, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas goes further than the events immediately after Jesus’ birth and sequences the episodes of Jesus’ life from the age of five until he was twelve, which makes it a unique account of this period of Jesus’ life in early Christian literature.⁶ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas furnishes an extraordinary depiction of the young Jesus. In the words of Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, “this is not the loving Savior of the canonical tradition.”⁷ Jesus’ childhood is depicted as a sequence of his startling, miraculous and supernatural actions. Jesus interacts with other people, children, and his parents, Mary and Joseph. A particular emphasis is placed on the relationship with his father. Joseph carries out disciplinary measures towards Jesus, while Mary appears in a few episodes, only to be worried or proud. Jesus plays with children in different ways; however, he takes revenge and punishes those who are unfair and in discord with him.

 Paul Foster, “Christology and Soteriology in Apocryphal Acts and Apocalypses,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 213 – 232, 213.  Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Ltd, 1991), 414; Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1995), 2.  Many scholars have repeated this argument. Occasionally, some scholars argue that “it was not a mere supplement, a primitive attempt to ‘fill in the gaps’ of canonical account, but a valuable Christian text in its own right.” See Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 1, 78; Chris Frilingos, “No Child Left Behind: Knowledge and Violence in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17, No. 1 (2009): 27– 54, 34, n. 30; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 206; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1992), 312; François Bovon, “Évangiles canoniques et évangiles apocryphes: La naissance et l’enfance de Jésus,” Bulletin des facultés catholiques de Lyon 58 (1980): 19 – 30, 25.  I here demonstrate that the different manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas give different information about Jesus’ age at the beginning and the end of the story. In general, scholars have repeated that the story covers Jesus’ young years from five to twelve. However (to take one example), the text in some Slavonic manuscripts analyzed in this study starts from Jesus’ age three.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 6.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

3

Jesus performs spectacular miracles, molding sparrows out of clay (on a Sabbath) and making them come alive. By throwing a curse, he kills other children and blinds adults. Sometimes, running into Jesus and tearing his shoulder is a sufficient reason for killing a person. However, Jesus can also restore the damage done to those he has cursed: he brings them back to life. Jesus attends school three times; two of these attempts fail because he kills his teachers for being unfair to him. Because of his frivolous behavior, he attracts the community’s anger. They usually complain to his father, Joseph. In conversation with other people, including his father, Jesus has a serious tone, and the validity of his answers equals those of adults. He makes a teacher look ridiculous by correcting him in the matters of learning. He demonstrates an array of unusual characteristics, such as anger, annoyance, irritation, urge for revenge, lack of sympathy, and he kindles fear in other people. At the age of twelve, Jesus gets lost in Jerusalem, as in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 2). After three days, his parents find him in the Temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them, and asking them questions. Those who listen to Jesus are amazed at how he questions the elders and explains the critical matters of faith and the prophets’ puzzles and parables. It is, in brief, what the story of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells us. Thomas’ Infancy Gospel was most likely composed in a Greek-speaking context of the second century CE by an anonymous author.⁸ The brief testimony of Irenaeus of Lyons does not tell us how the text looked like in the second century (Irenaeus, Against Heresies (1.20.1)), as Irenaeus only refers to the episode of Jesus and the teacher. Some scholars argue that it must have been composed earlier than 185 CE, possibly even around 125 CE.⁹ Sharon Betsworth and Tony Burke suggest that its provenance is Syrian Antioch or Asia Minor,¹⁰ while Frédéric Amsler argues for a fourth-century Antiochian origin.¹¹ Ludwig Conrady and Arnold Meyer argue for an Egyptian origin.¹²

 The earliest witnesses to this story, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, and a few others, come from the second century. However, these testimonies do not amount to evidence that a fully developed text existed at this point. See Sharon Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 147; Stephen J. Davis, Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 36.  See, e. g., Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 147.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 147; Tony Burke, De infantia Iesu evangelium Thomae graece (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 206 – 212.  Frédéric Amsler, “Les Paidika Iesou, un nouveau témoin de la rencontre entre judaïsme et christianisme à Antioch au IVe siècle?” in Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities, eds. Claire Cli-

4

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was copied in a significant number of medieval manuscripts.¹³ The text swiftly crossed linguistic and cultural borders and got transmitted in many realms of the Christian world and beyond. Like other early Christian writings, it was conveyed to different communities and disseminated in many languages in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Greek, Syriac, Latin, Georgian, Irish, Slavonic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and others. The survival of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel in so many languages testifies to the interest in the text. However, scholarly opinions disagree regarding the reputation of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Middle Ages. Sever Voicu argues that its transmission was not something that would qualify as a success,¹⁴ while Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše assert that it was one of the most famous early Christian texts down through the ages, without a doubt.¹⁵ An astonishing number of copies in late antique and medieval languages testify to its popularity. Philip Jenkins likewise holds that Thomas’ Infancy Gospel was for some 1500 years one of the most popular Christian writings.¹⁶ During the transmission, the text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts was fluid. It has displayed a great deal of textual instability across time and became a multi-variant text. Orality also played a role and influenced the text; possibly, its portions were orally transmitted for a while.¹⁷ Scholars have already worked on categorizing its many textual variants in several languages.¹⁸ Textual variations have not been characteristic of all types of literature that appeared in medieval manuscripts. In the words of Jane Baun, “when it comes to the writings of Plato, the Apostle Paul, or church fathers, completely different attitudes were held by medieval copyists.”¹⁹ Their task was to produce a precise vaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011): 433 – 458, 434.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 207; Ludwig Conrady, “Das Thomasevangelium: Ein wissenschaftlicher kritischer Versuch,” ThStKr 76 (1903): 377– 459; A Meyer, “Kindheitserzählung des Thomas,” in Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, ed. Edgar Hennecke (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1924): 93 – 102, 96.  See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 172.  Sever J. Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” in Infancy Gospels, eds. Claire Clivaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011): 401– 417, 412.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 3.  Philip Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand-Year Story of the Survival and Influence of the Lost Gospels (New York: Basic Books, 2015), 77.  See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 14– 34.  Most notably, see Burke, De infantia Iesu.  Jane Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 35.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

5

duplicate of the original. However, textual variations were quite commonly present in the literature of anonymous authorship. The lack of an apparent authority behind Thomas’ Infancy Gospel may have contributed to its extensive variations.²⁰ The “apocryphal” characterization of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have caused an additional entanglement.²¹ Namely, as early as in the second

 As Burke argues, this text’s ascription to a named author is only a secondary feature found in Byzantine, Second Latin, and Slavonic manuscripts. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 205.  The designation “Apocrypha” still somewhat escapes scholars’ definition. Scholars agree that the concept is difficult to define. It is likewise hard to place very diverse writings under the same umbrella. Different scholars have assessed the Apocrypha in different ways. In the view of Wilhelm Schneemelcher, who built on the work of Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha are defined as “the writings which were excluded from ecclesiastical usage very early. It occurred to a small extent even before the canon’s completion, at the end of the second century and in the third century. These writings then continued to have a separate existence among groups outside the Great Church or again with works which for various motives availed themselves of the forms and Gattungen of the New Testament, for didactic purposes, for propaganda, or entertainment.” In his view, there was a clear boundary between canonical and apocryphal writings in Christianity from very early on, when Apocrypha were excluded from ecclesiastical use. However, other scholars take the term “apocryphal” as referring to books not included in the NT canon, a definition that pushes the line of distinction to the time when the canon was finally established in the fourth century. However, since there was no NT canon when the earliest of the “apocryphal” texts emerged, it remains unclear how many (if any) of them were ever conceived explicitly as competitors for inclusion in the NT canon. Other scholars have a slightly different way of looking at the issue, arguing that the formation of the NT canon was a process that lasted from the end of the first century until the mid-fourth century. In this process, several prominent early theologians, including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, had their say about the writings very soon after they appeared. As for terminology, New Testament Apocrypha has been in use for a while but is currently replaced by “Early Christian Apocrypha.” The debate whether to use “New Testament Apocrypha” or “Early Christian Apocrypha” remains open. Tuckett emphasizes that it is challenging to define “Apocrypha,” as well as to discard the term “NT” and adopt “Early Christian.” In his view, these terms are prone to change. Some scholars suggest that we should perhaps call apocryphal literature “early non-canonical Christian literature.” However, the term “apocryphal” in the sense of “non-canonical” is debatable. Not all non-canonical texts are apocryphal, but all apocryphal texts are non-canonical. Other scholars have taken a different direction by saying that the word “apocryphal” first appeared not connected with the canon’s history but in the Church’s conflict with Gnosticism and other heresies. The linking of the term “apocryphal” with heresy brought in other interpretations. As a transliteration of the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, scholars linked it to the meaning of “secret” or “hidden.” Ehrman notes that contemporary scholars misleadingly comprehend “Apocrypha” as “hidden books,” either because they contained secret revelations or because they were not meant for general consumption. Βefore the thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius from 367 CE, the word “apocryphal” was used for books with secret teachings. Other scholars think that the adjective “apocryphal” is wrong if

6

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

taken in its primary meaning of “hidden.” J. K. Elliott holds that if the meaning of “apocryphal” is “spurious” and “secondary,” then it may well be allowable. “Unorthodox” and “heretical” are also to be avoided. The apologist Irenaeus equated “apocryphal” with “false” (νόθος). The conviction that “apocryphal” books had a specialized readership consisting of specific circles or “communities” is nowadays gradually repudiated by scholars, who increasingly hold that there is nothing to support such views; some books “acclaimed to be apocryphal” were written for general audiences. Some scholars have argued that apocryphal literature was in danger of being lost due to being swamped, ignored, and suppressed. These texts were less copied, read less frequently, and as a result, they were often forfeited or forgotten. Thomas Rosén similarly argues that Apocrypha were transmitted secretly in the Slavonic context since they had no identifiable corpus of texts, separate from canonical literature, but were usually bound together in manuscripts, despite the attempts of the Church to eradicate the apocryphal writings. Other scholars think that Apocrypha were the popular literature of the pious for many centuries. Averil Cameron argues that “even after the acceptance of the canon and their exclusion from it, the popularity and influence of the apocryphal narratives was so enormous and so widespread at all levels that they must rank high among the contributors to the early Christian world-view.” Scott Johnson notes that “the popular apocryphal texts had a defining ‘elasticity’ which largely helped them survive the attempts to suppress apocryphal literature in subsequent centuries.” Recently, views have become more nuanced and inclusive. Larry Hurtado holds that “Early Christian Apocrypha” contain a diversity of texts, some of which linked to dissident, “heretical” groups and ideas, but also other texts intended to supplement and expand upon early “Orthodox” texts and ideas or to promote a version of Christian edification and perhaps entertainment. The “Christian Apocrypha” is not a fixed corpus of writings. Based on this, some scholars have begun to see Apocrypha as complementary to canonical literature. They argue that Apocrypha about Jesus’ life supplement what was “missing” in the canonical literature. As Averil Cameron states, “on the level of story, the infancy gospels constitute a world of discourse complementary to and filling many gaps left blank in the Gospels.” Early Christian Apocrypha expand and elaborate the traditions of the “canonical” writings. The latest bid for interpretation comes from Christopher Tuckett, who adopts the definition by Markschies and Schröter (2012), saying that “Apocrypha” are the texts which either have the form of biblical texts which became canonical or tell stories about characters in the biblical texts which became canonical or convey words purportedly spoken by these characters. In this sense, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an apocryphal text that focuses on the main character of the biblical texts – Jesus – while its form may not be necessarily linked to the genre of “gospel” as in the biblical gospels. See Christopher Tuckett, “Introduction: What is Early Christian Apocrypha?” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 3 – 12; Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha I, 9 – 14, 78; Jens Schröter, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon and Early Christian Apocrypha,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 167– 184, 167– 8, 183; Péter Tóth, “Way Out of the Tunnel? Three Hundred Years of Research on the Apocrypha: A Preliminary Approach,” in Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical, and Social Contexts, eds. Lucie Doležalová, and Tamás Visi (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011): 45 – 84, 50 – 57; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 4; James Keith Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” in Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (London: Burns and Oates, 2008): 57– 70, 57; Larry W. Hurtado, “Who Read Early Christian Apoc-

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

7

century, when the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared, some church fathers warned against its contents.²² The majority of their critical remarks about Thomas’ Infancy Gospel’s apocryphal nature refer to the miracles performed by the child Jesus. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus’ first miracle occurred in Cana after his baptism (2.11). Many early Christian and medieval writers used this argument to assert Thomas’ Infancy Gospel’s apocryphal features. They rejected the miracles of the child Jesus and recommended that one should avoid reading this text. Irenaeus of Lyons (180 CE) first criticized the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, because “Jesus as a child could not know the unknown.”²³ Irenaeus characterized this story as “apocryphal and spurious” (ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων γραφῶν), meant to “bewilder foolish men.” John Chrysostom (386 – 398) announced in his Homily 17 on John that the miracles of Jesus in this text were false (ψευδῆ).²⁴ In the sevrypha?” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 153 – 166, 153 – 155; Kim Haines-Eitzen, The Gendered Palimpsest: Women, Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Thomas Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 39 (Uppsala: Coronet Books Inc., 1997), 13; James Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 46 – 47; Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 90, 98; Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, “Apocrypha and the Literary Past in Late Antiquity,” in From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron, eds. Hagit Amirav and Bas ter Haar Romeny (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2007): 47– 66, 47; Tobias Nicklas, “The Influence of Jewish Scriptures on Early Christian Apocrypha,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 141– 152, 141; Jörg Frey, “Texts about Jesus: Non-canonical Gospels and Related Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, eds. Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 13 – 48, 14– 15, 26; Christoph Markschies, and Jens Schröter, eds., Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung I. Band: Evangelien und Verwandtes, Teilband 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Tony Burke, and Brent Landau, eds., New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2016), xii; Perkins, “Christology and Soteriology in Apocryphal Gospels,” 197; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 18 – 21.  The overview of these authors is described in detail by Tony Burke. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 3 – 44.  Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.20.1; Dominic J. Unger, and John J. Dillon, tr., St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against the Heresies (New York: Newman Press, 1992), 76; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 4.  “It remains clear that those miracles, which they say are Christ’s childhood deeds, are false. For if he had begun from his early age to work wonders, neither would John have been ignorant of him, nor would the multitude have needed a teacher to make him known.” Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 59 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862), 110; Philip Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews, A

8

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

enth century, Maximus the Confessor was explicit about Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, referring to the miracles and this text as lying outside the Church’s canon.²⁵ Anastasius of Sinai, a seventh-century monk, held the same view. In his Hodegos 13, he said that the “so-called childhood miracles of Christ were false (ψευδῆ) and were to be rejected.”²⁶ Again, George Syncellus from Constantinople in the eighth–ninth century denied the possibility that Jesus performed miracles as a child.²⁷ Euthymius Zigabenus, in twelfth-century Constantinople, explicitly called the childhood miracles of Christ “a forgery” (πλάσμα).²⁸ In the West, high and late medieval authors were also critical in various ways of the apocryphal features of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, even if many used it in some form.²⁹ A thirteenth-century Dominican Vincent of Beauvais incorporated details of the Liber de Infantia salvatoris (IGT) into his pastorally aimed encyclopedia, although he asserted that this text was of unknown authorship and was dubious (quedam etiam quia de veritate dubitatur).³⁰ Thomas Aquinas noted that the Liber de infantia salvatoris contradicted the Scripture and was apocryphal; it could not be used as an authority (apocryphus).³¹ He harshly condemned it.³² The fifteenth-century French theologian Jean Gerson went even further; he recommended that it be burned.³³

Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1975), 60; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 6.  Michel van Esbroeck, ed. and tr., Maxime le Confesseur. Vie de la Vierge 479 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 52, 19 – 53, 8; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 8.  Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 89 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1865), 229C; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 9 – 10.  William Adler, and Paul Tuffin, tr., The Chronography of George Synkellos. A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 385 – 386; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 12– 13.  Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 129 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864), 1153B; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 14.  As Burke previously provided an overview of the Greek apologists who commented on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Mary Dzon has supplied a similar list of the Western authors. See Mary Dzon, “Cecily Neville and the Apocryphal Infantia salvatoris in the Middle Ages,” Mediaeval Studies 71 (2009): 235 – 300, 274– 289.  Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum quadruplex sive Speculum maius: naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale 6.64– 66 (1624, Reprint: Graz, 1964); Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 279 – 280. The title Liber de infantia salvatoris, as in the Gelasian Decree, probably refers to Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, but there is no scholarly consensus. Dzon and Beyers agree that it is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 268, n. 107; Rita Beyers, “The Transmission of Marian Apocrypha in the Latin Middle Ages,” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 117– 140, 119.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 3.36.4; Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 282.  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 283.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

9

These authors’ opinions were disregarded in the Middle Ages, considering that Thomas’ Infancy Gospel was copied in manuscripts in various cultural contexts. The text was undoubtedly not suppressed because it was labeled apocryphal by prominent ancient and medieval Christian writers. As John McGuckin states, “texts that are still alive will survive any degree of official disapproval as long as there is a community ready to invest time and money renewing the literature of a previous age that still seems to it to be relevant and significant.”³⁴ Asking why the Churches did not manage to suppress Apocrypha, Sever Voicu concludes that attempts to eliminate this literature were mostly occasional and rarely systematic despite the theoretical condemnations.³⁵ Christian Apocrypha were “theoretically forbidden,” but they were used in practice. They could have been considered “less useful than other readings” for Christians. John Haughey similarly argues about Apocrypha that “although some patristic authors deride these stories, many of the faithful passed on some of them.”³⁶ Neither early Christian tradition nor medieval Christianity was restricted at any time only to those writings that had gained canonical status.³⁷ Jenkins’ book about “alternative gospels” asserts that they not only survived the canonization process but remained influential in the official Church for centuries to come.³⁸ However, in copying apocryphal texts, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, “the goal of text-workers was very different from copying authoritative writings; they were much freer to adapt, update, and refashion their material,” as Baun notes.³⁹ Various manuscripts and versions of apocryphal texts contain living texts, which are active historical phenomena in their own right and whose manuscript histories are complex and unstable.⁴⁰ Apocryphal texts were unconstrained by linguistic boundaries, easily transmitted, and exposed to textual modifications. Medieval copyists and narrators were much freer to transform,

 Jean Gerson, “Considérations sur Saint Joseph,” in Œuvres complètes 7: L’Œuvre française (292 – 339), ed. Palémon Glorieux (Paris: Desclée, 1966): 63 – 94, 76; Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 286.  John McGuckin, “The Early Cult of Mary and Inter-Religious Contexts in the Fifth-Century Church,” in Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (London: Burns and Oates, 2008): 1– 22, 3 – 4.  Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 402.  John C. Haughey, “Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus (Book Review),” Theological Studies 76, No. 1 (2015): 209 – 210.  Schröter, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon and Early Christian Apocrypha,” 184.  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ.  Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 35.  See Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 35; see also Alger Nick Doane, “The Ethnography of Scribal Writing and Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Scribe as Performer,” Oral Tradition 9, No. 2 (1994): 420 – 439.

10

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

appropriate, and reformulate their material. Indeed, Apocrypha may have had more exciting afterlives than canonical texts (from a contemporary scholarly perspective) because of their diverse appearances. Tony Burke argues that apocryphal Christian texts were more prone to change and expansion over the centuries than the canonical texts, which achieved a measure of rigidity early on.⁴¹ How should such textual variations be assessed, scholarly speaking? In the words of Mark Amodio and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, textual variations generally ought not to be judged based on how greatly they diverge from some romanticized, idealized, and conveniently absent Ur-text, but rather seen as the evidence of a performance of a specialized kind, which in its physicality and uniqueness is an analog to oral performance.⁴² In the view of Alger Nick Doane, variations are to be seen as the “textual sites where we can discern that a scribe has contributed on his own to a basically fluid text from an indefinite store of memorial possibilities, substituting not necessarily his own for the ‘author’s reading,’ but at least probably departing from his immediate exemplar.”⁴³ In other words, textual variations are valuable for communicating information about the setting in which they emerged, about the process of their copying in manuscripts, or even scribes who copied and audiences who read or listened to texts. The fact that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, as many other texts from Early Christianity, lacks information about its author, original version, and original language impelled scholars to investigate these critical questions, which dominated scholarship for a while.⁴⁴ Scholars had no way of knowing how to approach such a text, where an author is unknown, and an original form is difficult to place in time and space. Their main idea was to search anew for the lost Urtext. In this book, I aim to shed new light on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, despite the hindrances: the absence of information about the original language,

 Tony Burke, “‘Social Viewing’ of Children in the Childhood Stories of Jesus,” in Children in Late Ancient Christianity, eds. Cornelia B. Horn, and Robert R. Phenix (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009): 29 – 43, 31.  Mark C. Amodio, and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, “Introduction,” in Unlocking the Wordhord: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Memory of Edward B. Irving Jr, eds. Mark C. Amodio, and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003): 3 – 13, 6.  Alger Nick Doane, “‘Beowulf’ and Scribal Performance,” In Unlocking the Wordhord: AngloSaxon Studies in Memory of Edward B. Irving, Jr, eds. Mark C. Amodio, Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003): 62– 75, 68.  We lack information about the original language and the original textual form of this anonymous text, although the principal scholarly view is that the original language is Greek. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 173 – 220.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

11

original form, authorship, and the apocryphal characteristics of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, thanks to which most scholars have turned their back on it thus far. My main preoccupation concerns the redactions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts. Thus, this book addresses variations: variations in manuscripts, genre, textual and contextual variations. The textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are studied in the historical and cultural contexts and in connection to the environments in which they were copied and used.⁴⁵ How have different medieval communities molded this text in manuscripts in various environments? What did the text come to mean to different medieval groups who read and used it? Do the variations open a view onto various contexts? Do they reveal the attitudes and worldviews of the groups that transmitted and used this text? Were these ideas adopted from earlier textual forms, or were they the very own ideas of these groups? This book aims to trace and analyze Thomas’ Infancy Gospel’s afterlife and evolution from Late Antiquity until the late Middle Ages in various medieval settings. The work on manuscripts is crucial in the study of transmission and textual variations. I engage closely with manuscripts and consider them an essential part of my research. The text’s distribution in the manuscripts is uneven over time. Only their small number have been preserved from the fifth to the eleventh centuries. According to the extant material, this text’s production and copying apparently increased in the high Middle Ages, with a peak of production in the fifteenth century.⁴⁶ Whether the number of extant manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from a particular period implies the text’s popularity at that time and place deserves further scholarly discussion.⁴⁷ Studying the use of Apocrypha from the fifth to the sixteenth centuries is undoubtedly a desideratum in the scholarship. Jenkins emphasizes that many scholars working on “alternative” scriptures focus on the “early church” from the first four centuries and pay little attention to the post-400 era.⁴⁸ In his  In support of this approach, see Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 32: Aasgaard suggests that “each manuscript, variant, and version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas can be studied in their own right and on their own terms.”  See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 171.  Some scholars have discussed the links between the number of extant manuscripts and the popularity of texts. See Ingela Nilsson, Erotic Pathos, Rhetorical Pleasure: Narrative Technique and Mimesis in Eumathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2001), 13, n. 15; Panagiotis Agapitos, “Narrative, Rhetoric, and ‘Drama’ Rediscovered: Scholars and Poets in Byzantium Interpret Heliodorus,” in Studies in Heliodorus, ed. Richard Hunter (Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society, 1998): 125 – 156, 126 – 127.  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 18.

12

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

view, the absence of secondary literature on the post-400 era leads one to think that the “alternative” scriptures must have disappeared or faded into insignificance after this time.⁴⁹ Even if Jenkins’ statement does not entirely correspond to the growing number of recent works written on post-400 Apocrypha, he is undoubtedly correct to demand a higher number of studies in this field.⁵⁰ To target the variations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I here discuss the questions related to the manuscript collections in which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears, its genre and position in the manuscripts, the questions regarding the textual variation, and the social, cultural, and religious implications that this text reflects in the different manuscripts. The interpretative framework of New Philology, which evaluates manuscripts within their places of production and copying regardless of the original provenance of texts, is the most fitting frame for this material. I will explain it in more detail below. Studying manuscripts brings in the questions of physical settings in which the text was copied and used. Where were the manuscripts copied? Was their production conducted in monastic or secular contexts? Further, the text of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel is bound together with other texts in the manuscripts. Texts sometimes appeared in separate libelli in the Middle Ages; however, more commonly, they were placed in manuscripts where the framework of the manuscript contents determined their function. What kind of manuscripts contained this text? With what other texts was this text bound? What do the contents tell us about the use of the manuscript collections? Answering such questions provides an understanding of the perceptions and attitudes towards the text in different settings. Sometimes, the manuscripts were compiled based on genre or according to what was understood to be their texts’ central theme. Thomas’ Infancy Gospel was of diverse genres and had a different primary focus in different manuscripts. Genre and focus may explain how Thomas’ Infancy Gospel in these manuscripts should be understood. These questions and concerns are the subject of Chapter 2. In this chapter, I use a range of manuscripts from various backgrounds (Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, Georgian, and Syriac). Their assortment is discussed further below. The next point: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas that we have in front of us is a combination of oral and written elements noted down in folios. If we consider that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins with the episodes Prologue (1) and  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 18.  See, e. g., Burke and Landau, New Testament Apocrypha; see also Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Afterlives of New Testament Apocrypha,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, No. 2 (2015): 401– 425, 406.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

13

Cleaning of Pools (2.1) – where Jesus plays by a rushing stream, forms the pools, and cleans them – the text covers from four up to twenty-two folios in the manuscripts.⁵¹ The episodes in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are at times differently aligned in the manuscripts. Occasionally, a different selection of episodes is made. The text’s opening and ending are also not fixed; sometimes, the text appears in combination with other texts, with which it forms a cycle. In literary studies, texts as literary compositions are analyzed according to literary and genre rules. The text always has a specific inner dynamic that utterly depends on literary mechanisms. It is textual criticism’s task to uncover all the text’s multiple layers in its numerous varieties. The manuscript forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas diverge in structure, the order of episodes, and the duration of individual episodes. Above all, its varieties from manuscript to manuscript reveal that they may have been exposed to different influences. These concerns are addressed in Chapter 3. This chapter focuses on the textual forms in the manuscripts from the eleventh to the fifteenth century written in Latin, Greek, and Church Slavonic. In the further analysis of the same body of material, I study in Chapter 4 how this text in the various manuscripts reflects the social, cultural, and religious background of their authors, scribes, and would-be audiences. The different textual forms build upon the mentality of their scribes and would-be readers and listeners. They are adjusted when translated or copied. More precisely, I follow up the question of whether childhood, everyday, and family life as depicted in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are represented differently in different manuscripts and what it means in the context of our understanding of children, everyday and family life in various medieval milieus. Scholars have already acknowledged that childhood may have differed in differing locations throughout history.⁵² I have anticipated that the text in its de-

 I analyze the structure of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in more detail in Chapter 3. The complete structure of IGT – the nineteen-episode form – as present in some manuscripts and known from two editions, Burke’s and Tischendorf’s, is used here regarding its numeration to mark the single episodes for the sake of a better overview. The titles of the episodes are mostly taken from Aasgaard. The entire structure goes as follows: Prologue (1), Pools (2.1) Sparrows (2.2– 2.5), Annas’ Son (3), Careless Boy (4), Joseph’s Rebuke (5), First Teacher (6 – 8): Dialogue (6), Lament (7), Exclamation (8), Zeno (9), Injured Foot (10), Water in Cloak (11), Harvest (12), Carpenter (13), Second Teacher (14), Third Teacher (15), James’ Snakebite (16), Dead Baby (17), Dead Laborer (18), Jerusalem (19). See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 246 – 7; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 340 – 389; Constantin von Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, editio altera (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1876), 140 – 157.  See Roy Lowe, “Childhood through the Ages,” in Introduction to Early Childhood Studies, eds. Trisha Maynard, and Nigel Thomas (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2004): 65 – 74, 68.

14

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

scription of the childhood of Jesus brings in some ideas and attitudes about children, family, and everyday life, given that it is one of the rare early Christian texts that depict childhood in such detail. There is a caveat, namely, that it is the childhood of Jesus, a divine figure. It is likely that the description of his childhood, to some extent, dogmatically pertains to the figure of Jesus as Christ rather than represents ordinary children. Even if this is true, I shall argue that the understanding of Jesus’ divine nature by the other characters (of the story) in many textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is diminished for the sake of presenting him as an ordinary child.⁵³ The fact that the primary purpose of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not to talk about children, everyday, and family life in any of the environments allows us to glean into what it tells us about these topics. The text had differing purposes in the manuscripts in which it appeared, depending on the context. Jesus is a child in this text, but it is still Jesus, not children that readers and listeners wished to read and listen about. It is why we can sift the ideas and attitudes about children, everyday and family life through these lines as a reflection of the mentalities of their authors, scribes, and audiences. Thus, in the study of various genres, styles, voices, periods, and purposes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I analyze the manuscripts in which it appears, as well as its textual variance and textual fixity, but I also situate the text in the historical and cultural contexts. Furthermore, I analyze its potential to reveal something about the perceptions and attitudes towards children, childhood, family, and everyday life in the various medieval environments. Some elements certainly have no local interferences, but they present only the contents correctly transmitted from other environments and earlier periods. I am, however, particularly interested in those elements where local beliefs, practices, and preferences had their say in the text. Such an approach that focuses on this text’s manuscripts, particularly in this combination of manuscripts and languages, has not been applied to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in earlier research, which was in large part dominated by very different preoccupations. It is interesting to observe the local meddling in Christian texts in general, not only this one. As Baun pointed out, such freedom to intervene during the transmission was not shared by all genres of Christian literature. It was restricted first and foremost to anonymous literature and consequently to Apocrypha. In  See Mary Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys: The Physiology of Childhood and the Apocryphal Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages,” Viator 42, No. 1 (2011): 179 – 225, 184. Dzon argues here that there is a possibility that the way medieval people thought about the nature of children had an impact on the reception of apocryphal legends that portray the boy Jesus as a real child who does things that are both childlike and childish.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

15

this sense, it was the fact that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was anonymous and apocryphal that led to its exposure to changes and revisions. Even the prominence that Jesus, the protagonist of the story, enjoyed in Christianity could not save it from such changes. In this study, I draw the textual forms directly from manuscripts. Such an interpretative framework pertains to “New (Material) Philology,” which I briefly mentioned above. This framework appreciates the diversities among the manuscript versions and evaluates a source based on its form within a particular setting. New (Material) Philology is a philological school that studies the history of a period or a group by using the written sources that appeared as cultural products of the same period and the same group to understand their perspectives on their history. This framework is beneficial in studying anonymous texts, where the origin and the original version of texts are disregarded, and texts are studied in the contexts where they were utilized. New Philology initially emerged within the theoretical framework of Colonial Studies in the 1970s, more precisely through studying colonized people’s history by using their written sources.⁵⁴ According to Matthew Restall, in New Philology, the study of native language sources is crucial to understanding indigenous societies. The school is thus both a model and a method; “new” refers to the innovation both in emphasizing the role of natives in Colonial history through the study of native language sources (the model) and in analyzing those sources philologically (the method).⁵⁵

 See James Lockhart, The Men of Cajamarca: A Social and Biographical Study of the First Conquerors of Peru (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972); James Lockhart, Beyond the Codices: The Nahua View of Colonial Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); James Lockhart, Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); James Lockhart, Nahuas and Spaniards: Postconquest Central Mexican History and Philology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991); James Lockhart, Of Things of the Indies: Essays Old and New in Early Latin American History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); James Lockhart, Lisa Sousa, and Stephanie Wood, eds., Sources and Methods for the Study of Postconquest Mesoamerican Ethnohistory (The Wired Humanities Project at the University of Oregon, 2007); Matthew Restall, Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Matthew Restall, and Amara Solari, 2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011); Matthew Restall, The Black Middle: Africans, Mayas, and Spaniards in Colonial Yucatan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009); Matthew Restall, “A History of the New Philology and the New Philology in History,” Latin American Research Review 38, No. 1 (2003): 113 – 134; Susan Schroeder, Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991).  Restall, “A History of the New Philology,” 113 – 134.

16

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

In Medieval Studies, New Philology has been employed since the beginning of the 1990s, emerging first within medieval French and Norse Studies. It was elaborated in Norse Studies by Matthew Driscoll.⁵⁶ A special issue of Speculum in 1990 was dedicated to New Philology.⁵⁷ Bernard Cerquiglini’s remark that “medieval writing does not produce variants,” but that it is in itself a variance has been commonly repeated.⁵⁸ Medieval culture did not just live with diversity; it cultivated it.⁵⁹ Another prominent scholar, Siegfried Wenzel, suggests that we can no longer consider codex as a mere receptacle, preserving the text under investigation. Instead, a modern editor must look at the manuscript “holistically” as a total unit to investigate its physical makeup, composition, and history.⁶⁰ As suggested by Stephen Nichols, one appropriately “postmodern gesture” of New Philology is the return to manuscripts, not merely as sources of editions, but also as “the original texts.”⁶¹ New Philology now emerges in medieval studies as a valuable groundwork for studying manuscript varieties. This approach has been encouraged by a general instability and differences between medieval textual versions. Arguing that “variation is what medieval text is about,” it relies on the premise that it is possible to have as many versions of a text as we have manuscripts.⁶² The versions speak to the specific backgrounds and contexts of their use. New Philology perceives literary works as components inseparable from their materiality. As Driscoll notes, “one needs to look at ‘the whole book,’ and the relationships between the text and the form and layout, illumination, rubrics, and other paratextual features, and, not least, the surrounding texts.”⁶³ Such an approach allows us  Matthew James Driscoll, “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New,” in Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, eds. Judy Quinn, and Emily Lethbridge (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010): 85 – 102; Matthew James Driscoll, “The Long and Winding Road: Manuscript Culture in Late Pre-modern Iceland,” in White Field, Black Seeds: Nordic Literacy Practices in the Long Nineteenth Century, eds. Anna Kuismin, and Matthew James Driscoll (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2013): 50 – 63.  Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 65, No. 1 (1990).  Stephen G. Nichols, “The New Philology: Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture,” Speculum 65, No. 1 (1990): 1– 10, 1; Bernard Cerquiglini, Eloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie, Collection: Des Travaux (Paris: Seuil, 1989).  Nichols, “The New Philology,” 9.  Siegfried Wenzel, “Reflections on (New) Philology,” Speculum 65, No. 1 (1990): 11– 18, 14.  Suzanne Fleischman, “Philology, Linguistics, and the Discourse of the Medieval Text,” Speculum 65, No.1 (1990): 19 – 37, 25.  Driscoll, “The Words on the Page,” 90.  Driscoll, “The Words on the Page,” 90.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

17

to comprehend how a text was used, performed, understood, or enacted as a separate unit or part of the whole manuscript. A book is a physical object. It goes as the physical object through a series of processes in which a potentially large number of people are involved. Codices and manuscripts derive from processes that are socially, economically, and intellectually determined. Such factors influence the form of the text and are part of its meaning. In New Philology, texts of any manuscript are first and foremost witnesses to the time in which the manuscript was copied rather than when texts were originally written. This framework is generally skeptical towards injecting editorial interpretations into the text that destroy the individual manuscript’s integrity and damage the data’s reliability. New Philology suggests a faithful rendering of the text exactly as found in the manuscript, without emendations. In New Testament studies, one of the most significant contributions in the last fifty years has been the realization that the focus on the “original text” has overlooked the value of variant forms.⁶⁴ Following New Philology, the texts of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel published in the Appendix are transcribed as they appear in the manuscripts, without any spelling and grammar adjustments or corrections according to a “classical” model. Besides New Philology as an overarching framework, several other approaches are utilized here. In Chapter 2, I employ the studies of medieval “miscellany” manuscripts, which have attracted scholarly attention during the last decades.⁶⁵ The miscellanies are collections that contain various works by different authors compiled together in manuscripts. The study of miscellanies represents the framework of this chapter since the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are, for the most part, miscellanies. This trend in scholarship has developed through the work of Stephen G. Nichols, Siegfried Wenzel, Lucie Doležalová, Greti Dinkova-Bruun, Andrew Tay-

 Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, eds. Bart D. Ehrman, and Michael W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 803 – 830, 803.  See Edoardo Crisci, and Oronzo Pecere, eds., Il codice miscellaneo. Tipologie e funzioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale Cassino 14 – 17 maggio 2003 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004); Ria JansenSieben, and Hans Van Dijk, eds., Codices miscellanearum. Brussels Van Hulthem Colloquium 1999 – Colloque Van Hulthem, Bruxelles 1999, Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique 60 (Brusells: Bibliothe`que royale de Belgique, 1999); Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers, eds., Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use (Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013).

18

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

lor, Eva Nyström, and others.⁶⁶ Their debates evolved around the concept of miscellanies and the terminology used in naming them.⁶⁷ The term “miscellany” partially implies that there is no specific organizational principle in a manuscript. In the view of some scholars, the term miscellany “does little to address the dynamics of individual examples and sheds little light on the relationship of the texts to their codicological context.”⁶⁸ The concern is that the term is misleading and suggests an arbitrary organization of the manuscript contents in which there may be a clear organizing principle.⁶⁹ Siegfried Wenzel argues that it is necessary to search for a better term than “miscellany.”⁷⁰ An alternative term is “anthology,” which implies a specific organization. Anthologies are understood to have organizational principles and more sophisticated aims. However, Julia Boffey points out the uncertainty of “where an anthology, a miscellany, or even simply a compilation begins and ends.”⁷¹

 Lucie Doležalová, “Multiple Copying and the Interpretability of Codex Contents: ‘Memory Miscellanies’ Compiled by Gallus Kemli (1417– 1480/1) of St. Gall,” in Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, eds. Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers (Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013): 139 – 165; Stephen G. Nichols, and Siegfried Wenzel, eds., The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996); Stephen Kelly, and John J. Thompson, eds., Imagining the Book (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005); Andrew Taylor, Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Doležalová and Rivers, Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies; Greti Dinkova-Bruun, “Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British Library, Cotton Titus D.XX,” in Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, eds. Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers (Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013): 14– 33; Eva Nyström, Containing Multitudes: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 11 (Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2009).  Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book; Judith Herrin, A Medieval Miscellany (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999); Margaret Wade Labarge, A Medieval Miscellany (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1997); Kelly and Thompson, Imagining the Book; Taylor, Textual Situations; Eric H. Reiter, “The Reader as Author of the User-Produced Manuscript: Reading and Rewriting Popular Latin Theology in the Late Middle Ages,” Viator 27 (1996): 151– 170.  Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 3.  Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 3.  Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 7.  Julia Boffey, “Short Texts in Manuscript Anthologies: The Minor Poems of John Lydgate in Two Fifteenth-Century Collections,” in The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, eds. Stephen G. Nichols, and Siegfried Wenzel (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996): 69 – 82, 82.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

19

Barbara Shailor has proposed that “miscellaneous” manuscripts may not be as mixed or diverse as they appear at first sight.⁷² In her view, miscellaneous manuscripts were seldom miscellaneous for the audiences and individuals who produced, read, and used them. Labeling them as such reveals our inability to understand the manuscripts in their immediate cultural context.⁷³ Further, several recent scholarly works in this field have discussed the “nonautonomy” of medieval texts within the manuscript contents. These studies maintain that texts’ meaning may be altered in a manuscript by the presence of other texts.⁷⁴ In manuscript miscellanies, texts do not necessarily appear accidentally and autonomously next to one another.⁷⁵ Diana Müller argues that individual texts take on new meanings when transmitted in the company of related texts.⁷⁶ The meaning of a text changes depending on which other texts it is placed next to. A similar pattern can be applied to genres. The manuscripts’ texts may have been arranged according to what texts medieval scribes and copyists understood to belong to the same genre. In this way, the genre could play a role as an essential manuscripts’ organizing principle. Simultaneously, a single text may embrace various genres depending on the manuscripts in which it is placed. Scholars have thus far contributed to the subject of ancient and medieval genres in many textual case studies. In my view, we should liberate ourselves from the idea of a preconceived, fixed textual genre and instead explore the contexts of these texts (for example, in manuscripts).⁷⁷ The question of genre is fascinating when studied along with textual revisions. According to some scholars, not all the genres of medieval literature

 Barbara A. Shailor, “A Cataloger’s View,” in The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, eds. Stephen G. Nichols, and Siegfried Wenzel (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996): 153– 167.  Shailor, “A Cataloger’s View,” 167.  Diana Müller, “Non-autonomous Texts: On a Fifteenth-Century German Gregorius Manuscript (Constance, City Archive, Ms. A I 1),” in Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, eds. Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers (Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013): 84– 101.  Müller, “Non-autonomous Texts,” 84.  Müller, “Non-autonomous Texts,” 84.  See, e. g., Tomas Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Michal Beth Dinkler, “Genre Analysis and Early Christian Martyrdom Narratives: A Proposal,” in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins At Seventy, eds. Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill, 2016): 314– 336; Maureen Barry McCann Boulton, Sacred Fictions of Medieval France: Narrative Theology in the Lives of Christ and the Virgin, 1150 – 1500 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2015), 15 – 16.

20

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

were uniformly reworked in the Middle Ages. The tendency to rewrite works into a high style was not the trend of all of Byzantine literature – for example, we do not find this tendency in historiography.⁷⁸ Baun argues that Apocrypha were transmitted with extensive adjustments and revisions in the Middle Ages, while the works of the authoritative figures such as Plato, the Apostle Paul, or the Church fathers were copied faithfully and with greater attention to detail.⁷⁹ Some scholars argue that genre is determined by the interaction between words on the page and readers’ community.⁸⁰ It is not an author but the community of readers who decide about the genre of texts. A text means what a community of readers permits it to mean. The authorial intention has very little to do with this. Such an understanding of genre allows the same text to be interpreted to be of different genres in different communities. Anna Taylor argues that genre ideas are culturally based and cannot be applied across times and cultures.⁸¹ In Chapter 2, I also discuss palimpsests and composite manuscripts in which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was placed. These two codicological features betray a great deal about the attitudes towards the text. Palimpsests evidence the erasure of texts, which were scraped or washed off. The same folios were reused for another document. Today, advanced technological methods allow us to reconstruct texts erased at some point in time. Erasure could signify negligence, irrelevance, oblivion, prohibition, and other dissenting notions that qualify a text to be of secondary importance. However, a necessity could have also emerged to replace a less relevant text with a more important one. The erasure questions – why a certain text was erased and what other text it gave space to – inevitably occur when we study palimpsests. Another equally intriguing question, while not easily answerable, is who did the erasure.

 Ihor Ševčenko, “Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/1 (1981): 289 – 312, 301. For the views that argue in favor of the pervasive and omnipresent rewriting activity performed on various genres, including historiography, see Stavroula Constantinou, “Metaphrasis: Mapping Premodern Rewriting,” in Metaphrasis: A Byzantine Concept of Rewriting and Its Hagiographical Products, eds. Stavroula Constantinou and Christian Høgel (Leiden: Brill, 2020): 3 – 60, 9 – 10; Réka Forrai, “Rewriting: A modern theory for a premodern practice,” Renæssanceforum. Tidsskrift for Renæssanceforskning 14 (2018): 25 – 49, 35.  Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 35.  K. L. Noll, “The Evolution of Genre in the Hebrew Anthology,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality I: Thematic Studies, eds. Craig A. Evans, and H. Daniel Zacharias (New York: T&T Clark, 2009): 10 – 23, 10.  Anna Taylor, “Hagiography and Early Medieval History,” Religion Compass 7, No. 1 (2013): 1– 14, 3.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

21

Composite manuscripts consist of libelli, which independently existed before they were bound together in manuscripts. The binding should always be contextualized in the time when it occurred. Greti Dinkova-Bruun calls such manuscripts “secondary miscellanies.”⁸² She emphasizes that these are codices containing various parts written at different times by different scribes, which did not originally belong together but were bound within the same covers later.⁸³ Concerning miscellany manuscripts, there is always a question of whether the individual elements make a coherent composition and interact in a meaningful way or present unrelated sections. At times such adjoining occurred randomly. Jason O’Rourke discusses the scribal methodology in assembling manuscripts and collecting booklets (libelli) later merged in composite manuscripts.⁸⁴ He suggests that it is difficult to look into a composite manuscript for a system in the texts’ assembling. We should observe separate libelli rather than manuscripts as wholes. It is so because libelli could have been in circulation long before the composite manuscripts were compiled. Libelli were less expensive than manuscripts. The amount of time needed for a single scribe to produce a libellus was considerably lesser than the time required to create a whole manuscript.⁸⁵ Libelli had a separate life before they joined composite manuscripts. Binding libelli into a larger whole somewhat distorts our perception of the manuscripts as the products of the “large-scale forward planning.”⁸⁶ Even if we think of manuscripts in general and composite manuscripts as products carefully and meticulously planned, it appears that their binding, particularly of “secondary miscellanies,” was sometimes conducted in ways that are difficult to comprehend. Unlike libelli, manuscripts with the set contents required a considerable amount of resources. The written sources had to be available at the time of the manuscripts’ copying. Unavailable sources required traveling, possibly to distant places. It is always a question whether coherent miscellany collections were compiled based on available sources or the ordering and traveling were included in the process. All these issues influence our knowledge of the texts’ importance, their use, and the settings in which they appeared.

 Dinkova-Bruun, “Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British Library,” 14– 33.  Dinkova-Bruun, “Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British Library,” 14– 33, 15. Unlike these, “primary miscellanies” present compilations created from the beginning with an overarching idea and a vision of their purpose. Their contextualization is unproblematic.  Jason O’Rourke, “Imagining Book Production in Fourteenth-Century Herefordshire: The Scribe of British Library, MS Harley 2253 and his ‘Organizing Principles’,” in Imagining the Book, eds. Stephen Kelly, and John J. Thompson (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005): 45 – 60, 53.  O’Rourke, “Imagining Book Production,” 53.  O’Rourke, “Imagining Book Production,” 53.

22

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

In Chapter 3, I combine the methodological framework of narratology with New Philology. I analyze textual varieties with the help of Gérard Genette’s structural narratology. Genette is one of the initiators of structural narratology. When it comes to the applicability of structural narratology in interpreting the works of ancient and medieval literature, Genette’s work comes in handy. Several publications of structuralist studies of hagiography have shown the convenience of this approach.⁸⁷ A large amount of ancient and medieval literature still awaits analysis concerning their structure. Ever since it was elaborated, narratology has been used to study biblical texts and other early Christian literature.⁸⁸ Scholars affirm that the study of the dynamics of narrative must be high on biblical scholars’ agenda.⁸⁹ In his study of narrative structures, Genette starts from the narrative. He understands narrative (among several other definitions) as a statement, a written discourse that tells about an event or several events.⁹⁰ Narrative equals text. The story presents narrative contents, i. e., a succession of events, actual or fictitious, that are the narrative discourse subjects.⁹¹ In Chapter 3, I study the structure and textual transformations of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel in the manuscripts. Narrative structure has substantial implications for the meaning of the narrative.⁹² The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is examined regarding the order of the episodes and their pseudo-duration. The order of episodes of this narrative is directly linked to the narrative structure and its meaning. Order means the sequence in which the specific episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are arranged. The order is not identical in the various manuscripts. The narratological category of order is relevant to the beginning and the

 See e. g., Monique Goullet, and Martin Heinzelmann, eds., La réécriture hagiographique dans l’Occident médiéval: Transformations formelles et idéologiques (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003).  See R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987); James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005); François Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2012); Lénart J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and Jan P. Fokkelman, eds., Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996).  See Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 1.  Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), 25.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 25 – 7.  Mieke Bal, Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1997), 13.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

23

end of the narrative.⁹³ It complies with the Aristotelian notion that narrative is defined by having a beginning, a middle, and an end.⁹⁴ Genette studies the order by examining the relations between the time of the story and the narrative time. He observes the connections between the order of the events in the story and their narrative arrangement.⁹⁵ Genette calls the former temporal order, while he calls the latter pseudo-temporal order. I am concerned with pseudo-temporal order. Studying the order consists of paying attention to the arrangement and place of the episodes in the narrative; some episodes are present in some textual forms while not in the others. Genette also studies the connections between the variable duration of events or story sections and the pseudo-duration (in fact, the text’s length) of their telling in the narrative.⁹⁶ In his view, these are the connections of speed. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains some sections that could be interpreted by speed. Speed is the relationship between a temporal dimension and a spatial dimension, that is, between the story’s duration and the length of the text on a page. However, my primary focus within duration is on pseudo-duration, or the length of the text sections. Analyzing pseudo-duration reveals the presence and absence of the contents in the specific episodes. To study the pseudo-duration of the episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas means acknowledging that the individual episodes use more or fewer words in retelling certain events. The individual sections’ structural analysis and the comparison of these sections’ length regarding the topics they present reveal their focus and the subjects and ideas emphasized in them. In addition to pseudo-duration, which defines the folding and unfolding of narrative sections where the same subject matter is told in more or fewer words, other aspects of the narrative handling are also relevant here. If we compare Thomas’ Infancy Gospel in two different manuscripts, much of the two versions will correspond. Once we look at them for differences, we will turn to the studies of these relationships among texts which Genette discusses within transtextuality. According to Genette, transtextuality is “all that sets the text in a relationship, whether obvious or concealed, with other texts.”⁹⁷ Intertextuality is, accord-

 Irene J. F. de Jong, Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 87.  de Jong, Narratology and Classics, 89.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 86 – 112.  Gérard Genette, The Architext: An Introduction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 83 – 84.

24

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

ing to Genette, only a segment of transtextuality.⁹⁸ In comparing the two textual forms that are expected to resemble each other, their varieties are more significant in estimating the specificities of the individual manuscripts. The varieties are studied here with the aid of one specific aspect of Genette’s theory, which states that individual episodes are affected by simple reductions and augmentations, which influence their form and the more sophisticated substance changes in narratives. Genette discusses two types of transformation: abridging the text, reduction, and extending, augmentation. ⁹⁹ The reduction and augmentation mean the production of another text, briefer or longer, which derives from it, but not without being altered in various ways.¹⁰⁰ Genette makes use of several terms regarding the two categories of reduction and augmentation. Excision is a cut-off, the simplest version of reduction; it means simple omitting or subtracting. The most literal way of cutting off is amputation. This feature is visible in Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, where one textual form contains a specific section, and another does not have it. Where excision presupposes reduction with a moralizing or edifying function, it is called expurgation. ¹⁰¹ The second type of reduction is concision, which means narrating in a more concise style. Concision produces a new text, which does not necessarily preserve any word of the original text.¹⁰² The third form of reduction is condensation, which is only indirectly related to the text to be reduced. It is mediated by a mental operation absent from the two other forms of reduction, a sort of autonomous synthesis produced from the memory of the body of the text, where every detail of the text is forgotten, and only the meaning is retained.¹⁰³ Augmentation takes several forms. The extension is augmentation by massive addition, the simplest form of augmentation.¹⁰⁴ The expansion is an augmentation of the text by large amounts of new additions but with stylistic embellishments. Finally, utilizing amplification, a text grows in size without necessarily keeping any of the words previously used; nevertheless, the meaning stays the same.

 Ingela Nilsson, “The Same Story but Another: A Reappraisal of Literary Imitation in Byzantium,” in Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio, eds. Andreas Rhoby, and Elisabeth Schiffer (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010): 195 – 208, 202.  Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 228.  Genette, Palimpsests, 229.  Genette, Palimpsests, 235.  Genette, Palimpsests, 235.  Genette, Palimpsests, 238.  Genette, Palimpsests, 254.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

25

Within this framework, Genette studied the relationships between hyperand hypo-texts, the earlier and later dated texts in the transmission. Such a study presupposes that we have information about the dating of textual forms. This study is not possible here since the original provenance and the original composition of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel are unknown. Moreover, it would contradict New Philology, which studies the text in connection to the manuscripts in which it appears. Accordingly, I go beyond the distinction between hyper- and hypo-texts and focus only on textual differences. I also do not discuss augmentations and reductions of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel with the implication that one textual form is earlier than the other. Finally, I do not rely on the studies of genealogical relationships of this text conducted by previous scholars, where they claim that one textual form is earlier than the other. The differences that I discuss do not indicate the relative temporal precedence among the textual forms but relate only to the manuscripts’ dating. Chapter 4 starts from the idea that texts reflect their own time’s beliefs and attitudes. With anonymous texts, which have a complex textual transmission, an uncertain original language, and multiple varieties in the manuscripts, it is difficult to identify the time in question. Is it the time when this text was originally written and translated into different languages or copied in the manuscripts in later centuries? Such texts contain something of the various stages they have gone through. They reflect the environments in which they were used, but they also may preserve ideas originating from their authors to the extent to which later scribes kept them. Various persons may have influenced such texts. An author or several authors may have produced an original text. Through the transmission process, translators may have inserted their ideas. Scribes and copyists as mediators reproduced this text in manuscripts. They may have attempted to present its episodes in different ways and intended to make the text more accessible to a contemporary audience as a written product. They may also have adjusted the text to specific agendas or copied it following their previous knowledge, understanding, experience, or the common understanding of the environment in which they lived. Scribes and copyists may have been aware of what the intended audiences of this text would understand best. Thus, they acted as mediators between the text and the audience. The differences in this text in the manuscripts may reflect everyday life matters common in specific environments where the text was used. Therefore, it is not only the author or the audience but also a complex chain of people, consisting of authors, translators, scribes as mediators, and audiences that influenced such textual transformations. In Chapter 4, I approach the textual forms of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel by searching for words and phrases that describe children, childhood, everyday,

26

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

and family life. The different words and phrases referring to these subjects in the various manuscripts may imply differences in their authors, scribes, and audiences’ social, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Scribes and copyists could have thought of their would-be audience during the transmission and could have changed the text according to what their audience would understand best. Alternatively, they could have kept the textual layers as they found them, in this way possibly preserving the remnants of the text left by the authors. The sections related to children, childhood, family, and everyday life described in the same way and with the exact words in the different manuscripts are understood as a shared cultural norm adopted in other realms, a sort of cultural capital faithfully transferred from one domain to another. However, some depictions of children and childhood might pertain to the theological understanding of Jesus, which presents a caveat of this chapter. The manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are numerous, and their total number is unknown.¹⁰⁵ The manuscript numbers depend on the extent of their preservation; we have fewer manuscripts from Late Antiquity than the later Middle Ages. Dealing with all the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas would be an impossible task. However, my aim in this book is different. I select among the earliest preserved manuscripts those representing different textual variants of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, categorized by previous scholars.¹⁰⁶ The foundational work on distinguishing the textual variants of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has already been conducted.¹⁰⁷ My approach to the manuscripts representing different variants is justified by the expectation to encounter altered texts in such manuscripts. I con-

 The complete presentation of IGT manuscripts (other than Latin) is in Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 171. For Latin manuscripts, see Jan Gijsel, and Rita Beyers, eds., Libri de nativitate Mariae, 1: Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium, textus et commentarius; 2: Libellus de nativitate Mariae, textus et commentarius (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997).  As for terminology, I use the term (textual) form most neutrally, meaning a structure that differs in some/any respect from the other form of the same text. I use the variant to signify a document belonging to a particular group, a family of manuscripts, which display certain similarities and are considered a group by scholars. Aasgaard uses this term in the same sense. On the other hand, Burke uses the word recension to denote different manuscript families in the Greek tradition. Aasgaard argues against recension. I borrow the term version from other scholars. For languages other than Greek, Burke uses the word version. Gero uses the word version in the sense of Aasgaard’s variant and Burke’s recension. To mark the most specific textual form that appears only in a particular manuscript, I use the word manuscript, meaning a textual form in a manuscript. See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 32– 3; Burke, De infantia Iesu; Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.”  See Burke, De infantia Iesu.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

27

sult the earliest manuscripts within a tradition or a particular variant to isolate them as the textual transmission’s key markers. I focus on complete texts rather than fragments. My selection of the manuscripts is based on their genealogical relationships (because the variants used here are connected) and their manuscript histories of transmission.¹⁰⁸ A more significant portion of attention is given to Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts; less consideration is given to Georgian and Syriac manu-

 The connections of the textual versions of IGT are in scholarship linked to the quest for the original text. Very soon after the emergence of various manuscripts of this text in different languages, theories about the genealogical relationships, the original version, and the original language began to appear. Against the standard view that Greek was the original language, the idea of a Syriac origin of this text was supported by Michel Nicolas, Joseph Variot, Benjamin H. Cowper, and Paul Peeters. Gero favored Greek as the original language, but he nevertheless held that the Syriac version preserved the early textual layers better than the Greek variant Ga. Voicu recognized that shorter versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas reflect the earlier versions, especially Ethiopic and Syriac. At the same time, he also identified the version in the manuscript Sabaiticus 259 as a distinct version (Gs) and earlier than the other Greek witnesses. Voicu located the origin of Lm before the fifth-century palimpsest, which made it the earliest attestation of this text. In his seminal work, De infantia Iesu, Burke discusses the development of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the origins of the text, the transmission, and the history of research. He considers Greek as the original language of this text. Based on the previous study of Gero, Voicu, and van Rompay, Burke summarizes genealogical relationships among the textual versions. The closest correspondence is between the Syriac and Georgian versions of this text. The Latin Lm and Lv variants and the Irish version all derive from a standard early Latin translation. Burke claims that the Ethiopic text is too unreliable, and the manuscripts are too late to trust where it departs from the other versions. Burke supports the short recension theory, according to which the text closest to an original version must be in some of the short recensions. He admits that the best witnesses of the original form are not Greek. Among the Greek variants, the Gs variant is closer to the early versions than Ga and Gd. Burke argues that Gs is the best available witness to an early form of this text in its original language of composition. Burke presents Georgian, Syriac, Ethiopic, Latin Lv, and Lm variants as short recensions in his stemma. He included the Greek variants, the Slavonic versions, and the Lt variant among the extended recensions. Among them, the most concise is the Gs variant. The addition of some chapters in this text led to Ga, a Slavonic version, Gd and Lt variants. See B. Harris Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1867), 128; L’Abbé Joseph Variot, Les Évangiles apocryphes. Histoire littéraire, forme primitive, transformations (Paris: Berche et Tralin, éditeurs, 1878), 46 – 47; Michel Nicolas, Études sur les évangiles apocryphes (Paris: Michel Levy Frères, 1866), 199, 331; Paul Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes II: L’évangile de l’enfance (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914), i–lix; Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 55 – 57; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 94, 122, 188, 189, 195, 197; Sever J. Voicu, “Notes sur l’histoire du texte de l’Histoire de l’enfance de Jésus,” Apocrypha 2 (1991): 119 – 132, 130 – 132; Sever Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 411; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 8; Sever J. Voicu, “La tradition latine des Paidika,” Bulletin de l’AELAC 14 (2004): 13 – 24, 15.

28

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

scripts, which I examine only regarding their contents. The Latin manuscripts provide a significant point of departure in my analysis. Their manuscripts’ body is the largest. Further, they display significant differences between the two main variants. When describing the Latin corpus, Burke differentiates the main categories as the variants Lv (the earliest Latin variant contained in a palimpsest), Lm (early Latin variant), and Lt (late Latin variant).¹⁰⁹ When one casts a glance at the manuscripts containing the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the volume by Jan Gijsel, who described their vast body and probably collected information about most of them, Burke’s categories seem blurred.¹¹⁰ Both variants Lm and Lt appear in the manuscripts Gijsel describes; yet, he does not explicitly state which variant is contained in a manuscript. The variant Lv appears only in a single fifth-century palimpsest.¹¹¹ When the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared in the medieval Latin West (in both variants Lm and Lt), it commonly arrived within the group of texts called the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Scholars have previously defined the Pseudo-Matthew to consist of chapters 1– 17 (a Latin translation of the Greek Protevangelium of James),¹¹² chapters 18 – 24 (the episodes in Egypt – The Prologue in Egypt),¹¹³ adding several otherwise unattested miracles performed by Jesus on his way to  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 144– 45.  Gijsel and Beyers, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium.  The earliest testimony to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in the manuscript Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, lat. 563 in the form of a palimpsest (Vienna palimpsest). This text of the Lv variant containing the early fragments was discovered by Tischendorf and published twice in the mid-nineteenth century (from 1851 to 1853) in his Evangelia apocrypha. In the 1970s, Guy Philippart recovered it from the palimpsest and published it along with the accompanying material. Guy Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes latins du Vindobonensis 563 (Ve siècle?) Évangile selon S. Matthieu Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas Évangile de Nicodème,” Analecta Bollandiana 90, No. 3 – 4 (1972): 391– 411, particularly 406 – 408; Constantin von Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, editio altera (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1876); Constantin von Tischendorf, De evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu: disquisitio historica critica (Den Haag: Thierry and Mensing, 1851), 214– 15.  The Protevangelium of James is an early Christian story about the childhood of Mary, Jesus’ mother, probably originally written in Greek. The Protevangelium of James ends with an angel’s instruction to Joseph to take the mother and the child Jesus and flee to Egypt. The Prologue in Egypt usually begins at this point. See more in Gijsel and Beyers, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium; Libellus de nativitate Mariae.  Enrico Norelli contributed to our knowledge about the Prologue in Egypt in his 2001 article, concluding that it got attached to IGT in a three-stage process. He set the origin of the story in post-70 Palestine. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 121– 122; Enrico Norelli, “Gesù ride: Gesù, il maestro di scuola e i passeri. Le sorprese di un testo apocrifo trascurato,” in Mysterium regni, ministerium verbi. Scritti in onore di mons. Vittorio Fusco, ed. Ettore Franco (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2001): 653 – 684.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

29

Egypt,¹¹⁴ and the pars altera (episodes 26 – 42, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas).¹¹⁵ The manuscripts demonstrate divergences in the structure of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The pars altera of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is nothing else but the Lm variant of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel. It was considered an original part of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew until the mid-twentieth century.¹¹⁶ Gijsel, however, disproved it and omitted the pars altera in his edition of the Pseudo-Matthew. ¹¹⁷ Gijsel records the pars altera within the manuscripts of the Pseudo-Matthew, to the most part. It is not the case with the Lt variant. Burke complains that the Lt variant’s presence is uncertain in these manuscripts. Gijsel sometimes refers to this variant by different names.¹¹⁸ Three hagiographical numbers mark the Lm variant: BHL 5337, 5339, 5342, which means that it exists in three various forms according to the Bollandist denomination. The Lt variant has only one BHL number, 4151n. The Pseudo-Matthew gained immense popularity in the medieval West.¹¹⁹ Gijsel reports 196 manuscripts divided into five families (A, P, Q, R, J) that contain the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. ¹²⁰ Based on Burke’s reference to Gijsel’s work, I counted 76 manuscripts that contain the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, mainly from the families later in date (Q, R).¹²¹ The majority of these manuscripts are dated quite late, to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The

 See Pamela Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” in The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha es et O!, eds. Mary Dzon, and Theresa M. Kenney (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012): 254– 292, 256. Gijsel argued that a monk living in the West revised the Protevangelium during the seventh century and added chapters 18 – 24, the miracles of Jesus in Egypt.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146; Rita Beyers, “Introduction générale aux deux textes édités,” in Libri de nativitate Mariae. Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium: Textus et commentarius, ed. Jan Gijsel (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997): 1– 34, 13. The episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are marked by numbers as in Tischendorf’s edition of this text in the De evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium. Tischendorf’s edition remains the only edition of the Lm variant, based on the manuscripts Vat. Lat. 4578 from the fourteenth century, Florence, Laurenziana, Gaddi 208 from the fourteenth century, and Paris, BnF, lat. 1652, from the fifteenth century.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 151, n. 2.  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 105.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium. Elliott, for example, says that over 130 manuscripts contain this text. J. K. Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 147; Beyers mentions that there are approximately 40 manuscripts of Lm among these. See Beyers, “The transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 120, n. 17.

30

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

rest of the 120 manuscripts described by Gijsel either contain the Lt variant of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel or do not contain any of these variants. Alternatively, they combine the Lm with the Lt variant in some of the later manuscripts. The body of manuscripts described by Gijsel is vast; I did not go beyond the information given by Gijsel and Burke in search of additional manuscripts that may contain this text. Manuscripts containing some form of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew are preserved from the eighth century. Scholars argue that the redaction of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew should be dated to approximately this period.¹²² However, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as part of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew first appears in the eleventh-century manuscript, Paris, BnF, lat. 1772, which contains the Lm variant.¹²³ Unfortunately, the text ends after several episodes. It is analyzed here, together with the two other early Latin manuscripts, the thirteenth-century Dijon, Bibl. mun. 38 (20) (Lm),¹²⁴ and the twelfth-thirteenth-century manuscript

 Elliott suggests the eighth or the ninth century, while Rita Beyers dates it from the mid-sixth century to the last decades of the eighth century. Sheingorn accepted the opinion of Gijsel that a monk living in the West in the seventh century, with only a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible and a primitive narrative technique, revised the Protevangelium of James (Chapters 1– 17), and added chapters 18 – 24. Avner argues that the Pseudo-Matthew was dated to the sixth century. It was influenced by the Protevangelium of James, the text most likely composed in Syria or Egypt. Jenkins thinks that it was probably written in the seventh century and integrated the original Greek text of the Protevangelium with the stories of Jesus’ infancy, creating a family history of Jesus’ parents (it is sometimes called Liber de infantia). In his later publication, Elliott argued that the Pseudo-Matthew originated from the sixth to the seventh century and contained the first 17 chapters close to a Latin version of the Protevangelium of James, and chapters 18 – 24, close to the Arabic Infancy Gospel. See Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262, n. 87; Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 86; Beyers, “Introduction gènèrale aus deux textes édités,” 13; Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 256; Rina Avner, “The Initial Tradition of the Theotokos at the Kathisma: Earliest Celebrations and the Calendar,” in The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium, eds. Leslie Brubaker, and Marry B. Cunningham (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 9 – 30, 28; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 105; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146; Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60.  In Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129, this manuscript is dated to the end of the eleventh century, while Beyers later notes the beginning of the twelfth century (Beyers, “The Transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 120, n. 16.). Paris 1772 is a parchment codex of 97 folios (265x160 mm). Philippe Lauer, Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins 2 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1940), 168, reports 98 folios. Thomas’ Infancy Gospel is on folios 88v-90r, with a distinct title: De infantia domini Jesu Christi postquam reversus est in Galilea de Egipto.  It is the earliest manuscript that contains the full text of Lm. Among four thirteenth-century manuscripts that Gijsel describes to contain the Lm variant of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, I obtained this manuscript. Among the other three, Madrid, Biblioteca nacional 9783, Londres, Col-

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

31

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 288 (Lt variant).¹²⁵ In the analysis of the manuscript contents in Chapter 2, I make use of six additional manuscripts.¹²⁶ The manuscripts containing one or the other variant of Thomas’ Latin Infancy Gospel (or a mixed variant) within the Pseudo-Matthew emerge in more significant numbers in the thirteenth century. Ten manuscripts among those described by Gijsel from the thirteenth century contain the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Among them, Gijsel reports four that contain the Lm variant. The Lt variant has caused more confusion among scholars thus far. According to Burke, this later Latin variant has ample untapped manuscript evidence.¹²⁷ Gijsel has not paid particular attention to this variant, while Burke wrote about Lt without having a precise overview of the material.¹²⁸ Burke stresses that a

lege of Arms, Arundel XXIV, and Durham, Dean and Chapter Library, B III 26, the manuscript from Madrid contains a mixed Lm and Lt version. Dijon is a parchment codex of 194 folios (178x130 mm). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 9v-20r, starting with the opening sentence: Et factum est post regressionem ihesu de egypto. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 118.  It is the second earliest manuscript in Gijsel’s corpus that contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The manuscript is a composite parchment compilation (251x185 mm, 124 fol.) of separate libelli, written by different scribes at different times and bound together in the thirteenth century. The libellus, which contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, is dated to the thirteenth century. The text is on folios 79r-82r and starts without any title. See Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 58 – 63; Richard Vaughan, and John Fines, A Handlist of Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Not Described by M.R. James (Cambridge: Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 1960); Nigel Wilkins, Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Parker (Parker Library), Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge: Corpus Christi College, 1993).  Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek lat. 563 (fifth-century palimpsest), Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, 3014 (thirteenth-fourteenth century), Madrid, Bibliotheca Nacional, 9783, dating from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, London, British Library, Harley 3199, dated to the fourteenth century, Paris, BnF lat. 6041 A, dated to the fourteenth century, and Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 271, dated to the fourteenth century. Manuscript Vienna 563 is analyzed in Chapter 2 because it is the earliest manuscript of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel. I selected the other manuscripts in Chapter 2 because they display variety regarding their contents. One should bear in mind that many other manuscripts in this period contain the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 150.  Burke names four manuscripts of Lt that are already published: Berne Burgerbibliothek, 271 (Lts), Vat. lat. 4578 (Lta), Paris BnF lat. 1652 (Ltd), and Florence Laurenziana Gaddi 208 (Ltb). Berne and Vat. lat. 4578 preserve the separate Lt variant, while Paris BnF lat. 1652 and Florence Gaddi 208 combine Lt with Lm variant. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Berne 271 was published a century before Tischendorf in Sinner’s catalog of the Berne Library. Tischendorf edited the other three manuscripts as the Evangelium Thomae Latinum in De evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu. The rest of the manuscripts that Burke mentions in his work, containing all or

32

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

complete assessment of the Lt tradition is needed.¹²⁹ The reason is that the Lt variant of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel could also appear unrelated to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew in manuscripts. Fourteen known Greek manuscripts of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel exist, but only eight have been edited.¹³⁰ Burke categorizes them in four variants (recensions): Gs, Ga, Gd, Gb.¹³¹ I here use three Greek manuscripts, which represent three textual variants of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, coined by Burke as Gs, Ga, and Gd recensions:¹³² the eleventh-century Jerusalem, the Library of the Patriarchate, Codex Sabaiticus 259 (1089/1090) (Gs),¹³³ the fourteenth–fifteenth centu-

part of the Lt material, are unpublished. He refers to them because they are mentioned in other publications. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 149 – 160, particularly 150; Johann Rudolf Sinner, Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, annotationibus criticis illustratus 1 (Berne: Ex officina typographica illustr. Reipublicae, 1760), 246– 258.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 160.  Mike R. Whitenton, “The Moral Character Development of the Boy Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38, No. 2 (2015): 219 – 240, 219, n. 1.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 144.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 144. Here I choose the manuscripts based on their dating (I select the earliest dated manuscripts) and their completeness (I opt for complete texts rather than fragments). The fourth, Gb recension (BHG 779pb), is represented by two manuscripts – Sinai, St. Catherine, Cod. Sinaiticus gr. 453, dated to the fourteenth–fifteenth century, and Sinai, St. Catherine, Cod. Sinaiticus gr. 532, dated to the fifteenth–sixteenth century. Both are from St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, where the manuscripts were discovered. Gb is considered a “selectively abbreviated” text, and it will not be used here. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 140.  Codex Sabaiticus 259 is a parchment codex of 317 folios (260x212 mm). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 66r–72v, bearing the title Τὰ παιδικὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Burke argues that Sabaiticus presents a version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that has far fewer borrowings of content or style from the NT and has more sophistication than has previously been allowed. This manuscript has been discussed in scholarship and edited several times. The most important recent contributions to the study of this manuscript are those by Burke and Aasgaard. Tony Burke, “Completing the Gospel: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas As A Supplement To The Gospel of Luke,” in The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity, eds. Lorenzo DiTommaso, and Lucian Turcescu (Leiden: Brill, 2008): 101– 120, 106; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 128; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus; Michel van Esbroeck, “Review of Aurelio De Santos Otero, Das kirchenslavische Evangelium des Thomas,” Analecta Bollandiana 87 (1969): 261– 263, 262; Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ II (Jerusalem Library II) (1894, reprint: Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963), 384– 388; Paul Van Den Ven, La légende de S. Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte (Louvain: Institut orientaliste de l’Université de Louvain, 1953), 61– 63; Costas N. Constantinides, and Robert Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus to the Year 1570 (Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, 1993), 63 – 68.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

33

ry Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91 (Ga),¹³⁴ and the fifteenth-century Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355 (Gd).¹³⁵ I make use of two additional Greek manuscripts in Chapter 2.¹³⁶

 Eight manuscripts represent the Ga recension (BHG 779p). Within this group, Burke describes a separate family of four manuscripts Alpha (α), while he lists the other three without grouping them. Although these manuscripts have differences, they still constitute the same group against the other recensions. The group includes the manuscripts Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91, dated to the fourteenth–fifteenth century, Mount Athos, M. Vatopediou, Cod. Vatopedi 37, dated to the fourteenth century, Paris, BnF ancient fonds gr. 239, dated to the fifteenth century, and four manuscripts belonging to the Alpha family: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, Univ. 2702, dated to the fifteenth century, Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, A 187, dated to the sixteenth century, Samos, Bibliotheke Metropoleos, Ms gr. 54, dated to the fifteenth–sixteenth century, and Athos, M. Megistes Lavras, Cod. Lavra Θ 222, dated to the fifteenth century. The manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91 is written on paper and consists of 208 folios (220/ 225x150 mm). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 199v–204r, with a distinct title, Λόγος ἰσραηλίτου φιλοσόφου εἰς τὰ παιδικὰ κεφὰλεια τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρίστου. Although it is quite late, this manuscript contains the complete form of Ga text. It has been unpublished so far. Scholars connect it to the Slavonic translation. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 129 – 140; Herbert Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek I (Vienna: G. Prachner, 1961), 94– 102.  The Gd recension (BHG 779n) is represented by three manuscripts: Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355, dated to the fifteenth century, Rome, BAV, Palatinus gr. 364, dated to the fifteenth century, and Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. theol. gr. 123, dated to the thirteenth century. This variant has the Prologue in Egypt added and has the attribution to James (rather than Thomas), besides its considerably different language and syntax. The manuscript Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355 is written on paper, of 180 folios (230x170 mm). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 61v-68v, without any title. Armand Delatte published this text in 1927. It is the only manuscript containing a complete Gd variant. Burke emphasizes that this manuscript has been unfairly neglected in scholarship so far. Whitenton, “The Moral Character Development,” 220, n. 1; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 82, 142; François Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits hagiographiques de la Bibliothèque nationale d′ Athènes (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1983), 45; Armand Delatte, “Evangile de l’enfance de Jacques: Manuscrit no. 355 de la Bibliothèque Nationale,” in Anecdota Atheniensia 1 (Paris: Champion, 1927): 264– 271.  One of these manuscripts is Mount Athos, M. Vatopediou, Codex Vatopedi 37, (209/212x140/ 144 mm, 272 folios). It is a paper manuscript dated to the fourteenth century, while some sections are dated to the sixteenth century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript is on folios 21v–28r. Codex Vatopedi 37 is the earliest dated manuscript representing the Ga variant. The other manuscript is the thirteenth-century Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. theol. gr. 123. It is a paper manuscript of 209 folios (265/278x195/210 mm). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 192r–193v. This manuscript is highly damaged, but it is otherwise the earliest manuscript that contains the Gd variant. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 132– 134; Sophronios Eustratiades, and Arcadios of Vatopedi, deacon, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Monastery of Vatopedi on Mt. Athos, HTS 11 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Reprint New York: Kraus, 1969), 13 – 14; Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften, 74– 81.

34

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

Thomas’ Infancy Gospel also appears in sixteen Slavonic manuscripts from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, among which six medieval manuscripts (from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century) and ten early modern manuscripts.¹³⁷ The three earliest medieval Slavonic manuscripts used here are St Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 13.3.17, dated to 1337– 55,¹³⁸ Moscow, Russian State Historical Museum, Collection of A. I. Hludov, Cod. 162,¹³⁹ dated to the fourteenth century, and Belgrade, National Library, Collection of P.S. Srećković, Codex 637, dated to the fourteenth century.¹⁴⁰ Of four extant Syriac manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I use two manuscripts in the analysis of their contents: Göttingen, Universitätsbibliothek, syr. 10, dated to the fifth to the sixth century, containing this text on folios 1v-4v,¹⁴¹ and the manuscript London, British Library, Add. 14484, dated  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 161; Rosén, The Slavonic Translation, 19.  The manuscript St Petersburg 13.3.17 contains 185 folios (210x125 mm) and twenty-six lines per page. Jacimirskij, Rosén, and Otero edited this manuscript. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is on folios 177r-183v, with the opening line Deeds and childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Дѣанїа и дѣтство Господа нашег Исуса Христа). The manuscript is persistently entitled in scholarship as Codex no.15, although the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences refers to it as MS 13.3.17. See A. Jacimirskij, Из славянских рукописей – Тексты и заметки, Ученые записки Имп. Моск. Университета (From the Slavonic Manuscripts – Texts and Notes) (Moscow, 1898); Aurelio de Santos Otero, Das kirchenslawische Evangelium des Thomas (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967); Rosén, The Slavonic Translation.  The Serbian Slavonic manuscript Hludov, Codex 162 contains 254 folios (265x205 mm). A. Popov edited the Infancy Gospel of Thomas of this manuscript in 1872. The text is on folios 200v206r, with the title Reading of the childhood of Jesus Christ (Чтениѥ дѣтьства Іс[уса] Х[ристо]ва). Burke, De infantia Iesu, 74; Andrey Nikolaevich Popov, Описание рукописей и каталог книг церковной печати библиотеки А. И. Хлудова (Description of Manuscripts and Catalogue of Books of Church Library of A. I. Hludov) (Moscow, 1872), 320 – 325.  The manuscript from Belgrade, Srećković, Codex 637, which was formerly kept in the National Library, is used in this book in the edited form. Fire destroyed the manuscript in the World War II bombing of Belgrade in 1941. The textual version was preserved only in the earlier edition made by Novaković. He described and edited the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from this parchment, mid-fourteenth-century manuscript. It contained 194 folios and was entitled “Sbornik.” One other Slavonic manuscript fragment is among medieval witnesses, yet it will not be used here due to its fragmentariness. This fragment reveals a section of the episode First teacher (6). It is Fragm. Glag. Br. 99, the fifteenth-century Croatian Glagolitic fragment from the Archives of the Croatian Academy of Sciences in Zagreb. Biserka Grabar, “Glagoljski odlomak Pseudo-Tomina Evandjelja” (Glagolitic Fragment of the Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas), Slovo 18 – 19 (1969): 213 – 233; Stojan Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika XIV vijeka” (The Apocrypha of a Cyrillic Collection of the Fourteenth Century), Starine 8 (1876): 36 – 92, 36 – 39, 48 – 55.  See Willem Baars, and Jan Helderman, “Neue Materialien zum Text und zur Interpretation des Kindheitsevangeliums des Pseudo-Thomas,” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993): 191– 226, 193; (1994): 1– 32; H. Duensing, “Mitteilungen 58,” ThLZ 36 (1911): 637; Arnold Meyer, “Kindheitser-

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

35

to the sixth century, containing the text on folios 12v-16r.¹⁴² Finally, a single Georgian manuscript which contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Tbilisi, Codex A 95, dated from the tenth to the twelfth century, is here analyzed regarding its contents.¹⁴³ A long trajectory of research of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel has been exposed to changing trends. The text has attracted much scholarly interest, but it has also caused bewilderment and disgust.¹⁴⁴ After its discovery in the seventeenth century and until the nineteenth century, it was mainly estimated negatively.¹⁴⁵ The miracles of Jesus were called “ridiculous” and “immoral,”¹⁴⁶ “puerile, malevolent and cruel,”¹⁴⁷ or just “crude,”¹⁴⁸ while Jesus was a “hero of ridiculous and

zählung des Thomas,” in Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, ed. Edgar Hennecke (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1924): 93 – 102; Alain Desreumaux, “Deux anciens manuscrits syriaques d’œuvres apocryphes dans le nouveau fonds de Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï,” Apocrypha 20 (2009): 115 – 136, 117– 129; Sebastian Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995), 73 – 74.  W. Wright published this manuscript in 1865. William Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, collected and edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, with an English translation and notes (London: Williams and Norgate, 1865), 11– 16; William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838 I (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1870), 98 – 99.  This manuscript is deposited in the Georgian National Center of Manuscripts in Tbilisi. It is a parchment manuscript about whose dimensions and the number of folios different scholars report differently. Garitte reports that the manuscript has 658 folios, 480x350 mm, written in two columns, and thirty-two lines per page, written in hutsuri minuscule. Garitte and Esbroeck rely on Zhordania. However, Djorbadze says that the manuscript’s dimensions are 455x345 mm, and the manuscript consists of 1310 pages (he probably means 655 folios). The editors T. Bregadze, M. Qavtaria, and L. Qutateladze argue for the same 655 folia and 455x335 mm. Tamar Bregadze, Mikhael Qavtaria, et alii, eds., Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1 (The Description of Georgian Manuscripts I.I) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1973), 361; Gérard Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien de l’Evangile de Thomas,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 51 (1956): 511– 520, 515, n. 1; Tedo Zhordania, Opisanie rukopisei Tiflisskago cerkovnago muzeia I (Description of the Manuscripts of the Church Museum, Tbilisi) (Tbilisi: Gutenberg, 1903), 96; Michel van Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens: étude descriptive et historique (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1975), 55; Wachtang Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjetʿi, and Šavšetʿi (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992), 188.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 2.  See, e. g., Davis, Christ Child, 6 – 7.  Calvin Ellis Stowe, Origin and History of the Books of the Bible (Hartford, Conn.: Hartford Pub. Co., 1868), 206; Adam Fyfe Findlay, Byways in Early Christian Literature: Studies in the Uncanonical Gospels and Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923), 173; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 1.  Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels, 129; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 2.  Oscar Cullmann, “The Infancy Story of Thomas,” in New Testament Apocrypha 1. Gospels and Related Writings, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, tr. R. McL. Wilson, 439 – 452 (Louisville:

36

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

shabby pranks”¹⁴⁹ and “an enfant terrible who seldom acts in a Christian way.”¹⁵⁰ Some scholars discarded the text as “utterly worthless” and “lacking in good taste, restraint and discretion.”¹⁵¹ It has been linked to various heretical groups, and it was eventually characterized as a “neglected outsider placed at some margin” of the early Christian literature.¹⁵² Thus far, editing,¹⁵³ genealogical studies, the quest for the original language,¹⁵⁴ and the links to heresy dominated the research of this text.¹⁵⁵ In recent

James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1991), 443; Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 68; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 4.  Jacques Hervieux, The New Testament Apocrypha, tr. D. W. Hibberd (New York: Hawthorn Books Inc., 1960), 106; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 5.  Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 68; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 6.  Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels, 129; Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” 442; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 7, 8.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 2– 3; see also Richard Simon, Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1695); Arnold Meyer, “Erzählung des Thomas,” in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, eds. Edgar Hennecke, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904): 63 – 67; Andries Gideon Van Aarde, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Allegory or Myth – Gnostic or Ebionite,” Verbum et ecclesia 26, No. 3 (2005): 826 – 850; Andries Gideon Van Aarde, “The Ebionite Perspective in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” in The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early Christian Theology, ed. Jens Schröter (Leuven: Peeters, 2013): 611– 626.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 46 – 48, 53 – 54, 66 – 68, 78, 81, 92– 95, 110, 113, 145 – 147, 293 – 539; Simon, Nouvelles observations, 5 – 9; Johann Albert Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti 1 (Hamburg, 1703), 127– 167; Giovanni Luigi Mingarelli, “De Apocrypho Thomae Evangelio … epistola,” in Nuova Raccolta d’opuscoli scientifici e filologici 12, ed. A. Calogiera (Venice, 1764): 73 – 155; Johann Karl Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti 1 (Leipzig: Vogel, 1832), lxxiii– xci, 277– 315; Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha; Richard Adelbert Lipsius, Die Apokryphen apostelgeschichten und apostellegenden (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und sohn, 1890), 24; Delatte, “Evangile de l’enfance de Jacques,” 264– 271; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 4– 6, 219 – 242; Jacques Noret, “Pour une édition de l’Evangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas,” Analecta Bollandiana 90 (1972): 412; Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, 37; Wright, Contributions, 6 – 16; Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” 511– 520; Michail N. Speranskij, “Славянские апокрифические евангелиа” (Slavonic Apocryphal Gospels), Труды восьмого археологического съезда в Москве 1890 II (Москва, 1895); Michail N. Speranskij, Южнорусские тексты апокрифического евангелия Фомы (Southern Russian Texts of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas) (Moscow, 1895. Kiev, 1899); A. I. Jacimirskij, Из славянских рукописей – Тексты и заметки, Ученые записки Имп. Моск. Университета (From the Slavonic Manuscripts – Texts and Notes) (Moscow, 1898); Santos Otero, Das kirchenslawische Evangelium; Grabar, “Glagoljski odlomak,” 213 – 233; Rosén, The Slavonic Translation; Beyers, “Introduction générale,” 13; Gijsel and Beyers, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium; Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 105; Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60; Sinner, Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, 246– 258; Tischendorf, Evangelia

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

37

years, Thomas’ Infancy Gospel acquired wider scholarly attention with different innovative approaches.¹⁵⁶ Although the negative assessment is abandoned to a apocrypha, xliv–xlvi; Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 391– 411; Gijsel and Beyers, PseudoMatthaei Evangelium; Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas.  Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels, 128; Variot, Les Évangiles apocryphes, 46 – 47; Nicolas, Études sur les évangiles apocryphes, 199, 331; Peeters, Evangiles apocryphes 2, i–lix; Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 46 – 80; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 94, 122, 174, 188 – 197, 222; Voicu, “Notes sur l’histoire,” 119 – 132; Sever J. Voicu, “Verso il testo primitivo del Paidika tou Kuriou Ièsou ‘Racconti dell’infanzia del Signore Gesù,’” Apocrypha 9 (1998): 7– 95; Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 411; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 8, 11; Voicu, “La tradition latine des Paidika,” 13 – 21; Tony Burke, “Authorship and Identity in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Toronto Journal of Theology 14, No.1 (1998): 27– 43.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 2– 6, 9 – 10, 164– 165; Richard Simon, Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1695), 3 – 5; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 47, 62, 116, 269 – 275; Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 148; Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262; Davis, Christ Child, 6 – 7; Pahor Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo (Cairo: Government Press, 1956); Meyer, “Erzählung des Thomas,” 63 – 66; Van Aarde, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 826 – 850; Van Aarde, “The Ebionite Perspective”.  Studies of the genre: Hock, Infancy Gospels, 96 – 97; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 8, 10, 49 – 52; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 250 – 261; Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 148 – 150; Hägg, The Art of Biography, 175 – 178; Studies of social settings: Nicolas, Etudes, 295 – 99; Meyer, “Erzählung des Thomas,” 65 – 66; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 69; Johannes Baptist Bauer, “Die Entstehung Apokrypher Evangelien,” Bibel und Liturgie 38 (1964): 268 – 271, 269 – 70; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 191; Joan Elizabeth Taylor, “Review: Stephen J. Davis, Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014),” Theology 118, No. 2 (2015): 128 – 129; Davis, Christ Child; Studies of children and childhood: Burke, De infantia Iesu, 268 – 289; David M. Litwa, “‘From where Was this Child Born?:’ Divine Children and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” In Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God, ed. David M. Litwa, 69 – 85 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 69 – 85; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 216; Davis, Christ Child, 12, 14; Stevan Davies, The Infancy Gospels of Jesus: Apocryphal Tales from the Childhoods of Mary and Jesus (Woodstock, Vermont: Skylight Paths, 2009), xxiii; Ursula Ulrike Kaiser, “Jesus als Kind: Neuere Forschungen zur Jesusüberlieferung in den apokryphen Kindheitsevangelien,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, eds. Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter, with Jakob Spaeth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 253 – 269, 266 – 267; Mary Dzon, “Wanton Boys in Middle English Texts and the Christ Child in Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, MS Z822 N81,” in Medieval Life Cycles: Continuity and Change, eds. Isabelle Cochelin, and Karen Smyth (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 81– 145, 129; Lucie Paulissen, “Jésus enfant divin: Processus de reconnaissance dans L’Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas,” Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 22, No. 1 (2004): 17– 28; Whitenton, “The Moral Character Development,” 219 – 240; Gilian Clark, “The Fathers and the Children,” in The Church and Childhood, ed. Diana Wood, 1– 27 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 20; Sheingorn, “Reshaping of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 256; J. R. C. Cousland, Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017); Studies of gender: Eric Stewart, “Sending a boy to do a man’s job: Hegemonic masculinity and the ‘boy’ Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of

38

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

certain extent, one can occasionally read that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears “at first sight as a barbarous piece of apocryphal doggerel, replete with silly miracle stories and examples of such homicidal violence as would shock any right-minded individual.”¹⁵⁷ John Meier says that “the portrait of this sinister super boy belongs more in a horror movie than a gospel.”¹⁵⁸ Thus, this subject of scholarly analysis continues to draw attention and cause controversies. In this book, several scholarly views are taken as a point of departure. To start with, Reidar Aasgaard suggests that “each manuscript, variant, and version can be studied in their own right and on their own terms.”¹⁵⁹ Ehrman and Pleše likewise suggest that the quest for the “original” form is not self-evidently the best way to proceed in the study of this text since there is no reason to privilege the earliest form of the text over other forms.¹⁶⁰ In whatever form one finds them, all the stories in the account contribute to our understanding of how different Christian storytellers in different times and places told stories about the young Jesus.¹⁶¹ “Various storytellers (and authors) added some incidents to the narrative and deleted others; they edited the stories they inherited and put their stamp upon them.”¹⁶² In this work, I study the variations of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, its changing genre, its transformations in the different contexts, and the different social, cultural, and religious issues presented in the text of various manuscripts. I trace the imprints that different authors, scribes, and communities left on the text.

Thomas,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, No. 1 (2015): 1– 9; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 111; Reidar Aasgaard, “From Boy to Man in Antiquity: Jesus in the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies 3 (2009): 3 – 20; Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 3, 159, 162; Studies of audience: Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 192; Simon Gathercole, “The Childhood of Jesus. Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review),” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63, No. 1 (2012): 104; Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 157; Bovon, “Évangiles canoniques et évangiles apocryphes,” 19 – 30, 25; Frilingos, “No Child Left Behind,” 27– 54, 34– 35, n. 30; Tony Burke, “The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review),” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, No. 3 (2010): 470 – 471; Davis, Christ Child, 11– 14, 12; Kaiser, “Jesus als Kind,” 253 – 269, 268 – 269; Clark, “The Fathers and the Children,” 20; Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 256.  Aidan Breen, “The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review),” Medieval Review (2011): 1– 4.  John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 115.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 32.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 4.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 4.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 4.

Chapter 1 New Philology and Early Christian Text

39

This approach has been in part already employed by Stephen Davis and Mary Dzon. In his Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus, Davis explores the afterlife of several characteristic episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as shaped through the cultural memory of its ancient audiences and in the context of later Jewish-Christian and Christian-Muslim encounters. In her Quest for the Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages and several other articles, Mary Dzon demonstrates how this apocryphal text entertained different social strata, nourished piety, inspired imitation, and framed the medieval religious imagination in the late medieval West.¹⁶³ While Davis focuses on the above-mentioned interreligious encounters and Dzon concentrates on Latin sources, I am interested in the Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts and their medieval contexts.¹⁶⁴ In what follows, Chapter 2 examines the contents of the manuscripts and discusses the places where the manuscripts were copied, kept, and used. In agreement with New Philology, the materiality of the text needs to be primarily investigated and stated clearly in the opening of this work. Chapter 3 examines the structural and literary aspects of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In the form we have today, Thomas’ Infancy Gospel is a text on paper/parchment. However, the very definition of a text is challenged when we face its loose form. This text has no fixed beginning or end. It is very often combined with other texts. Thus, Chapter 3 analyzes the order of the episodes, the narrative logic, and the pseudoduration of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel. Chapter 4 discusses the various words and phrases describing children, childhood, everyday, and family life in the different manuscripts. The chapter examines the examples that depict Jesus’ relationships with adults (parents, teachers), siblings, and peers. Further, it touches upon his behavior, activities, education, work, anger, and cursing. Finally, the chapter deals with family and everyday life: the life of Jesus’ family in the community, the descriptions of housing, healing, and sorcery.

 Mary Dzon, “Jesus and the Birds in Medieval Abrahamic Traditions,” Traditio 66 (2011): 189 – 230; Mary Dzon, The Quest for the Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017); Dzon, “Wanton Boys,” 81– 145; Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys,” 179 – 225; Mary Dzon, and Theresa M. Kenney, eds., The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha es et O! (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012); Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 235 – 300.  For this approach, see also Catherine Dimier-Paupert, Livre de l’Enfance du Sauveur. Une version médiévale de l’Évangile de l’Enfance du Pseudo-Matthieu (xiiie siècle) (Paris: Le Cerf, 2006). She approaches the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in a particular thirteenth-century Latin manuscript, Paris, BnF lat. 11867. She places it in the context of the monastery where the manuscript was kept, Abbey of Marmoutier. She concludes that the manuscript served as a library book that students consulted when studying trivium and quadrivium.

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas This chapter discusses, where possible, the provenance of the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It further examines the position of this text in the manuscripts and its genre. I use the manuscripts from different medieval Christian linguistic and cultural contexts: Latin, Byzantine, Slavonic, Georgian, and Syriac. They are arranged chronologically according to their dating and examined regarding the places of origin or the places which kept and used them.¹⁶⁵ I also discuss the contents of the manuscripts that include this text. At times, I comment on their physical characteristics. The full scope of the manuscript evidence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has yet to be made clear.¹⁶⁶ The possibility of discovering new sources remains a constant factor that will require modifications and adjustments to the present study. I start with the manuscript information given by Tony Burke and Jan Gijsel.¹⁶⁷ Their complete lists of manuscripts could not be considered in this study. I select the sources demonstrating distinct variants rather than examining the entire corpus of the source material. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas first emerges in a fifth-to-seventh-century Latin palimpsest. The following attestations are two fifth- and sixth-century Syriac manuscripts. A wide gap occurs until the tenth and eleventh century when we have preserved one Byzantine manuscript, one Latin, and one Georgian manuscript. A more significant number of sources come from the thirteenth century – one Greek and several Latin witnesses. Additionally, I select several manuscripts dated to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries from Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic backgrounds to represent the variety. The manuscripts are placed in

 Medieval manuscripts were usually copied in monastic scriptoria, which further kept the manuscripts for their use or distributed them elsewhere. The places of “production” and “use” of medieval manuscripts at times could have been different. I propose that both the places of production and the places of use complied with the general manuscripts’ agenda and contents.  Contemporary manuscript libraries in different world regions have reached different stages of manuscript conservation, cataloging, and digitization. While most of the material is cataloged and digitized in some libraries, others have yet to start. Some libraries that keep medieval manuscripts do not plan to digitize them even if cataloging progresses. Thus, there may exist sources of this text out there that I do not know.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127– 171; Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 108 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-003

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

41

chronological order so that the inter-lingual connections and the “manuscript geography” are easily detectable. This chapter integrates the perspective of New Philology, which assesses medieval books by their physical characteristics and views them in connection to the environments where they were copied and used. When manuscripts re-entered the focus of medievalists several decades ago, in addition to the preservation of texts, new features came to be appreciated.¹⁶⁸ Scholars focused on various subjects: the ink and the script of a given manuscript, the quality and size of the material of writing, the layout, colophons, binding, and the presence of other works with which the given work was initially collected and preserved.¹⁶⁹ The quality of the manuscript, investment, and illuminations betray the specific contexts of its use. The evidence in the material about the ways manuscripts were treated reveals the attitudes toward them. The physical forms, designs, script, and accompanying apparatus present the integral parts of the meaning of a single text. These features yield information about the manuscripts’ audience, purpose, and social, commercial, and intellectual backgrounds.¹⁷⁰ This perspective enables us to understand the medieval book as a whole and its constituent parts – texts. Andrew Taylor argues that the precise physical form of a particular manuscript is a vital part of any given text’s meaning and social function.¹⁷¹ This chapter considers the miscellany manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, their contents, (non‐) autonomy of their texts, primary and secondary miscellanies, as well as palimpsests and composite manuscripts. Did the medieval manuscripts, miscellanies, and the like, containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, align their contents in meaningful ways or seemingly random ways? My analysis of the contents presupposes that they share some common aspects, such as subject matter, genre, or how they were used.¹⁷² New Philology argues that medieval manuscripts contextualize the texts they have within their contents in specific ways.¹⁷³ It considers the possibility that a manuscript presents its texts according to an agenda, worked out by a person who planned, supervised, or commissioned the manuscript’s production.¹⁷⁴ The texts in the manuscripts may perhaps be understood to comprise a unity created or intended

      

Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 1. Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 1. Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 1. Taylor, Textual Situations, 10. See Doležalová, “Multiple Copying,” 139. Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 2. Nichols and Wenzel, The Whole Book, 2.

42

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

by their copyists. It further brings in the question of the genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts. Although scholars today view the medieval literary genre as a fluid category, it could generally be delineated in terms of shared literary technique, standard form, theme, or purpose of literary works. In this study, I understand “genre” in a broader sense that not only comprises a form of texts (such as letter, poem, prose narrative) but includes subject as well. The genre of texts betrays the inner rules of the narrative regarding the information it presents. The meaning of the text is commonly genre-bound.¹⁷⁵ The role of the audience, readers, and listeners in shaping genre expectations should not be ignored. Sometimes the contents say something about the contexts in which the manuscripts were utilized. Thus far, different scholars have allocated the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to diverse genres: biography, hagiography, and encomium. Hock points out the similarities of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to other ancient literature, romances, and imperial biographies.¹⁷⁶ Hock understands this text to be a biography of an outstanding man.¹⁷⁷ According to this view, the main character’s personality usually did not develop in time but was determined from birth. Therefore, childhood deeds foretold the character of an adult. Burke and Betsworth also associate the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the genre of ancient biography.¹⁷⁸ Aasgaard argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas “emerges as a mixture of belief legend and gospel, together with some elements from ancient biography.”¹⁷⁹ In my view, this text changed genres during the Middle Ages to serve different purposes.¹⁸⁰ It was appropriated in different settings rather than understood to belong to a single genre in the environments throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

 William G. Doty, “The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis,” In SBL Proceedings 1972. Book of Seminar Papers for 108th Annual Meeting 2, ed. Lane C. McGaughy (Atlanta, 1972): 413 – 448, 430.  Hock, The Infancy Gospels, 96 – 97; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 8.  Hock, The Infancy Gospels, 96 – 97; Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 284, n. 46.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 276, 281– 284; Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 148 – 150.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 52.  In connection with the genre of another text, the Protevangelium of James, Lily Vuong argues: “The contents of this work span multiple genre boundaries and serve various purposes, and it is problematic to categorize it solely as an encomium, as Hock suggested.” Her observation could be applied to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. See Lily C. Vuong, Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 57.

The oldest witness

43

At times the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was linked up with other texts that describe either some aspect of Jesus’ life or his parents’ life. Such subject-related texts had the focus on the topic, and their form may have been less relevant. Sometimes the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was placed among hagiographical or historiographical works, a feature which indicates that this text could have been understood similarly. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was also compiled in manuscripts for liturgical use and private monastic and secular use. The contents of the manuscripts allow one to think that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was perceived to belong to a variety of genres. The discussion of the manuscripts in chronological order according to their dating, as in this chapter, is novel. The overviews of the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas so far have been based on language, with the manuscripts presented in their language groups. In my view, the chronological aligning gives a better overview of the intersection and influences of the manuscripts, particularly in the earlier phases. I first describe the physical characteristics of the manuscripts, such as material, dimensions, number of columns, relying either on the information given in the catalogs or based on my investigation. I additionally comment on the manuscripts’ provenance and their further destiny and uses (where such information is available). I then comment on the contents of the manuscripts, focusing mainly on the texts that surround the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. At times, the concept of the “text” is challenged; the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had different beginning and end in various manuscripts. The text sometimes did not have a title. At times, it was part of a cycle of texts or part of another text. Was the text “hidden” under different titles or an authoritative name? Did the compilers of the manuscripts pay any attention to the ascribed apocryphal status of this text? This chapter pursues these and the other questions mentioned above. I inspected some manuscripts, but not all. I emphasize where a manuscript was inspected personally and where I relied on the information given by catalogs and other scholars.

The oldest witness The earliest manuscript evidence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is the palimpsest in the Latin manuscript Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek lat. 563, a parchment codex of 177 folios. As it exists now, the manuscript is a composite put together presumably in the eleventh or the twelfth century.¹⁸¹ It was com-

 The contents: fol.1r-12r: Passion of Gorgonius (eleventh c.); fol. 12r-57v: Miracles of St. Gor-

44

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

piled from four different codices of diverse provenance.¹⁸² I rely on the information given by Guy Philippart in his description of this manuscript.¹⁸³ The manuscript folios from 122r are reused. Beneath the excerpts from the Church Fathers (Gregory, Augustine, Ambrose) in folios 122r–168v, another layer existed, occupying folios 122r–177v, which contained the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The previous layer covered a larger space than the later layer, but everything from the initial layer was erased. Scholars date the palimpsest from the fifth to the seventh centuries.¹⁸⁴ Burke suggests that the second layer in this libellus dates to the eighth century, while the initial layer dates to the fifth century.¹⁸⁵ Therefore, from the fifth to the eighth century, the libellus inscribed with apocryphal and canonical texts – the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas – was

gonius (eleventh c.); fol. 58v-59r: Responsoria cum neumis (twelfth c.); fol. 59v-112r: Vita of St. Brendan (eleventh c.); fol. 113r-121v: Werinharius, Vita of St. Adelphus (twelfth c.); fol. 122r168v: Excerpts from the Fathers (Gregory, Augustine, Ambrose) (seventh c.); fol. 122r-177v: palimpsest. The dating of the libelli (according to the catalog) ranges from the seventh to the twelfth centuries. The first unit of the manuscript, folios 1– 121v, contains hagiographical texts dated from the eleventh to the twelfth centuries. As for the saints chosen for this collection, Gorgonius is an early Christian martyr who suffered during the persecutions of Diocletian. Brendan is one of the early Irish monastic saints, while Adolph is one of the ninth-century martyrs of Cordoba, who suffered under Muslim rule in Spain. Their feast days are not aligned according to a calendar. See Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis, Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum 1 (Vienna: Gerold, 1864– 1899), 96; see also Manuscripta medievalia, Last accessed: 08/06/2021.  Philippart gives the following list of contents and differentiation among the different libelli: Codex I, app. 200x150 mm, eleventh century, provenance Neuwiller-les-Saverne, in Alsace (the abbey was found in the eighth c.), containing the Passion of Gorgonius (f. 1r-12r), and the Miracles of Gorgonius (f. 12r-57v); Codex II, 200x150 mm, eleventh century, the same provenance, containing a liturgical piece (58v-59r) (the codices I and II were united in the time when this text was added), the Vita of Brendan (59v-112r), other additions (112v); Codex III, 180x135 mm, twelfth century, the same provenance, containing the Vita of Adelphus (113r-121v); Codex IV, 200x150 mm, eighth century, provenance probably Northern Italy (Hermann proposes Bobbio), Excerpts from the Fathers, palimpsest beneath. Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 391, 409 – 10.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes.”  Lowe, Dobschütz, Siegmund, Beer, and Hermann dated the palimpsest. Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes latins,” 391, n. 3. On the early dating of the palimpsest, see Elias Avery Lowe, Codices latini antiquiores: A Paleographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the Ninth Century 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 14.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 145.

The oldest witness

45

erased and reused for writing the excerpts from the Church Fathers.¹⁸⁶ This libellus was bound with various hagiographical works into a composite manuscript sometime during the twelfth century. Since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has initially been part of the libellus, which was first erased, then reused and bound with the rest of the present manuscript, I will focus only on the initial layer of the libellus. What are the structure and the nature of the texts in the palimpsest? Philippart argues that the Gospel of Matthew is the canonical text from Vetus Latina.¹⁸⁷ Vetus Latina continued to be copied after Jerome’s Vulgate translation (fourth century), until the eighth or the ninth century, when the Vulgate became the most widely used Latin Bible.¹⁸⁸ The reputation of Vetus Latina gradually declined because of the state of the Latin text, which needed correction, to which Church Fathers often pointed.¹⁸⁹ The Gospel of Matthew from Vetus Latina in this palimpsest was fragmentary and contained only the passion of Christ.¹⁹⁰ The subject of the Gospel of Matthew thus supplemented the Gospel of Nicodemus, which depicts Christ’s trial and last days.¹⁹¹ The Gospel of Nicodemus was

 The Gospel of Nicodemus dates as far back as the fourth century. The earliest manuscript evidence is from the fifth century, and in the ninth and the tenth centuries, the Gospel of Nicodemus emerges in various forms, which develop into three interrelated versions. The narrative comprises three major episodes: the trial of Jesus, the imprisonment and release of Joseph of Arimathea, and the account by the two sons of Simeon of the harrowing of hell. The crucifixion is treated briefly, and there is nothing about the suffering of Jesus. See William Marx, The Middle English ‘Liber Aureus and Gospel of Nicodemus’ (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2013), xiv; Zbigniew Izydorczyk, ed., The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe (Tempe, Arizona: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997); Zbigniew Izydorczyk, with W. Wydra, Evangelium Nicodemi in Polonia servatum: A Gospel of Nicodemus Preserved in Poland (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007); Zbigniew Izydorczyk, Manuscripts of the Evangelium Nicodemi: A Census (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1993); Zbigniew Izydorczyk, “The Bohemian Redaction of the Evangelium Nicodemi in Medieval Slavic Vernaculars,” Studia Ceranea 4 (2014): 49 – 64; Zbigniew Izydorczyk, “On the Evangelium Nicodemi before Print: Towards a New Edition,” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 97– 114; Zbigniew Izydorczyk, “The Earliest Printed Versions of the Evangelium Nicodemi and Their Manuscript Sources,” Apocrypha 21 (2010): 121– 132.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 392, 397, 403. According to Philippart, this text was largely unnoticed in the initial study of the palimpsest.  Frans van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 82; see also H. A. G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 43 – 95.  van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible, 82– 83.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 402.  The Evangelium Nicodemi was a Latin translation of the Greek Acts of Pilate (Acta/Gesta Pilati). The Latin Gospel of Nicodemus is attested in over 450 medieval manuscripts. In the

46

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

also fragmentary, containing two prologues and parts of chapters 1– 16, but not the Descent into Hell (otherwise part of the Gospel of Nicodemus).¹⁹² Philippart identified the fragments of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the palimpsest as corresponding to episodes 2.2– 4 (Sparrows), 4.2– 5.1 (Careless Boy, Joseph’s Rebuke), 7.1– 2 (First Teacher: Lament), 8.1– 9.1 (Exclamation, Zeno), 14.1– 3 (Second Teacher), and 19.1– 2 (Jerusalem).¹⁹³ The episodes occur in scattered folios (176r, 176v, 171r, 171v, 135r, 135v, 132r, 132v, 142r, 142v, 141r, 141v).¹⁹⁴ Thus, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is here a set of scattered episodes and not a full “text.” It does not mean that the full “text” did not exist at the time; even if it existed, its separate episodes could have been copied separately. The episodes were most likely chosen based on what a copyist wished to emphasize in Jesus’ childhood. It is difficult to comment on the structure and the order of the three erased texts because they were initially written down as fragments, but also because some folios are missing, and it is possible that the original binding of the libellus was unfastened once the contents were erased. The excerpts from the three texts were mixed in the structure of the palimpsest. It may be that the three texts were not perceived as separate items, but were fused, making a narrative cycle about Jesus, his trial, the last days, his childhood, and his passion. The most critical organizational principle in this cycle is the overarching subject, Jesus. It is likewise challenging to talk about genre since we have three synthesized texts. Although the Gospel of Matthew from the Vetus Latina was a canonical text, this early Latin translation of the Bible and the two other apocryphal texts were erased, and space was given to the excerpts from the prominent Latin Church fathers. This cycle of texts is unusual in the light of the later evidence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas because it does not reappear in any extant Greek or Syriac manuscripts.¹⁹⁵ Scholars generally consider the Latin text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript to be a translation from Greek, although some

text, the crucifixion is generally treated briefly, and there is nothing about the suffering of Jesus. See Rémi Gounelle, “Editing a Fluid and Unstable Text. The Example of the Acts of Pilate (or Gospel of Nicodemus),” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 81– 98, 82; Izydorczyk, “On the Evangelium Nicodemi before Print,” 99.  See Izydorczyk, The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus, 29 – 30. On the Gospel of Nicodemus/ Acta Pilati, see the entire fascicle of Apocrypha 21 (2010).  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 406 – 409 ; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 145 – 146.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 407– 408.  I say Greek or Syriac because these are the two possible original languages of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Late antique Syriac tradition

47

scholars argue that the Latin text was transmitted from Syriac.¹⁹⁶ However, the earliest Syriac manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas indicate a different combination of texts bound together. As for the two other texts, although scholars occasionally hold that the Gospel of Matthew may originally have been a Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Gospel of Nicodemus is undoubtedly considered to be a translation from the Greek Acta Pilati. The earliest Greek manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas do not have this cycle of texts. There is no way of knowing whether this combination is a remnant of an early Greek manuscript or a genuinely Latin combination in this palimpsest. This cycle will not have appeared again in manuscripts until the late medieval Latin manuscripts. The provenance of the palimpsest is uncertain.¹⁹⁷ It was probably copied in Northern Italy; Hermann proposes Bobbio.¹⁹⁸ Bobbio was a prominent bastion of orthodoxy at the time.¹⁹⁹ In Bobbio or some other northern Italian monastery, the erasure of the initial textual layer occurred from the fifth to the eighth century, and space was given to the excerpts from the Fathers. The libellus ended up in the French lands where it was bound to the other libelli of the composite manuscript, probably sometime in the twelfth century.

Late antique Syriac tradition The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared in manuscripts contemporary to the Latin palimpsest in an area quite distant from Bobbio. These are Syriac manuscripts written in the fifth and the sixth centuries. The information about them is based on the catalogs and secondary literature. The first manuscript containing this text, London, British Library, Add. 14484, is dated from the fifth to the sixth century. The manuscript was copied in Syria, but eventually it was transferred to Egypt (Western desert), in Scetis (Wadi Al-Natrun – the Nitrian Desert), in the monastery of Deir Al-Surian (Monastery of the Syrians). It is a Coptic Orthodox Monastery in Egypt established in the sixth century, known as the Monastery of Mary, the Mother of God (Maria Deipara).

 Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes II, xxi; Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 397.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 391, n. 3.  Hermann Julius Hermann, Die frühmittelalterlichen Handschriften des Abendlandes (Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann Verlag, 1923); Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 411.  See Michael Richter, Bobbio in the Early Middle Ages: The Abiding Legacy of Columbanus (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009).

48

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

A large proportion of all surviving Syriac manuscripts from the fifth to the tenth century belong to Deir Al-Surian.²⁰⁰ The majority of the monastery’s early manuscripts were part of the 250 manuscripts that Abbot Mushe of Nisibis brought from Baghdad in 931/2; a few other donors existed too.²⁰¹ Many of the manuscripts from this collection were transferred to the British Library in the nineteenth century. Manuscript Add. 14484 is a composite, according to Wright’s catalog.²⁰² I focus on the libellus containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which includes a total of three texts.²⁰³ The Protevangelium of James is fragmentary in folios 12r-14v (starting with Ch. 17).²⁰⁴ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is in folios 14v18v.²⁰⁵ Finally, the Transitus Mariae (“Departure of Our Lady from this world”

 Sebastian Brock, and Lucas Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir Al-Surian, Wadi Al-Natrun (Egypt) (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), XIII.  Brock and Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments, XIII; see also Sebastian Brock, “Without Mushe of Nisibis, Where Would We Be? Some Reflections on the Transmission of Syriac Literature,” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56, No. 1/4 (2004): 15 – 24.  The contents of the manuscript: fol. 1r-8r: Transitus beatae Virginis (Obsequies of my Lady Mary); fol. 9r-11r: palimpsest, the History of the Holy Mother of God, the Virgin above; fol.12r-47r: Apocryphal Gospels, Transitus beatae Virginis; fol. 48r-133r: Acts of Symeon Stylites; fol. 134r-152r: fragment of the same text. The section in folios 1r-8r presents a separate unit, according to Wright. It consists of eight leaves written in vellum of 10 ¾ to 8 ¼ inches, much stained and mutilated. The script is of the fifth or sixth century. The online catalog dates folios 1r-5r to the period from 400 – 549 CE. The folios 9r-11r are three leaves written in vellum of 9¾ to 7 inches, containing palimpsest beneath. The script above is of the tenth or eleventh century. The leaves contain part of an Apocryphon, the History of the Holy Mother of God, the Virgin. The palimpsest is from the ninth century and illegible. The folio 11v has a diagram for understanding the commencement of Lent. The folios from 48r-133r and 134r-152r are dated from 500 – 599 and contain the Vita of Symeon the Stylite by Cosmas. See Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts I, 98 – 100; Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts III, 1224; Tony Burke, Syriac Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Critical Edition and English Translation (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2017), 26.  The folios 12r-47r are written in vellum, dimensions 10 ½ to 8 3/8 inches, consisting of 36 leaves.  This text is dated to the sixth century. W. Wright published the translation of the Protevangelium of James in Syriac in 1865, containing portions of the second half of the Protevangelium of James (chapters 17 to the end) and E. A. Wallis Budge re-edited it in 1899. Horn and Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac,” 533, 538; Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, 4– 5; E. A. Wallis Budge, The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ Which the Jews of Tiberias Made to Mock at (London: Luzac and co., 1899); Vuong, Gender and Purity, 9.  See Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts I, 99.

Late antique Syriac tradition

49

in six books) is in folios 18v-47r.²⁰⁶ The folios are dated to 550 – 599 CE, and some of them are stained and soiled. The script is of the sixth century, and the manuscript has a Syriac colophon on folio 47r. In this libellus, at least two texts have the Virgin Mary as the subject. The Protevangelium of James describes Mary’s childhood, and the Transitus Mariae has Mary’s death as its theme. This “Book of Mary” – a collection of apocryphal books about Mary – encompassing the Protevangelium of James and the Transitus Mariae, existed in the Syriac manuscripts by the turn of the sixth century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was added to them also by the sixth century.²⁰⁷ Some other texts of the composite manuscript also deal with Virgin Mary. The figure of Mary inspired a significant part of the manuscript. The three texts present a cycle of Mary’s life – her birth and childhood, her son’s childhood, her adult years, and finally, her death. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas accompanies the two other texts because of its close connection with the figure of Mary.²⁰⁸ It was placed in this manuscript because of Mary. Another Syriac manuscript containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is Göttingen, Universitätsbibliothek, syr. 10, dated to the sixth century.²⁰⁹ The manuscript was found in Egypt, Sinai, in St. Catherine’s monastery, but it was written in Syria.²¹⁰ The texts attested in this manuscript are the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and an anonymous Transitus Mariae – or more

 Stephen Shoemaker argues that this “Six Books Apocryphon” derives from a Greek original which was most likely in circulation already by the later fourth century, or even earlier. Stephen Shoemaker, “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (London: Burns and Oates, 2008): 71– 88, 79.  The name “Book of Mary” is taken from Cornelia B. Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on Structural and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’ Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: The ‘Book of Mary,’ the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John, and the Qu’rān,” Apocrypha 19 (2008): 267– 291.  See Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives,” 267– 291.  See Meyer, “Kindheitserzählung des Thomas”; Baars and Heldermann, “Neue Materialen;” Stephen Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library,” Le Muséon 124, No. 3 (2011): 259 – 278; Agnes Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, and Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1902); William Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6 – 7 (1865): 108 – 160, 417– 448.  See Charles Naffah, “Les ‘histoires’ syriaques de la Vierge: Traditions apocryphes anciennes et récentes,” Apocrypha 20 (2009): 137– 188; Desreumaux, “Deux anciens manuscrits syriaques,” 115 – 136; Sebastian Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995), 73 – 74.

50

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

precisely, a fragment of the Protevangelium of James, the complete text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and a large portion of the Transitus Mariae in the sixbook form.²¹¹ The contents are the same as in Add. 14484. Horn argues based on the same evidence that the inclusion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the composite work consisting of the Protevangelium of James and the Transitus Mariae was a more widespread phenomenon in the sixth-century Syriac apocryphal literature.²¹² It appears that the text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Syriac tradition evolved around the figure of Mary in connection with other texts about her.²¹³ Horn and Phenix argue that this manuscript witnesses a collection of texts shaping the canon of the Life of Mary.²¹⁴ In their view, “the Syriac tradition does not seem to have continued to actively transmit the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas as a separate work. Instead, the Syriac tradition incorporated it into larger accounts like the various versions of the Life of Mary or recensions of the Arabic Infancy Gospel.”²¹⁵ Desreumaux argues that “all known ancient Syriac manuscripts (fifth-sixth centuries) of this work demonstrate the existence of the History of the Virgin from her birth to her funeral.”²¹⁶ Naffah also argues that “the Syriac author wanted to constitute, as early on as in the most ancient witnesses to have reached us, the History of the Virgin in chronological order, from the time of her birth to her last days.”²¹⁷ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in these manuscripts supported the prominence of Mary’s figure. Jesus’ childhood constituted a part of this story. In Late Antiquity, as the West and the East slowly parted ways, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas seems to have been appropriated in the two realms in various ways. In the West (Vienna 563), it was part of the cycle about Jesus (Jesus’ trial, childhood, and death). In the East, it served as part of the cycle about Mary. Unfortunately, these few manuscripts are all the evidence we have for reconstructing the context of the transmission of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Late Antiquity.

 S. Mimouni recognized the section of the Transitus Mariae in the six-book form in this manuscript as a copy of the contemporary Add. 14484. Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives,” 279 – 280; Horn and Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac and Related Texts,” 534– 535; Simon Claude Mimouni, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995), 92, n. 64. For the six-book form, see also Stephen Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016).  Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives,” 280.  Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives.”  Horn and Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac,” 534.  Horn and Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac,” 544.  Desreumaux, “Deux anciens manuscrits syriaques,” 115 – 136.  Naffah, “Les ‘histoires’ syriaques de la Vierge,” 137– 188.

Georgian evidence

51

Georgian evidence The sole Georgian manuscript which contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is Tbilisi, Codex A 95.²¹⁸ The dating of the manuscript spans from the tenth to the twelfth century.²¹⁹ Codex A 95 is an extensive collection of hagiographical and homiletic texts.²²⁰ Because of the number of texts, this manuscript has

 See Bregadze, Qavtaria, and Qutateladze, Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1, 361– 393; Zhordania, Opisanie rukopisei, 96 – 114.  Khakhanov dated it to the twelfth century, and Zhordania and Melikset-Bek dated it to the tenth century. Garitte argued that this manuscript came from the end of the tenth century. The editors T. Bregadze, M. Qavtaria, and L. Qutateladze date it to the beginning of the eleventh century. See Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” 514, n. 5, 516; Levon Melikset-Bek, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи ‘Дѣтства Христа,’” (The Fragment of the Georgian Version of the Childhood of Jesus) Христіанскій Восток 6.3 (1917– 1920): 315 – 320, 316, n. 2; Alexander Khakhanov, Очерки по исторіи грузинской словесности (Studies on History of Georgian Literature) (Москва: Университетская типографія, 1897), 319 – 321; Bregadze, Qavtaria, and Qutateladze, Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1, 361.  The contents of the manuscript: fol. 1r-3v: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily on Annunciation; fol. 4r-v: Proclus of Constantinople, Homily on Theotokos; fol. 5r-7v: Epiphanius of Cyprus, Homily on Theotokos; fol. 7v-11v: John Chrysostom, Homily on Annunciation; fol. 11v-15r: Meletius of Antioch, Homily on Annunciation; fol. 15r-21r: John Chrysostom, Homily on Nativity of Christ; fol. 21r-24v: John Chrysostom, Homily on Nativity; fol. 24v-31r: Athanasius of Alexandria, Homily on Nativity; fol. 31rv: Clement of Rome, On the celebrations of Nativity and Epiphany; fol. 31v: Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily on Nativity; fol. 31v-32r: Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on Nativity; fol. 32r-34r: John Chrysostom, On Nativity (25 Dec); fol. 34r-37v: Justinian, Letter on the celebration of Nativity; fol. 37v-39r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On Nativity; fol. 39r-43r: Saint Nino, On Nativity; fol. 43r-48v: John Chrysostom, On Nativity; fol. 48v-50r: Martyrdom of St. James the Apostle (26 Dec); fol. 50r-52v: Discovery of relics of St. Zacharius, Symeon and Jacob; fol. 52v-55v: Passion of St. Stephen (27 Dec); fol. 55v-59r: Gregory of Antioch, On St. Stephen; fol. 59r-61v: Gregory of Antioch, On St. Stephen; fol. 61v-65v: Finding of relics of St. Stephen; fol. 65v-71v: Translation of relics of St. Stephen from Constantinople; fol. 71v-75r: Martyrdom of St. Peter; fol. 75r-77r: Martyrdom of St. Paul (28 Dec); fol. 77v-79v: John Chrysostom, Homily on Peter and Paul; fol. 79v-82r: Dorotheus of Tyre with 72 disciples; fol. 82r-83r: Dorotheus of Tyre, with 12 Apostles; fol. 83r94r: Acts of Saint John the Baptist (29 Dec); fol. 94r-107v: Miracles of St. Basil (1 Jan); fol. 107v113v: Dialogue between Basil and Gregory; fol. 113v-115r: John of Bolnisi, On Bishops; fol. 115r120v: John Chrysostom, On Epiphany (6 Jan); fol. 120v-124r: Julien of Tabia, On Epiphany; fol. 124r-126r: Proclus of Constantinople, On Epiphany; fol. 126r-130v: Gregory of Nazianzus, On Epiphany; fol. 130v-137v: John Chrysostom, On Epiphany; fol. 137v-142r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On Epiphany; fol. 142r-145v: Saint Nino, On Epiphany; fol. 145v-159v: Martyrdom of St. Abo; fol. 159v-163v: Vita of Paul the Hermit (17 Jan); fol. 163v-166v: Apophthegms of St. Antony (Didascaliae); fol. 166v-169r: Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita of Antony; fol. 169r-172v: Ephraim the Syrian, On Fathers; fol. 172r-178v: John Chrysostom, On Martyrs (22 Jan); fol. 178v-181r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On Martyrs; fol. 181r-193r: John Chrysostom, On Martyrs; fol. 193r-194v: John Chrysostom, On Martyrs and St. Stephen; fol. 194v-195v: John Chrysostom, On Virginity; fol. 195v-197r:

52

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

John Chrysostom, On Virginity; fol. 197rv: Apparition of the Cross (29 Jan); fol. 197v-201r: Finding of the Cross; fol. 201rv: Finding of the Nails; fol. 202r-204r: Hesychius of Jerusalem, On Hypapante (2 Feb); fol. 204r-207r: Timothy of Jerusalem, On Hypapante; fol. 207r-209r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On Presentation; fol. 209r-212r: Cyril of Jerusalem, On Hypapante; fol. 212rv: Apocrypha of Joachim and Anna; fol. 212v-217v: Passion of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste (9 March); fol. 217v-223r: Basil the Great, On 40 martyrs; fol. 223rv: John Chrysostom, On the Fast and Jonas; fol. 224r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On the Fast; fol. 224r-225r: Eusebius of Alexandria, On Fast; fol. 225r-233v: Cyril of Jerusalem, On Penitence; fol. 233v-240v: Meletius of Antioch, On Penitence; fol. 240v-247r: Basil of Cesarea, On Lent; fol. 247r-251v: John of Bolnisi; 251v-254v: John of Bolnisi; fol. 254v-257v: John of Bolnisi; fol. 257r-261v: John Chrysostom, On Youth; fol. 261v-264r: John of Bolnisi; fol. 264v-267r: John of Bolnisi; fol. 267v-270r: John of Bolnisi; fol. 270v-271v: John of Bolnisi; fol. 272r-277v: Life of Ereneus; Second part: fol. 277r-289r: Martyrdom of St. Catherine (25 Nov); fol. 289r-300r: Martyrdom of St. Marina (17 July); fol. 300r-305v: Martyrdom of St. Anastasia (22 Dec); fol. 305v-319v: Martyrdom of St. Febronia (25 July); fol. 319v-329v: Life and martyrdom of St. Eugenia; fol. 329v-333v: Martyrdom of St. Eugenia; fol. 333v-343v: Life and martyrdom of St. Gulanduht (Mary) (9 July); fol. 343v-353r: Martyrdom of St. Cristina (23 July); fol. 353r-359v: Martyrdom of Shushanik (17 Oct); fol. 360r-363r: Life and martyrdom of St. Barbara; fol. 363v380v: Life and Deeds of Cyprian; fol. 380v-385v: Martyrdom of Sts. Cyprian and Justina; fol. 385v-397r: Martyrdom of St. Christophorus (1 July); fol. 397v-403r: Martyrdom of Cyrus and John (30 Jan); fol. 403r-408v: Martyrdom of Julian of Emessa (6 Feb); fol. 408v-440v: Martyrdom of the Fathers of St. Sabas (19 Mar); fol. 440v-454r: Martyrdom of Romanus the New Martyr (1 Mar); fol. 454r-455r: Martyrdom of Leontius (18 July); fol. 455r-456r: Martyrdom of St. Procopius (8 July); fol. 456r-461r: Martyrdom of Paul, Bilos, Theon, Eron, and followers (2 July); fol. 461r473v: Martyrdom of 45 martyrs of Nicopolis (10 July); fol. 473v-477r: Martyrdom of Atenagena; fol. 477r-482v: Martyrdom of Athanasius (19 July); fol. 482v-491r: Martyrdom of the Maccabees, fol. 491r-496r: Martyrdom of St. Elianus (10 Aug); fol. 496r-502v: Martyrdom of Lucian (22 Aug); fol. 502v-513v: Martyrdom of Sergius and Bachus (7 Oct); fol. 513v-530v: Martyrdom of Sts. Gurios, Samon, and Aviv from Edessa (15 Nov); fol. 530v-538r: Life of Merquirios (23 Nov); fol. 538r-558v: Martyrdom of Eustratius, Axentius, Eugenius, and Arestius (13 Dec); fol. 558v-561v: Martyrdom of Arcos, Promoisi, Elias, and others (14 Dec); fol. 561v-570v: Martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch (20 Dec); fol. 570v-576v: Martyrdom of St. James; fol. 576v-582r: Martyrdom of Speusippus and others; fol. 582r-585v: Martyrdom of Xystus, Laurence and Hippolytus, fol. 585v-588r: Martyrdom of Timothy; fol. 588r-590v: Eusebius of Cesarea, Commemoration of St. Sergius; fol. 591v-598v: Life of St. Antigone and his wife; fol. 599r-602v: Life of Euphrosine and Paphnutius; fol. 602v-604v: Life and martyrdom of Tasia of Egypt; fol. 604v-612v: Martyrdom of Pelagia; fol. 613r-621r: Life and martyrdom of Mary of Egypt; fol. 621r-628v: Deeds of Abraham and Mary; fol. 628v-631r: Life of a Female Prostitute; fol. 631r-633r: Life of St. Mavrianes; fol. 633r-636v: Life of a Prostitute from Alexandria; fol. 636v-637v: Life of St. Andronicus and Athanasia; fol. 638r-642r: Life of John; fol. 642r-646r: Life of Ephemian and Alexius; fol. 646r-651v: Epistle of St. Dionisius, Bishop of Athens; fol. 651v-653v: Childhood of Our Jesus Christ. See Bregadze, Qavtaria, and Qutateladze, Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1, 361– 393; Zhordania describes the contents differently. See Zhordania, Opisanie, 96 – 114.

Georgian evidence

53

often been the subject of research.²²¹ Only in recent scholarship has it become clear that this manuscript comprises two parts: homiletic and martyrological.²²² Esbroeck argues that this is not a single manuscript but two codices linked together and artificially welded by continual numbering.²²³ Gippert suggests, based on the texts’ arrangement, that the second part of the manuscript, a martyrology, was attached to the first part of the codex at a later stage.²²⁴ The first part of the manuscript contains the homilies for the major feasts, Annunciation, Nativity, Finding of the Cross, Hypapante, written by the prominent Greek Church Fathers and translated in Georgian. However, it also contains a small set of hagiographies and a section of the Protevangelium of James. This part follows a calendar. The second part contains martyrdom narratives starting with female martyrs and continuing with male martyrs. This section ends with the lives and martyrdom of prostitutes. The texts are not arranged according to a calendar. I here base my description of the manuscript on the catalogs and secondary literature. Initially, the whole manuscript was defined in scholarship as mravaltavi. Esbroeck interprets mravaltavi as the collection of homilies, sermons, and panegyrics, close to the Greek homiliaries, which were used as reading for the movable feasts of the calendar year.²²⁵ In recent scholarship, it has been acknowledged that mravaltavi contains a hagiographical section as well. Martin-Hisard defines mravaltavi as a specifically Georgian liturgical book, which initially consisted of patristic homilies designed to be read on the feast days of the Lord and the Mother of God, but it was extended from the ninth century to include the lives of the saints as well.²²⁶ Gippert characterizes mravaltavi as a collection containing texts authored by Church Fathers for the feast days of the year and a fundamental,

 Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 54; see also Melikset-Bek, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи,” 316.  See Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 55; Jost Gippert, “Mravaltavi – A Special Type of Old Georgian Multiple-Text Manuscripts,” in One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts, eds. Michael Friedrich, and Cosima Schwarke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016): 47– 91, 67.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 55.  Gippert, “Mravaltavi,” 67.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 5.  Bernadette Martin-Hisard, “Georgian Hagiography,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography I: Periods and Places, ed. Stephanos Efthymiadis (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011): 285 – 298, 286, n. 7.

54

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

fixed corpus of hagiographic texts.²²⁷ It becomes clear that the term mravaltavi, as the whole manuscript was initially entitled, pertains only to the first part of the manuscript.²²⁸ The whole manuscript is considered to have been copied in the Parhali monastery (Barhal monastery) in Tao-Klarjeti region (modern Turkey); hence its name mravaltavi de Parhali (collection of religious writings from Parhali).²²⁹ The Parhali monastery was built from the mid-tenth to the end of the tenth century (961– 973 CE). The ascription to this monastery depended on a note, albeit in the second part of the manuscript. The calligrapher Gabriel Patara left a note in folios 590r–591r, a testament of a kind, describing his initial intention to “copy only the lives and martyrdoms of the holy Mothers…” He initially planned this manuscript to be a collection of the martyrdoms and lives of holy women.²³⁰ Having not found sufficient material in Parhali, he added lives and martyrdoms of the Holy Fathers to the manuscript as well. He borrowed the material to copy from the monastery of Išhani.²³¹ Išhani and Parhali were neighboring Georgian monasteries.²³² Gabriel Patara was active in Parhali from the end of the tenth century until the eleventh century.²³³ Gabriel’s note refers to the contents of the second part of the manuscript. However, the dating and the provenance of the whole manuscript depend on this note, which may connect only to the second, martyrological part. Similarly, the colophon in folio 376r (second part) from the fifteenth century reveals that this manuscript belonged at the time to the monastery of John the Baptist at Parhali.²³⁴ It, too, may refer only to the second part. Altogether, the manuscript was referred to as mravaltavi de Parhali, although the term mravaltavi was related only to the first part, and Parhali was linked to the second part of the manuscript. Scholars have eventually concluded that the first part of the manuscript was copied at the same place, Parhali. The note in folio 52v (first part) reveals that this manuscript was acquired in the sixteenth century from Asia Minor (Urumi) by Mariam, the daughter of Dadia The other early mravaltavis assumingly also had a fixed set of essential saints’ lives; the same set appears in the first part of this mravaltavi. Mravaltavi, as such, is not strictly a collection of homilies but extends to hagiography as well. Gippert, “Mravaltavi,” 67– 71.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 57.  Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” 514 – 5.  Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, 188.  Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, 188.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 57.  Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, 188.  Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, 189; Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 56, 58.

Georgian evidence

55

ni (1634– 1682), the Duke of Mingrelia (Western Georgia).²³⁵ Esbroeck argues that this might well be the time when the two codices were bound together.²³⁶ Mariam obtained the manuscript for her personal development and the remission of sins.²³⁷ This note, according to Esbroeck, implies that there was a convent of nuns at Parhali at this time. The contents of the martyrology, containing many lives and martyrdoms of female martyrs, could have been of interest to the convent.²³⁸ Martin-Hisard argues that extensive hagiographic collections link “foreign saints” with the so-called “national saints” from the tenth century in Georgia. Most often, they are arranged according to the calendar order.²³⁹ The first section of this manuscript could be viewed in the corresponding light since Georgian saints and martyrs, such as St. Abo and St. Nino, appear there. This feature is also visible in the second part, where the Martyrdom of Shushanik appears among martyrdom narratives. Martin-Hisard notes that in Georgia, the collections of the lives of holy women make their appearance from the end of the tenth century, characterized by the same process of merging Georgian with “foreign” saints. Only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the collections of purely Georgian saints made their first appearance. The place of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript remains unclear. Otherwise deposited in the Georgian National Center of Manuscripts in Tbilisi, the manuscript has no easy access. According to the earlier catalog (Zhordania), the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is placed in the first section of the manuscript, on pages 568 – 572, preceding the Martyrdom of St. Irene. ²⁴⁰ In his article, Melikset-Bek used the same page numbers when discussing the mutilation of this text after page 572. The codex had been mutilated, possibly intentionally, after page 572, and only the first half of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, corresponding to the initial seven chapters, has been preserved.²⁴¹ The mutilation occurred in the middle of the text. On page 572, the text breaks and the Vita and Martyrdom of St. Irene of Thessaloniki follows.²⁴² The rest of the pages in

 Zhordania, Opisanie rukopisei, 96; Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries, 189.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 58.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 58.  Esbroeck, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens, 58.  Martin-Hisard, “Georgian Hagiography,” 286.  Zhordania does not use the standard terminology, including the terms folio, recto, and verso, but instead uses page numbers. See Zhordania, Opisanie, 96 – 114.  Melikset-Bek, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи,” 316; Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” 515.  Melikset-Bek, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи,” 316.

56

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was to continue were ripped off.²⁴³ However, the latest catalog of the Center of Manuscripts in Tbilisi (Bregadze, Qavtaria, and Qutateladze) points to a different place of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: folios 651v-653v.²⁴⁴ According to this catalog, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is placed at the end of the manuscript’s second part, preceded by the lives and martyrdoms of different male and female saints and prostitutes. Further research is necessary to answer the questions of the place of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the text’s mutilation, and its implied genre based on the position of the text in the manuscript.

Eleventh-century Byzantine evidence The earliest extant Byzantine manuscript containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is Sabaiticus 259, nowadays kept in the Library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem.²⁴⁵ The manuscript is dated to 1089/1090.²⁴⁶ I consulted the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript, but I have not seen the entire manuscript. The information in what follows is based on the catalogs and secondary literature. A monk and a scribe, Gerasimos, copied the manuscript with a clear plan regarding its contents. A colophon of a sixteenth-century hand in folio 317v (the last page) reveals the monk’s name and the dating. The manuscript was commissioned by Basil kouboukleisios of the village of Vavla in Cyprus.²⁴⁷ Kou Melikset-Bek, “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи,” 316.  Bregadze, Qavtaria, and Qutateladze, Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1, 361– 393.  See Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ II, 384– 388; Paul Canart, “Les écritures livresques chypriotes du milieu du XIe siècle au milieu du XIIIe et le style palestino-chypriote epsilon,” Scrittura e Civiltà 5 (1981): 17– 76; Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus; François Halkin, “La Passion ancienne de sainte Euphémie de Chalcédoine,” Analecta Bollandiana 83 (1965): 95 – 121; Sever J. Voicu, “Il nome cancellato: la trasmissione delle omelie di Severiano di Gabala,” Revue d’histoire des textes 1 (2006): 317– 333; Basile Atsalos, La Terminologie du livre-manuscrit a l’époque byzantine 1. Termes désignant le livre-manuscrit et l’écriture (Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2001), 110; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus.  This manuscript attracted the attention of scholars not only because it is the earliest preserved Byzantine manuscript but also because scholars think that it preserves the earliest Greek textual version (Gs). R. Aasgaard based his work entirely on Sabaiticus 259. See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 66. See also Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127; Halkin, “La passion ancienne de sainte Euphémie,” 96, n. 4; PapadopoulosKerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ II, 384– 388; Kirsopp Lake, and Silva Lake, Dated

Eleventh-century Byzantine evidence

57

boukleisios was a title given to ecclesiastical chamberlains, priests, deacons, and sometimes monks until the eleventh century, after which it was abandoned. In the eleventh century, Cyprus was under the control of the Byzantine Empire. Manuscripts of Cyprus commonly originated from churches and monasteries and belonged to wealthy individuals who collected luxury manuscripts during peace and prosperity.²⁴⁸ Sometimes, individuals in civil or monastic communities provided copies of books and dedicated them to churches and monasteries.²⁴⁹ This manuscript was originally dedicated to an unknown church or monastery, but later it belonged to the monastery of St. Nikolaos in Akrotiri (established in the fourth century). On folio 317r, the name of the original manuscript owner was erased, and the monastery of St. Nikolaos at Akrotiri was written above.²⁵⁰ The village of Vavla and the Monastery of St. Nikolaos are geographically close to each other, located in southern Cyprus. Sabaiticus 259 was eventually transferred to the monastery of St. Gerasimos in Palestine. Cypriot monasteries had established long-standing connections with Palestinian monasteries.²⁵¹ Donations from Cyprus to the monasteries of Palestine, like the Holy Sepulchre and St. Sabas, by high ecclesiastics from Cyprus or abbots of flourishing monasteries, were tokens of respect.²⁵² Many Cypriot monasteries eventually became metochia, subordinate to the Holy Land.²⁵³ The monastery of St. Nikolaos at Akrotiri became a metochion of St. Gerasimos in Palestine. It was the way the manuscript traveled from one monastery to the other. In 1616, a priest Esaias donated the manuscript to the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Afterward, it ended in the monastery of St. Sabas in Palestine. Sabaiticus 259 is, according to Constantinides and Browning, “an important parchment volume of orations, lives, encomia of saints, and apocryphal works.”²⁵⁴ The homilies of Chrysostom, Basil, Ephraim, and Epiphanius of Cy-

Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200 1 (Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1934).  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 3.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 3.  It was a common practice: despite the curses for the appropriators of books that we find in manuscripts, new owners would erase the references to the previous owners and write down their names. Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 4.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 5.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 5.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 5.  Constantinides and Browning, Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus, 5, 31, 63.

58

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

prus predominate in the opening section of the manuscript.²⁵⁵ The lives of the bishops occupy the middle section, several of which tell the story of bishops from Cyprus, Epiphanius, and Spyridon. The contents have a local hue, judging by the texts about Epiphanius of Cyprus and those written by him.²⁵⁶ The manuscript ends with the texts about female saints and martyrs. The contents of the manuscript partially overlap with the previously discussed Georgian manuscript. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is copied together with the texts of prominent Church Fathers and hagiographies. The text has a separate opening in folio 66r, bearing the title Τὰ παιδικὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and ends in folio 72v. The Vita Deiparae, written by Epiphanius Monachos, follows from folio 73r.²⁵⁷ Its position in the manuscript does not instantly imply its preconceived genre because the text is placed amidst varia, where different texts appear between homilies and hagiographies.

 The contents: fol. 1r-20r – Combat of the three holy children Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, and the prophet Daniel (BHG 0484z-0484*); fol. 21r-31r: Basil of Cesarea, Homilia exhortatoria ad sanctum baptismum (BHG 1935)(6 Jan); fol. 31r-36v: John Chrysostom, Logos in evangelium in annuntiationem Virginis (BHG 1128 f)(25 March); fol. 37r-45r: Epiphanius of Cyprus, Logos in festo palmarum; fol. 45r-51r: John Chrysostom, Logos in parabolam de ficu; fol. 51r-55r: John Chrysostom, Logos in Parthenos in decem virgines; fol. 55r-63v: Ephraim, Encomia in gloriosos martyres; fol. 63v-66r: Pseudo-Eusebius Alexandrinus, Sermo 14: De proditione Judae (BHG 635v-635vd); fol. 66r-72v: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas; fol. 73r-74r: fragment of Vita deiparae by Epiphanius Monachus; fol. 74r-77v: Nicetas Chartoularius, The Miracle in Constantinople; fol. 77v-83v: From the ancient history; fol. 84r-95v: Vita of Artemon taumaturgos; fol. 84– 93v: Life of the father Artemon thaumatourgos; fol. 93v-96: Severianus bishop of Gabala, Logos; fol. 96 – 117v: John Presbyter of Constantias, Life of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus (BHG 596); fol. 117v-132v: Bishop Polybius of Thebaida, Life of Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus (BHG 597– 597b); fol. 133r140r: James the Deacon, Saint Pelagia; fol. 140r-187v: Theodore Bishop of Paphos, Vita of St. Spyridon, bishop of Tremithous in Cyprus; fol. 187v-206r: Vita and martyrdom of Eudocia Samaritana (BHG 604); fol. 206r-216r: Vita of Eutropius, Cleonicus and Basiliskus (BHG 656b)(3 March); fol. 216r-238r: Vita and martyrdom of Febronia (25 June); fol. 238r-246v: Martyrdom of Varo and Cleopatra and her son; fol. 247r-256v: Martyrdom of Thecla (24 Sept); fol. 256v-271r: Martyrdom of Eulampius and Eulampias (BHG 616)(10 Oct); fol. 271r-283v: Martyrdom of Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius and Kelsus (14 Oct); fol. 284r-292v: Martyrdom of Euphemia (16 Sept); fol. 292v-306r: John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Peter and Elias; fol. 306r-310v: Martyrdom of Nicephorus of Antioch (9 Feb); fol. 310v-317r: John Chrysostom, Laudatio St. Susannae. See Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ II, 384– 388; Venance Grumel, “Van Den Ven (Paul), La légende de S. Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte,” Revue des études byzantines 14, No. 1 (1956): 240 – 244, 242; Voicu, “Il nome cancellato,” 317– 333.  It is worth noting that Epiphanius of Cyprus commented on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the fourth century in a relatively mild tone. He did not dismiss this text outright. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 212.  Epiphanius was an author in ninth-century Constantinople.

Eleventh-century Latin evidence

59

The position of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was planned within the contents of this manuscript. The manuscript contains a marginal note from the sixteenth century on folios 66v-68r, which identifies the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a heretical book written by Manicheans.²⁵⁸ A writer of the note discredits the Infancy Gospel of Thomas because it reports the miracles that Jesus performed as a child before he was baptized.²⁵⁹ Burke did not decide whether this manuscript is the sole evidence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Gs variant. There is another fragment that could testify to the same variant.²⁶⁰ Another Gs witness would attest whether the specific and unique features of the Gs text are linked only to Sabaiticus 259 or relate to the variant.²⁶¹

Eleventh-century Latin evidence The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was preserved in the West simultaneously with Sabaiticus 259 in the Latin manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 1772, dating from the eleventh to the twelfth century.²⁶² The manuscript comes from a German Benedictine  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 128.  Cf. John Chrysostom. In his Homily 17 on John (PG 59, 110), he emphasizes: “It remains clear that those miracles, which they say are Christ’s childhood deeds, are false. For if he had begun from his early age to work wonders, neither would John have been ignorant of him, nor would the multitude have needed a teacher to make him known.” See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 6; see also Philip Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1975), 60.  It is the manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Philos. gr. 162, a paper manuscript, 217/220x140/145 mm, dated before 1455. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 129 – 131. See also Peter Lambeck, Commentariorum de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi liber septimus (Vienna: Typis M. Cosmerovii, 1675), 270 – 273; Hunger, Katalog, 265.  Burke was unsure which group to place the Vienna manuscript, Austrian National Library, Philos. gr. 162, and eventually, he placed it together with the other Ga manuscripts. The lack of evidence (since it is a fragment) probably made him hesitant about where to place the manuscript. Nevertheless, he found several features of this text that correspond with the Gs variant. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 129 – 131.  Gijsel argues that this manuscript is dated to the end of the eleventh century. The online manuscript catalogue and Rita Beyers argue that it is dated to the beginning of the twelfth century. The manuscript is written on parchment, of 265x160 mm, 97 folios, and one column. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146; Lauer, Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général 2, 167– 168; Rita Beyers, “Histoire de la recherche, de la composition et de l’origine du libellus De nativitate Sanctae Mariae,” In Libri de nativitate Mariae. Libellus de nativitate Sanctae Mariae, eds. Jan Gijsel, and Rita Beyers (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997): 7– 33; Rita Beyers, “Dans l’atelier des compilateurs. Re-

60

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

abbey, probably Reichenau.²⁶³ This abbey was established in 724 in southern Germany by a bishop Pirminius, presumably of Irish origin.²⁶⁴ The further comments on the manuscript come from my research. The note on folio 1r refers to the works of John Chrysostom in the contents of the manuscript.²⁶⁵ The manuscript opens with a work by Chrysostom.²⁶⁶ The cataloguer gives the manuscript a title: John Chrysostom and Pseudo-Matthew.²⁶⁷

marques à propos de la Compilation latine de l’enfance,” Apocrypha 16 (2005): 97– 136; Beyers, “The transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 120, n. 16; Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129; BnF, “Archives et manuscrits,” Last accessed: 08/06/2021.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129.  See Scott Wells, “Reichenau,” in Encyclopedia of Monasticism II, ed. William M. Johnston (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000), 1070 – 1071; Reichenau became one of the central monastic centers in the Alemannic area and flourished during Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. It is among the critical Carolingian monasteries with close connections to rulers and intellectuals. The ninth century was one of the more prosperous periods of the monastery regarding book production. The Abbey of Reichenau was the most important and artistically most influential center for producing lavishly illuminated manuscripts in Europe during the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. It had the reputation of being the leading center of learning and spirituality by the eleventh century. It also has the first lengthy and detailed medieval library catalog, from the year 821/822. See Bernhard Bischoff, Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 18, 96, n. 20; see also Annika Rulkens, “‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’: The Reichenau Monastery in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries,” MA Thesis (Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 2007), 14– 16. The catalogue is published by Paul Joachim Georg Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz 1 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1918), 251.  In hoc codice continentur libri sancti Johanis Constantinopolitani episcopis qui vocat aureus. See Paris, BnF lat. 1772, fol. 1r. The manuscript is entitled Johannis Chrysostomi opera in the catalog.  The contents are as follows: fol. 1r-16r: John Chrysostom, De eo quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso; fol. 16r-41r: De compunctione cordis I-II; fol. 41r-72r: De reparatione lapsi; fol. 72r-79r: Liber de lapsis ad Theodorum monachum (Homilium ad Theodorum monachum); fol. 79v-90r: PseudoMatthew: fol. 79v-88v: Jerome, Epistola Chromatii et Heliodori, Pseudo-Matthew; fol. 88v-90r: The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (De infantia domini Jesu Christi postquam reversus est in Galilea de Egipto); fol. 90r-95v: Augustine, Sermons of St. Vincent (de festivitate); fol. 95v-96v: Descendance of St. Anne and De genealogia beatae Mariae; fol. 96v-97v: Poetry of a monk of Luxeuil on the death of Constantius, a schoolmaster (Anonymi planctus in obitum Constantii, Monachi Luxoviensis); f. Iv: Fragment of Acts of 1 July 1280, on St. Catherine’s monastery in Avignon. See Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae III (Paris: Typographia Regia, 1744), 190. See Lauer, Catalogue général, 167– 168.  Lauer, Catalogue général, 167. The presence of Chrysostom’s writings in the Latin manuscript points to the interest in his work and the translation activities carried on in the West. Interestingly, Chrysostom was one of the theologians who warned against the apocryphal features of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Eleventh-century Latin evidence

61

It is the earliest known manuscript where the Pseudo-Matthew and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appear together.²⁶⁸ The folios 79v-90r are taken up by the Epistola Chromatii et Heliodori written by Pseudo-Jerome, Pseudo-Matthew, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ²⁶⁹ In the prefatory letters of the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome (the Epistola Chromatii et Heliodori), which start on folio 79v, the two bishops ask Jerome to translate into Latin a Hebrew gospel on the infancy of the Savior and the birth of the Virgin supposedly written by the Apostle Matthew, which was available only in a Manichean version.²⁷⁰ According to these letters, the goal of translating Matthew’s text into Latin is “to make known the extraordinary things of Christ” and to counteract an apocryphal text on the same topic written by “heretics.”²⁷¹ The text that follows the letters is presented as an authoritative account of Mary’s birth and Christ’s infancy, earlier corrupted by heretics.²⁷² Because of these letters about the text’s origins and its connection to the supposed Hebrew text written by the Apostle Matthew, modern scholars call the corpus the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. ²⁷³ Scholars agree that these letters aimed to provide authority to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Elliott argues that the “spurious letters, also found in other manuscripts containing the apocryphal texts, were added to provide this gospel with appropriate credentials.”²⁷⁴ In the view of Jenkins, the Gospel of PseudoMatthew dispelled doubts about its authority by forging a correspondence of St. Jerome.²⁷⁵ The letters provided a warrant for the Pseudo-Matthew by attributing it to a prominent author, the Apostle Matthew. Second, the letters themselves were ascribed to another distinguished author, Jerome, thus giving additional  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 94; see also Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146.  Describing the general structure of the Pseudo-Matthew, Burke notes that chapters 1– 17 are an adaptation of the Protevangelium of James. Then the miracle stories performed by the infant Jesus on his journey in Egypt follow in this corpus (chapters 18 – 24). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas occupies chapters 26 – 42, and it is called pars altera; however, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not part of the original composition of the Pseudo-Matthew. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146 – 148.  Beyers argues that Jerome’s letters were added to a branch of the Pseudo-Matthew around the year 800. Dzon mentions that a set of letters attached to the beginning of the Pseudo-Matthew appears in many manuscripts. See Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 215, n. 2; Beyers, “Introduction,” 15; Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 257; Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60.  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262.  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 263.  Dzon, “Wanton Boys,” 104.  Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60.  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 105.

62

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

credentials to this group of texts. It seems that a necessity emerged at this time in the West to provide a distance vis-à-vis apocryphal Manichean contents in such a form of writing. The letters of Pseudo-Jerome were followed by the core Pseudo-Matthew. The Pseudo-Matthew is defined somewhat differently by individual scholars. While the cataloguer Lauer calls the whole group of texts the Pseudo-Matthew, including the letters of Jerome, the main body of the Pseudo-Matthew, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gijsel considers that the Pseudo-Matthew is only the main body of text between the letters and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Gijsel considers the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as pars altera – an addition to the Pseudo-Matthew. ²⁷⁶ In his description of the Pseudo-Matthew, Burke refers to chapters 1– 17 as an adapted Protevangelium of James. ²⁷⁷ At the same time, Lauer calls this section Nativitas sanctae Mariae (BHL 5334, 5335), which could be wrongly understood as De nativitate Mariae. ²⁷⁸ In the manuscript, the ending sentence of this text is Explicit nativitas sancte marie. ²⁷⁹ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears after the core Pseudo-Matthew, on folios 88v-90r, with a distinct title: De infantia domini Jesu Christi postquam reversus est in Galilea de Egipto. This text in the Lm variant is unfinished, consisting of merely several episodes (26 – 29). The text ends abruptly at folio 90r in the middle of a sentence. The subsequent text by Augustine, Sermons on St. Vincent, continues immediately with a different color of ink. Gijsel presents both the forged correspondence between Chromatius and Heliodorus with Jerome and the presence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Latin manuscripts as later additions to the Pseudo-Matthew, although he classifies this manuscript to belong to the earlier, A family.²⁸⁰ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas here appears with a distinct title; its further presence in manuscripts was characterized by reduced independence and reduced title use. Beyers argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas occasionally follows the Pseudo-Matthew as an independent text, as in this manuscript; gradually, the distinctions between the two texts disappeared and came to constitute one single narrative.²⁸¹ They were merged into one text from the twelfth centu-

 Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129; Lauer, Catalogue général, 167– 168.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146 – 148.  According to Gijsel and Beyers, De nativitate Mariae is a different text, which does not appear in this manuscript. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129; Gijsel and Beyers, Libellus de nativitate Sanctae Mariae; Lauer, Catalogue général, 167.  MS Paris 1772, fol. 88v.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 95.  Beyers, “The Transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 135.

Eleventh-century Latin evidence

63

ry.²⁸² Voicu argues, particularly concerning the Lm variant, which is transmitted in approximately 80 manuscripts (the correct number according to Gijsel and Burke is 76), that it no longer existed as an independent writing, but only as an appendix to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, with which it shares the authority derived from its covering letter.²⁸³ Voicu links the Latin tradition to the Syriac tradition concerning the place and position of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. As we saw earlier, in the Syriac tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas commonly survived within the Life of the Virgin Mary. ²⁸⁴ Even if the Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains a distinct title in this manuscript, it topically relates to the preceding texts. It follows the Pseudo-Matthew, which describes Mary’s childhood, and probably the Prologue in Egypt in the ending section of the Pseudo-Matthew, describing the experiences of the holy family in Egypt. Chronologically, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is correctly set in its place, describing Jesus’ childhood and Mary’s adult years.²⁸⁵ The motive for the compilation of the Pseudo-Matthew seems to have been to further the veneration of Mary.²⁸⁶ According to Lauer, further ahead in this manuscript, we encounter a text about Mary’s mother Anne, the Descendance of St. Annae, and a text about Mary, De genealogia beatae Mariae. Gijsel reports that we here encounter three versions of the Trinubium Annae (BHL 505zn), a short Apocryphon narrating Anne’s three successive marriages to Joachim, Cleophas, and Salomas, and identifies her as the mother of three New Testament Marys (all but Mary Magdalene).²⁸⁷ Further investigation of this section is needed; it currently suffices to say that it was also in some way related to Mary. The links between late antique Syriac tradition and medieval Latin tradition become visible because both traditions tended to use grouped texts to venerate Mary. The central question is why the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript ended in the middle of a sentence. A few possible answers may be offered here. First, the space for this text was perhaps not planned well; the scribe was left

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 148.  Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 412.  Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 412.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129.  Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60.  See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129; Baudouin de Gaiffier, “Le Trinubium Annae: Haymon d’Halberstadt ou Haymon d’Auxerre?” Analecta Bollandiana 90 (1972): 289 – 298; Virginia Nixon, Mary’s Mother: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Europe (University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 2004); Thomas N. Hall, “The Earliest Anglo-Latin Text of the Trinubium Annae (BHL 505z1),” in Via Crucis: Essays on Early Medieval Sources and Ideas in Memory of J. E. Cross, eds. Thomas N. Hall, with Thomas D. Hill, and Charles D. Wright (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2002): 104– 137.

64

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

with too little space to copy the text. Alternatively, when a scribe realized what kind of text he was copying, he stopped and gave up on this text in the middle of a sentence. Altogether, it seems that the contexts in which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was placed significantly changed from Late Antiquity to the eleventh century. During Late Antiquity, the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the palimpsest was combined with other texts about Jesus, while in the Syriac tradition, it was written with the texts about Mary. In the eleventh-century Latin tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is copied with the texts about Mary, in this way resembling the late antique Syriac tradition more than its own late antique Latin tradition. By the eleventh century in the Latin West, originally Greek Apocrypha were translated and further reworked, appropriated, and provided with guarantees to be copied in manuscripts and bolster the veneration of Mary. In this way, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas changed its function from the fifth to the eleventh century in the West, from glorifying Jesus to glorifying Mary. We do not know whether the combination of texts written down in the fifthcentury Latin palimpsest was initially Greek or Latin. However, the Byzantine tradition of the eleventh century dissociated from it since the Byzantine manuscripts place the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a text with a distinct title among other monastic readings, hagiographies, and homilies. The Latin, Byzantine, and Georgian manuscripts of this time all utilize the texts of Chrysostom, a feature that indicates the interest in this author and active translation activities. Mostly, the manuscripts appear to belong to a common type of monastic reading intended for religious instruction. The manuscripts follow a calendar order in the Georgian tradition mainly, and to an extent in the Byzantine. The Latin manuscript Paris 1772 does not use a calendar order; its contents reveal that it could have been a general reader for monastic religious instruction.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the thirteenth-century Byzantium The sole witness of the Byzantine tradition in the thirteenth century is the manuscript Codex Theologicus gr. 123 from the Austrian National Library. I have inspected this manuscript only regarding the folios that cover the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This “Panegyricon” is written on paper.²⁸⁸ The title “Panegyricon”

 This information brings in a different understanding of its cost and value and possibly its

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the thirteenth-century Byzantium

65

given by the cataloguer indicates that this is a collection of sermons or panegyrics, the genre which predominates in the manuscript.²⁸⁹ The manuscript is in poor condition, possibly due to the choice of material. Burke and Hunger report severe damage to the codex, with pages missing, mixed up, and water-damaged.²⁹⁰ Its folios are resolved throughout to the most part. The upper corners of the folios are water-stained and often destroyed by moisture. Some outer edges are slightly worn and with more extensive text loss, such as folios 171 and 177. The restoration of the manuscript was conducted, but it is at times ineffectual and too obvious. There are no signs of the original dedication. Later hands appear, such as the marginal notes in Latin, written by Sebastian Tengnagel.²⁹¹ Because of the notes by Tengnagel, who worked in the library in Vienna in the seventeenth century and obtained many Byzantine manuscripts from Constantinople, I assume that this manuscript originates from Constantinople. The Constantinopolitan manuscripts mostly come from the monasteries of Constantinople, some of which were imperial foundations.²⁹²

use. Parchment codices were a much higher investment than high and late medieval paper manuscripts. Paper manuscripts survive in Byzantium from the eleventh century. The Stoudios monastery, which had a large scriptorium, is likely to have had its paper producers from the ninth century. Paper was always cheaper than parchment, perhaps half the price or less. The imperial secretariat and private individuals seem to have used paper almost exclusively in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. From 1204, parchment was the rule everywhere for three-quarters of the century. It is an exciting detail since this manuscript was dated to the late thirteenth century. From the mid-fourteenth century, the paper once again became dominant. See Nikolaos Oikonomides, “Writing Materials, Documents, and Books,” in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century 2, ed. Angeliki Laiou (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 2002): 589 – 592, 590.  Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften, 74.  Burke, De Infantia Iesu, 144; Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften, 79.  S. Tengnagel lived in the sixteenth-seventeenth century (1563 – 1636) and was a prominent historian and librarian of his time. He was employed at the Vienna Court Library from 1608 to 1636, where he conducted the cataloging and acquisition of manuscripts. He was the most influential man in Vienna concerning oriental studies. He collected oriental manuscripts for the library from Constantinople. See G. J. Toomer, Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 39.  See, e. g., Peter Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350 – 850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Sofia Kotzabassi, ed., The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013); Vlada Stanković, “Comnenian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Context,” Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011): 47– 73.

66

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

This manuscript is a collection of panegyrics, hagiographies, and homi²⁹³ lies. It contains critical Christian authors, such as Chrysostom, Basil, Anastasius Sinaite, Ephraim, Athanasius of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Severianus of Gabala, and Gregory of Nazianzus. We saw some of the same authors and texts in the previously analyzed Sabaiticus 259 and the Georgian manuscript Tbilisi, A 95; they essentiate a similar monastic reader. The saints about whom the

 Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften, 74. The contents: fol.1v-6v: John Chrysostom, In parabolam de filio prodigo; fol. 6v-9v: Ephraim the Syrian, Sermo in pretiosam et vivificam crucem et in secundum adventum et de caritate et eleemosyna (In secundum adventum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi); fol. 9v-13r: Ephraim the Syrian, Sermo de communi ressurectione (BHG 2102y); fol. 13r-23r: John Chrysostom, In Genesim sermo 3 (BHG 0025p-pc); fol. 23r-27v and 29r31r: Anastasius the Sinaite, In sextum psalmum; fol. 28r-v and 31r-33v: Basil the Great, In ieiunio 2; fol. 33v-37r: Anonymous, Passion of St. Theodore Stratelates (BHG 1750); fol. 37v-43v: Anonymous (or Pancratius hagiographus), Passion of St. George (altera, BHG 675); fol. 44r-v: Anonymous, Miracle of St. George about the son of the ruler Leo (BHG 687z); fol. 44v-52r: Anonymous, Narratio de Theophili imperatoris absolutione et imaginum restitutione (BHG 1734); fol. 52r-56r: John Chrysostom, De adoratione pretiosae Crucis (BHG 419b); fol. 56r-61r: John Chrysostom, Simile est regnum caelorum; fol. 61r-63r: Chrysostom, In annuntiationem beatae Mariae (BHG 1128 f); fol. 63r-65v: Chrysostom, In annuntiationem B. Mariae (BHG 1085c); fol. 65v-78r: Sophronius of Jerusalem, Vita of St. Mary of Egypt (BHG 1042c); fol. 78r-80r: John Chrysostom, De Lazaro et divite homilies 6; fol. 80r-82r: In quatriduanum Lazarum homilies 2 (BHG 2231); fol. 82r-85r: Chrysostom, In ramos palmarum; fol. 85r-100v: Ephraim the Syrian, Sermo in pulcherrimum Joseph (BHG 2200b); fol.100v-104r: Chrysostom, In parabolam decem virginum; fol. 104r-108r: Chrysostom, In meretricem et pharisaeum; fol.108r-113v: Severianus of Gabala, In proditionem servatoris; fol.113v-116r: Athanasius of Alexandria, In passionem domini et in parasceve (or Basil of Seleucia, BHG 0422p); fol.116r-124r: Epiphanius of Cyprus, Homilia in divini corporis sepulturam (BHG 0808e); fol.124r-125v: Gregory of Nazianzus, In sanctum pasha et in tarditatem 1– 2; fol.125v128v: John Chrysostom, In triduanam ressurectionem Domini; fol.128v-133r: Archippus, Narration of St. Michael’s Miracle in Chonis (BHG 1282); fol.133r-136r: Germanus I, Patriarch of Constantinople, In praesentationem Beatae Mariae (BHG 1104); fol. 136r-143v: Prochorus, Vita of St. John the Evangelist (BHG 916); fol.143v-148v and 150r-154r: Anonymous, Passion of St. Eustathius, Placida and companions (BHG 0641); fol.154r-159r: Protevangelium of James; fol.160r-167r: Gregory of Nazianzus, In theophania (BHG 1921); fol.167r-170v: Gregory of Nazianzus, In sancta lumina (BHG 1938); fol.171r-176v: John, Liber de dormitione Mariae (BHG 1055); fol.176v-182v: Andrew of Crete, Homilies on Dormition of Mary 1– 3; fol.183r-187r: Anonymous, Passion of St. Demetrius (BHG 0497); fol.187r-188v: Anonymous, Vita and Miracles of Cosmas and Damian (BHG 0373); fol.189r-v and 190r-191v: Anonymous, Vita of St. Zosimus (BHG 1889); fol.191v: Cyril of Jerusalem, In occursum Domini (BHG 1973); fol.192r-193v: Thomas, Evangelium de infantia Salvatoris (Infancy Gospel of Thomas); fol.193v-195r: John Chrysostom, In transfigurationem Domini (= Leontius of Constantinople) (BHG 1975; BHG 1986); fol.195r-198v: Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 33 Homilies on Apostle Thomas (BHG 1839 – 1841); fol.199r-202v: Gregory of Antioch, Homilia in mulieres unguentiferas; fol.202v-206v: John Chrysostom, In Samaritanam (or Leontius of Constantinople); fol.207r-209r: In ascensionem Domini sermo 4; fol.209r-v: John Chrysostom, De sancta pentecoste homily I.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts

67

texts were written in this collection were among the most renowned in Byzantium: George, Archangel Michael, Zosimus, Theodor Stratelates, Mary of Egypt, Demetrius, Cosmas, and Damian. The texts in the manuscript are not aligned according to a calendar. The manuscript Vienna 123 preserves the earliest Gd variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The text in the manuscript is incomplete and reduced to a few pages (192r-193v).²⁹⁴ It covers episodes 10.2 and 11– 19. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins without any title on folio 192r from the phrase μνημόνευέ μου (“remember me”), which appears in the middle of a sentence in episode 10.2 (Water in Cloak). It is not easy to understand the use of this text in excerpts as indicated. The question also remains whether the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is related to the preceding text, In occursum Domini by Cyril of Jerusalem, and to the following text, In transfigurationem Domini by John Chrysostom. The manuscript’s contents indicate that it was a reader used for religious instruction and spiritual growth since it contains panegyrics, hagiographies, and homilies of prominent Christian authors. The manuscript compiles writings beneficial for monastic souls, texts that could have been used for communal or private monastic reading. As the Byzantine tradition of the thirteenth century aligns the Infancy Gospel of Thomas among the prominent monastic readings, it may have also been perceived as a panegyric, homiletic or hagiographical text in this context.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts Around the thirteenth century, the so-called “later” Latin Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas also started appearing in manuscripts. In this period, the Pseudo-Matthew could contain both Latin variants of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Lm variant was linked with the Pseudo-Matthew from the eleventh century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas seems to have been mainly a text merged with the Pseudo-Matthew and without a title. At times, it could have its title and independence from the Pseudo-Matthew. The Pseudo-Matthew is an unstable group of texts, as always. It abandons some of the earlier texts and acquires new texts. The core, which describes Mary’s childhood, gives rise to various new versions with different titles, at least according to catalogers. The texts that come after the Pseudo-Matthew

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 144. See also Pinakes, Textes et manuscrits grecs, < http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/71790/ > Last accessed: 09/06/2021.

68

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

mainly focus either on the miracles of Mary or her death. Sometimes, the texts do not follow a chronological order. As I will demonstrate in what follows, the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas acquire some novel uses in this century. The second earliest Latin manuscript that contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 288, dated to the twelfth to the thirteenth century. It is a composite parchment compilation (251x185 mm, 124 folia), consisting of five libelli, which had separate lives before coming together as a codex, and were written by different scribes at different times.²⁹⁵ The cataloguer was aware of the boundaries of the separate libelli. ²⁹⁶ The composite manuscript was bound together in the thirteenth century. The libellus where the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is placed dates to the thirteenth century. This manuscript contains the Lt Latin variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The manuscript is from

 The manuscript does not have a particular title in the catalog; it is called Alani Cantuariae Epistolae, Gesta Salvatoris, Infantia Salvatoris, and similar. See James, A Descriptive Catalogue, 58 – 63; Vaughan and Fines, A Handlist of Manuscripts; Wilkins, Catalogue des manuscrits français.  The contents: Libellus 1, thirteenth century: fol. 1r-9r: Alanus, Letters (Alani prioris ecclesiae Christi Cantuariae Epistolae ad Henricum III, ad regem Franciae Philippum, praesertim de translatione corporis Thomae Becket, ad Baldwinum episcopum de iure et potestate sedis metropolitanae in episcopum et sedem Roffensem, nempe quod episcopus Roffensis in capitulo ecclesiae Cantuariae eligi debet, ibique spiritualia et temporalia a manu archiepiscopi accipere; et quod monachi Roffenses mortuo episcopo suo baculum eius pastoralem apud Cantuariam portare tenentur, et ad Benedicto abb. De Burgo); Libellus 2, thirteenth century: fol. 10r-33r: Jerome, Sermons (Tractatus de officiis ecclesiasticis); Libellus 3, thirteenth century: fol. 34r-38r: Remigius of Auxerre, Exposition of the Mass (In virtute sancte crucis); Libellus 4, thirteenth century: fol. 38 – 54v: Gregory of Tours, Gesta francorum (De passione et resurrectione domini Iesu: Gesta salvatoris Domini nostri Iesu Christi) (Gijsel: The Gospel of Nicodemus); fol. 54v-60r: Vindicta salvatoris (Vengeance of Christ), fol. 60v-65v: Diatribe against Jews (Gijsel); fol. 65v-78v: Liber de infantia salvatoris: the Letter of Cromatius and Eliodorus to Jerome, De cognatis Ioachimo et Anna, Prologue in Egypt, fol. 78v-82r: Infancy Gospel of Thomas; fol. 82r-84v: Story of the Cross/Post peccatum Adae; fol. 84v-88r: Collection of moral histories (Historiae quaedam fabulosae: de S. Bernardo, de Baldewino, de Mag. Roberto, de Gillebochat, and similar); fol. 88r-97r: Liber de Asenech et quomodo Joseph duxit eam in uxorem (also Poem to the Virgin, Poem on the Church’s corruption); fol. 98v-101v: Book of Methodius, bishop of the Church of Patara and martyr of Christ (Recension of Pseudo-Methodius, Apocalypse, Revelations) (Liber Methodii martyris de initio seculi et fine); fol. 101v-109v: Prophetia Hildegardis, Jordanus Minorita, De Tartaris, Fredericus imperator, Letters against Pope (Epistolae duae ad Anglos contra papam), Gravamina Anglorum adversum potestatem papae; Libellus 5, twelfth century: fol. 111r-124r: Commentary on the Books of Kings, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Daniel, Maccabees (Visiones et narrationes de captivitatibus Israelis et alia historica). See James, A Descriptive Catalogue II, 58 – 63; Gijsel, PseudoMatthaei Evangelium, 168 – 169.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts

69

Christ Church in Canterbury, England, where the binding may have taken place; it is not necessarily the provenance of all the separate libelli. ²⁹⁷ I have examined the folios where the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is copied. The first libellus contains the ecclesiastical correspondence of Alan, a leader of Christ Church in Canterbury, to other ecclesiastics and rulers. The second libellus contains the Sermons of Jerome. The third consists of the Exposition of the Mass by Remigius of Auxerre. The fourth includes the highest number of texts (including the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), written by several hands. Finally, the fifth libellus contains a commentary on the part of the Old Testament. The overall compositional theme of this composite manuscript kept in the Christ Church in Canterbury is not immediately apparent. The fourth libellus may give us a clearer idea of its theme. According to James’ catalog, it opens with the Gesta francorum, a large-scale historical narrative by Gregory of Tours, which in this manuscript describes only the passion and resurrection of Christ.²⁹⁸ Gijsel and Burke report this text as the Gospel of Nicodemus. ²⁹⁹ It may be the case; through a vibrant transmission history, the Gospel of Nicodemus may have transformed in such a way. The Vindicta salvatoris (Vengeance of Christ)³⁰⁰ follows, describing the fate of the Jewish people who are condemned for their role in the death of Jesus and inflicted with horrible punishments, including the violent destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman rulers Titus and Vespasian.³⁰¹ Then the Diatribe against Jews (disputation against the Jews) comes in. This text is commonly found in manuscripts as an appendix to the passion of Christ.³⁰² This part of the manuscript focuses on anti-Jewish writings, possibly from a historical perspective. Then the Pseudo-Matthew follows, entitled Liber de infantia salvatoris. ³⁰³ It consists of the Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome. The following text De cognatis Ioachimo et Anna could have been the Trinubium Annae, as Gij-

 James, A Descriptive Catalogue II, 58.  James, A Descriptive Catalogue II, 58.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 168; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 151: Burke may have thought that this text was the Gospel of Nicodemus when he argued that this manuscript contained it.  In the view of Ehrman and Pleše, the Vengeance of the Savior belongs to the Pilate cycle. Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 537.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 537.  James, A Descriptive Catalogue II, 60.  The title Liber de infantia salvatoris in the Gelasian Decree probably refers to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, but scholars are not in agreement on this point. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 168; Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 268, n. 107; Beyers, “The transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 119.

70

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

sel notes.³⁰⁴ It is followed by the Prologue in Egypt and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ³⁰⁵ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins without any title. The texts within the Pseudo-Matthew form a cycle beginning with Mary’s parents and continuing with Mary’s and Jesus’ childhood. The following Post peccatum Adae (Story of the Cross) continues without a title after some blank space. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not a separate unit but part of the continuous narrative. Therefore, after the treatises about Jews and the life cycles of Mary and Jesus, the remaining texts in this libellus consist of moral histories, poems, apocalypses, historical and polemical letters. Altogether, the manuscript is a miscellany, which within its composite contents contains another miscellany with several dominating themes, such as Jews, Mary and Jesus, and other historical and polemical writings. Another thirteenth-century manuscript analyzed in this book, Dijon, Bibl. Mun. 38 (20), which employs the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, focused in its opening on the writings about Mary and Jesus, followed by Mary’s miracles. The manuscript appeared, taken as a whole, as a monastic educational reading.³⁰⁶ The manuscript has colored initial letters and a fifteenth-century binding.³⁰⁷ It belonged to the Abbey of Notre-Dame de Cîteaux, the founding abbey of the Cistercian order, located in Saint-Nicolas-lès-Cîteaux, south of Dijon, France. A marginal note in folio 193r from the fifteenth century reveals that the manuscript was used in monastic education (Liber ad usus scolarium de Cistercio).³⁰⁸ I have personally examined its first twenty folios. On folio 2r, this manuscript opens with the Prologue of Pseudo-Jerome.³⁰⁹ Gijsel argues that the Pseudo-Matthew is incomplete in this manuscript; it con-

 The Trinubium Annae is a short Apocryphon that narrates Anne’s three successive marriages to Joachim, Cleophas, and Salomas and identifies her as the mother of three New Testament Marys (all but Mary Magdalene). Gijsel reports that the insertion of the Trinubium Annae within the Pseudo-Matthew was a characteristic of the family Q, to which this manuscript belongs. Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 95, 168.  James, A Descriptive Catalogue II, 60; see also MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi 288, fol. 79r.  Dijon is a parchment codex of 194 folios (178x130 mm). Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 118.  This manuscript is entitled in the online catalog as Infancy Gospel, Miracles of the Virgin, sermons, and similar. See Auguste Molinier, and Henri Omont, Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements, Tome V, Dijon (Paris: Plon, 1889), 9 – 10.  Molinier and Omont, Catalogue general, 10.  The contents of the manuscript: fol. 2r-20r: Prologue of Pseudo-Jerome, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (De infantia Salvatoris); fol. 20r-69r: De miraculis beatae Mariae; fol. 69r-74r: Exempla de vitis patrum; fol. 74r-194r: Collection of sermons.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts

71

tains only the response of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus.³¹⁰ Further, we probably have a version of Mary’s childhood, followed by the Prologue in Egypt. On folio 9v, a capital letter indicates the beginning of a new text – the Infancy Gospel of Thomas – with the opening sentence: Et factum est post regressionem ihesu de egypto. There are no marginal notes around the text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is written in one column. The Pseudo-Matthew contains the continuous text without titles; the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not separate from the rest of the texts.³¹¹ After this, the Miracles of Mary (De miraculis beatae Mariae) starts from folio 20r, again, without a title and only with the opening sentence and the capital letter. The whole cycle could have meant to describe the events of Mary’s life. However, this manuscript contains the Examples from the Lives of the Fathers and sermons in its central part. Two other thirteenth-fourteenth century manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, namely, Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, 3014 and Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 271, display novel features in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They both contain the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. These are just two manuscripts out of an increasing number appearing at this time and containing either Lt or Lm variants of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (or a mixed variant). Ten manuscripts described by Gijsel from the thirteenth century already contain the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Among them, Gijsel reports four that contain the Lm variant. Their number certainly increases towards the fourteenth century. I have examined the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, 3014.³¹² Entitled Vita beatae virginis Mariae, this manuscript belonged to a Car-

 Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 118.  Burke argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in this manuscript separately from the Pseudo-Matthew and with the new title. Burke, De Infantia Iesu, 148.  See Calames, Last accessed: 09/06/2021. The contents: fol. 2r-23r: De nativitate Marie; fol. 23r-33r: Infancy Gospel of Thomas (De pueritia Domini, quando Joseph et Maria fugerunt cum Jhesu Christo in Egypto); fol. 33r-35v: De Adam (quomodo misit filium suum Seth pro oleo Mariae); fol. 35v-40r: Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea, Transitus of Mary; fol. 40r-53r: Excerpts (from the different texts; from folio 41r, red capital letters appear frequently. In these excerpts, Mary is mentioned); fol. 53r-74v: Passio Domini nostri Jhesu (quomodo passus sub Pontio Pilato); fol. 74v-87r: The History of Titus and Vespasian in Jerusalem; fol. 87r-93v: Pseudo-Melito, Transitus (de transitu sanctae mariae virginis matris domini nostri ihesu christi); fol.93v-97r: John Chrysostom, Sermon. See also Charles Kohler, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève II (Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et cie, 1896), 572.

72

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

melite monastery in the seventeenth century.³¹³ Gijsel reports that it was a convent of the Carmelites in Dijon.³¹⁴ The manuscript is relatively tiny (145x100 mm) compared to the common lectionary manuscripts.³¹⁵ On folio 1r, a fourteenth-fifteenth-century hand wrote down a piece of rhythmic prose, honoring Saints Andochius, Thyrsus, Consacius, Hospes, and Felix. Its size and the devotional note may have been indicators of its private use, at least when the note was written. The manuscript contains the Pseudo-Matthew, but without the correspondence of Jerome.³¹⁶ The Pseudo-Matthew is entitled De nativitate Marie. ³¹⁷ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (including the Prologue in Egypt on fol. 23r-24v) comes in the Lt variant (24v-33r), without any title. Accordingly, the group of texts by this point covers the childhood of Mary and Jesus. The text about Adam comes in afterward. Although the online catalog places on folios 35v-53r the Transitus Mariae by Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea, followed by various Excerpts, Gijsel argues that these folios store the dialogue between the Saviour and his mother, entitled: Historia qualiter beata Maria migravit ex hoc saeculo. ³¹⁸ Whether these are the same texts needs further investigation.

 There is a note in the upper margin of folio 2r: Ex bibliotheca P. P. Carmelitarum divionensium. Folio 1r may have the contents, probably contemporary to the script of the original manuscript. It also contains a note. The texts start from folio 2r and are written continually in one column. There are almost no marginal notes or decorations. The titles of the texts where present are written in red letters; the rest of the text is black.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 128.  Kim Haines-Eitzen argues that the size of a codex occasionally suggests something about producers and users of the texts. For example, large deluxe copies indeed suggest a more public, well-funded, and possibly liturgical setting. On the other hand, the copies of medium-size and less literary hands may hint at private copies for individuals or small congregations with limited means. Baun talks about tiny manuscripts (e. g., 10x8 cm), which were, in her words, “perfect for slipping into a pocket and carrying around.” Bartlett argues that grand manuscripts were designed for public reading in a church or monastery. Bischoff identified a substantial number of manuscripts that show clear evidence of having been folded in half, presumably to be stuffed into a pocket or bag. The folded size would be convenient for a journey or carrying around. See Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 507– 8; Kim Haines-Eitzen, “The Social History of Early Christian Scribes,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, eds. Bart D. Ehrman, and Michael W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 479 – 496, 491– 2; Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 62.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 128.  According to Gijsel and Beyers, De nativitate Mariae is another text, which does not appear in this manuscript. What we have here is the Pseudo-Matthew. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 129; Gijsel and Beyers, Libellus de nativitate Sanctae Mariae.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 128; see also Calames.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts

73

At the end of the manuscript, we encounter another Transitus Mariae, written by Pseudo-Melito.³¹⁹ This text describes the death of Mary. Jenkins holds that it places Mary starkly in Christ’s role, which was (as he puts it) daring and blasphemous.³²⁰ Without going further into the analysis of his last point, it seems interesting that this text ascribes such a role to Mary (described as Christ), mainly because we have the text about Jesus’ suffering, the Passio Domini nostri Jhesu (possibly the Gospel of Nicodemus) somewhat earlier in the manuscript. AmyJill Levine argues that in the Transitus Mariae, Mary’s passing is partially modeled on Jesus’ passion.³²¹ Jesus and Mary are given equal attention since the manuscript describes both their childhood and their death. In the view of Miri Rubin, the narratives of Mary’s end shared two goals: the praise of Mary, her miraculous end, and the disparagement of the Jews as Mary’s enemies.³²² It needs to be investigated further whether the latter feature exists in this manuscript. In this manuscript, the texts mainly describe Mary and Jesus’ lives, while some are, according to the titles, historicized and turned into historical tales. The historical narrative about Vespasianus and Titus (The History of Titus and Vespasian in Jerusalem) could have been placed in folios 74v-87r to provide a contextual historical background of the first-century siege of Jerusalem. This manuscript could have also been devotional since the texts are dedicated to Mary and Jesus, and the manuscript contains a note to saints. Its size and the note indicate that it may have been used privately. The manuscript unites late antique Latin and Syriac traditions. What was testified in the Latin palimpsest and the Syriac manuscripts content-wise now comes together in a single manuscript: the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Protevangelium of James, the Evangelium of Nicodemus, and the Transitus Mariae. Another manuscript containing the Lt variant is Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 271, dated to the fourteenth century.³²³ It is a parchment codex containing 90 fo-

 Elliot presumes that Transitus Sanctae Mariae was the text Assumption of the Virgin written by Pseudo-Melito, which the Gelasian Decree denounces as an apocryphal book in the sixth century. The cataloguer confirms that this was the case in this manuscript. Jenkins argues that the Transitus Marie is a fifth-century text, falsely presented as the work of the renowned second-century Church Father Melito of Sardis. Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 66; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 110.  Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 112.  Amy-Jill Levine, “Introduction,” in A Feminist Companion to Mariology, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, with Maria Mayo Robbins (London: T&T Clark International, 2005): 1– 14, 8.  Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary (London: Penguin Books, 2010), 55.  Hagen Hermann, Catalogus codicum Bernensium (Bibliotheca Bongarsiana) (Bern: Typis B. F. Haller, 1875), 301– 303; Sinner, Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, 245 – 258. Sin-

74

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

lios.³²⁴ On folios 1, 25, and 90, we find the signature of Arnoul Thierry, an ecclesiastical dignitary (canon) of Metz in the fifteenth century.³²⁵ This manuscript contains mainly fragments and short extracts from different works. Gijsel argues that the Pseudo-Matthew is its only complete text.³²⁶ I have investigated the folios where the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is copied. In the manuscript, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (fol. 41r-42v) appears as a text entitled Tractatus Thomae hysmaelite de operibus ihesu post regressionem eius de egypto. It is distinguished from the previous text, Tractatus de passione domini nostri of Pseudo-Bernard, and it does not have the Prologue in Egypt attached to its opening. Immediately after the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has the last “amen,” the text continues without a new title. The text of the Infancy Gospel does not end on folio 44r, as scholars maintain, but on 42v.³²⁷ The contents of folio 43r are of unidentified origin. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas comes earlier in the manuscript than the Pseudo-Matthew.

ner’s catalog mentions the apocryphal nature of the text. It says that this could be either a “Manichean Gospel,” published under Thomas’ name, or a “Gnostic Gospel.”  The contents: fol.1r-13r: Isidori synonyma, with prologue; fol.13r-21r: Distinctiones Roberti Grossi capitis Linthoniensis episcopi, quae vocatur templum dei; fol.21r: Excerptum Bernardi; fol.21v: Versus varii argumenti: Casus pape, Casus episcopi, Abluo firmo cibo dolet urgitur ordino iungo, Quinque modis peccat maritus, Festa sacerque locus, De pollutione; fol. 21v: Excerpta ex Gregorio et Bernardo; fol.22r: Figurae duae virtutes et vitia demonstrantes; fol.22v-23v: Sententiae variae ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis collectae, Augustine and Jerome; fol.25r-25v: Tractatus de calamitate seu miseria luminis; fol.25v-26v: Tractatus de dilectione; fol.26v-27r: Versus de superbia LXXVII; fol.27r-36v: Tractatus de superbia; fol.36v-37r: De hora exitus et separationis corporis et animae; fol.37r: Quid sit bene ieiunare; fol.37v: De eo quod multi ab oriente et occidente venient et recumbent; fol.37r-37v: De eo quod omnis electus atque perfectus et homo et vitulus et leo et aquila figuraliter sit; fol.37v-38r: De eo quod scriptum est; fol.38r: De duobus altariis in homines, uno in corpore et alio in corde; fol.38r-38v: De tertia et septima et tricesima die defunctorum; fol.38v-41r: Beati Bernardi tractatus de passione domini nostri; fol.41r-42v: Thomae Ismaelitae tractatus de operibus Jesu post regressionem eius de Aegypto; fol. 43r-44r: an unknown text; fol.44r-45r: Anonymi tractatus de gestis Salvatoris (de assumptione Mariae); fol.45r-45v: Chromatii et Heliodori epistula ad Hieronymum de ortu beatae Mariae virginis; fol.45v: Hieronymi epistula ad Chromatium et Heliodorum; fol.45v-53v: De vita Joachim et de eleemosyna eius; fol.53v-55v (hand from fourteenth-fifteenth century): Tractatus de periurio; fol.56r-90r: Speculum ecclesiae; fol.90r (hand from fourteenth-fifteenth century): Tractatus de poenitentia; fol.90r-90v: Excerpta nonnula ex Ambrosio, Isidoro, Augustino. Hermann, Catalogus codicum Bernensium, 301– 303.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 167.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 167.  See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 167; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 150.

Thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts

75

Burke argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is followed by a complete Transitus Mariae attributed to Joseph of Arimathea.³²⁸ Hermann argues that the following text is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (De assumptione Mariae).³²⁹ Elliott presumes that the Assumption of the Virgin may have been the text Transitus Sanctae Mariae written by Pseudo-Melito.³³⁰ Gijsel notes that on folios 44r-45r, we find the beginning of the Transitus Mariae. ³³¹ It is not clear whether this text was attributed to Joseph of Arimathea or Pseudo-Melito, but in any case, it has Mary’s death as a subject. The Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome and the reply come in as late as in folio 45r. These letters probably served the earlier purposes within the Pseudo-Matthew, to justify and provide an air of authority. After the letters, we find the De vita Joachim et de eleemosyna eius, which could be a version of the Protevangelium of James, describing Mary’s birth and childhood. In this manuscript, the Pseudo-Matthew concerns only the letters to Jerome and Mary’s birth and childhood. Jesus’ childhood comes earlier in the manuscript; it is unrelated to the Pseudo-Matthew. The order of texts is not chronological. Burke (relying on Gijsel) argues that the ending of De vita Joachim contains the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ³³² It is questionable because a new text appears in folio 53v, Tractatus de periurio, written by a fourteenth-fifteenth century hand. The copying of the manuscript was abandoned in the thirteenth century, only to be continued again one to two centuries later, but with a different text. The contents show that the manuscript was intended to provide religious instruction. To sum up, in the thirteenth century, the Pseudo-Matthew evolved and transformed through the abandonment of some texts and the addition of new texts. Its focus is on Mary and Jesus, their childhood, Jesus’ early life, Mary’s adult years, and sometimes Mary’s parents. The Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears, for the most part, as a text merged with the Pseudo-Matthew. After the Pseudo-Matthew, we usually find in the manuscripts either the Miracles of Mary or the description of her death (Transitus Mariae). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is located within the Pseudo-Matthew in the manuscripts where the Transitus Mariae and the Gospel of Nicodemus often appear. In this way, the late antique Latin tradition (from the palimpsest) and the late antique Syriac tradition are combined in these manuscripts, emphasizing Mary’s and Jesus’ life and death.     

Burke, De infantia Iesu, 155. Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 66. Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 66. Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 167. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 155.

76

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

In the Byzantine tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears as a text among the texts of other prominent Christian authors, panegyrics, hagiographies, and homilies. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas could have been viewed as a hagiographic or homiletic text in Byzantium. Some of the Latin manuscripts gradually align the Pseudo-Matthew with historiographical works. Possibly, the lives of Mary and Jesus were also perceived as historicized texts at this time. Most of the manuscripts appear as tools in monastic religious instruction. The manuscripts in the West are written on parchment, which implies more considerable investment, while concurrently, paper is used for the Byzantine manuscripts containing this text, which may link them to a more typical everyday use.

Slavonic evidence The earliest preserved Slavonic manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appear as late as the fourteenth century.³³³ Two fourteenth-century manuscripts are analyzed in what follows: St Petersburg 13.3.17 and Hludov 162. They are among the medieval manuscripts, which have their contents known.³³⁴ I have personally examined both manuscripts. The manuscript St Petersburg 13.3.17 (“Sbornik of Loveč”) is traditionally dated to 1337– 1355 and written in Middle Bulgarian (formerly Codex no.15). Some scholars argue that it originates from the late fourteenth century, while

 Thomas Rosén, The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 39 (Uppsala: Coronet Books Inc., 1997), 25. This text appears in six medieval manuscripts (from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century) and ten early modern manuscripts. The early modern, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century manuscripts will be excluded from this study. I also exclude two sixteenth-century manuscripts (included by Rosén within the medieval corpus) from the study.  Two other of the earliest four manuscripts are destroyed and fragmentarily preserved. One of them, dating to the mid-fourteenth century, written in Serbian, from the National Library, Belgrade (Serbia), Codex 637 from the collection of P. S. Srećković, was destroyed in the World War II bombing of Belgrade in 1941. Novaković had previously edited the IGT from this manuscript. It was a parchment codex. The contents of the manuscript are partly recorded. The main contents were church encomia and the lives of the saints. He testifies to the five titles in the manuscript, namely, Encomion of the prophet Jeremiah about the siege of Jerusalem, The Youth of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Deeds of the Holy Apostles Andrew and Matthew, The Deeds of the Holy Apostle Thomas, The Martyrdom of St. George. In his view, all the texts mentioned above are Apocrypha. The second manuscript is the fifteenth-century Croatian Glagolitic fragment from the Archives of the Croatian Academy of Sciences in Zagreb, Fragment 99, which was preserved only in part, as “one page of a small format.” See Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilovskog zbornika,” 36; Grabar, “Glagoljski odlomak,” 213.

Slavonic evidence

77

others date it earlier than 1331.³³⁵ The manuscript contains a marginal note attesting a scribe, Pachomios, and the commissioners, the Bulgarian ruler Ivan Alexander (r. 1331– 1371) and his son Mihail. The copying took place during the archiepiscopate of Symeon in Loveč.³³⁶ Ivan Alexander commissioned this “Sbornik of Loveč” (Loveč Collection) while he was a despot there (before 1331).³³⁷ Thus, the manuscript could be dated before 1331. The entire manuscript contents were copied at once; the texts were intentionally compiled together.³³⁸ David Birnbaum describes the manuscript as a “mixed-content miscellany,” arranged without any visible organizational principle, without a uniform genre and function.³³⁹ The manuscript contains Sayings of the Fathers (from Paterikon), various encomia, hagiographical texts, lives of saints, expositions of the faith, some works by known authors (including Severianus of Gabala), the Nomokanon (Guide to Ecclesiastical Law), Decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Rules, but also Apocrypha, apocalypses, a Kalendarium, and the Thunder-book (“Gromnik”).³⁴⁰

 Jacimirskij dates the manuscript to the period from 1337– 1355. See Jacimirskij, Из славянских рукописей, 144.  Jacimirskij, Из славянских рукописей, 144. Loveč was the Metropolitan seat in the Second Bulgarian Empire (1186 – 1393).  Ivan Alexander was a despot of Loveč by 1330. Some scholars see his patronage and support as crucial for this compilation. Kuio Мarkov Kuev, “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник, писан преди 1331. г” (The Destiny of the Sbornik of Loveč, Written before 1331), in Търновска книжовна школа 1371 – 1971, Международен симпозиум Велико Търново, 11– 14 октомври 1971 (София: Българската Акаемия на науките, 1974): 79 – 88.  This manuscript, kept in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg, is called “The Collection of Apocrypha” by catalogers. Several scholars have worked on describing the contents. Jacimirskij acknowledged some, while David Birnbaum added more titles to this list. Alexei Sergeev has also been working on describing the manuscript contents in the Library in St Petersburg. I am grateful to him for sharing his findings of the contents of this manuscript with me.  David Birnbaum, “Computer-Assisted Analysis and Study of the Structure of Mixed Content Miscellanies,” Scripta & e-Scripta 1 (2003): 15 – 64.  The table of contents is as follows: fol. 1– 41v: Sayings of the Fathers, an excerpt of the Life of Paisios from the “Skitski” Paterikon (Paterikon is a collection of stories about monks; this one was a seventh-century collection of stories about Egyptian monastic figures (Birnbaum)); fol. 41v-46r: Encomion of Macarius the Great (within this text, in f. 44: Sayings of the Elders (Poimen, Amon, Macarius, Longinus, Silvanus, Bessarion, Paul of Galatia, etc.); fol. 46 – 71v: Sayings of the Fathers (f. 58: Slovo; f.59: Slovo; f. 60: St. Isaias; f. 60: many sayings without titles of many fathers); fol. 71v-72v: The Vita of St. Benedict (According to D. Birnbaum, an excerpt); fol. 72v-78: Narrative from the Books (Birnbaum); fol. 78r-79v: Encomion; fol. 80r-87v: John the Philosopher, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith; fol. 88v-89v: St. Epiphanius; fol. 89v-95r: Severianus of Gabala, Šestodnev; fol. 96r-102v: Reading of St. Nicetas (Birnbaum – Vita of St. Nikita); fol.102v-113v: Vita

78

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The Bulgarian scholar Kuev argues that the “Sbornik of Loveč” did not relate directly to worship or liturgy and could not have been used in ritual services.³⁴¹ The idea of a scribe was to bring writings of different sorts to readers to satisfy broader interests common to the higher strata of society.³⁴² It is why the manuscript contains not only liturgical and religious texts but also historical texts. Kuev argues that the manuscript might have had an encyclopedic character.³⁴³ It could have been intended as a home reading with various contents, historical and liturgical-religious readings. The collection contains some dogmatically essential texts, such as the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John Philosopher and the Decisions of the Seven Church Councils. Kuev explains the presence of these texts by the religious turmoil and unrest of the time. Several scholars see the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a Bogomil reading.³⁴⁴ The Bogomils have often been connected to apocryphal readings, and Bogomil groups in the Balkans were known to have sponsored and circulated translations of apocryphal texts.³⁴⁵ Krstev argues that the Slavonic version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appealed to the anti-Semitic Bogomils in the Slavonic milieu.³⁴⁶ However, Ivan Alexander, whose rule in the Second Bulgarian Empire was characterized by the cultural renaissance, made efforts to strengthen the Bulgarian Orthodox Church by pursuing heretics and Jews. Ivan Alexander openly con-

and Deeds of Mark of Athens; fol. 114r-132r: Encomion of the holy Father Methodius, Bishop of Patras (Birnbaum – Revelation of St. Methodius of Patara); fol. 132v: The Rules of the Holy Fathers; fol. 130: Nomokanon, excerpt (Birnbaum), Guide to ecclesiastical law and procedure; fol. 152v: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: fol. 168 – 176v: Paterikon (untitled, generally contains the sayings of the fathers); fol. 177r-183v: Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Birnbaum: “Acts of our Lord Jesus Christ”); fol. 183v: Kalendarium/Kalendologion; fol. 184r-185v: Gromnik (Birnbaum – Thunder-Book) (without title, Sermon about the seven heavenly planets). Birnbaum mentions several other titles that belong to the contents of this manuscript: Sermon for the Assumption, Interpretations on the Holy Trinity and the Christian Faith, excerpts. See Birnbaum, “ComputerAssisted Analysis,” 16.  Kuev, “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник,” 83.  Kuev, “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник,” 83.  kuev, “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник,” 83.  E. g., Jordan Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди (Bogomil Books and Legends) (София: Наука и изкуство, 1970).  Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium, 68. On Bogomils and Apocrypha, see Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947).  Georgi Krstev, “Мястото на детство Исусово в раннохристиянската традиция и апокрифната книжнина на средновековна България” (The Place of Jesus’ Childhood in Early Christian Tradition and the Apocryphal Literature of Medieval Bulgaria), Palaeobulgarica 15, No. 3 (1991): 91– 101.

Slavonic evidence

79

demned Bogomils, Adamites, and Judaizers and convened two councils against the heretics in Bulgaria (1350 and 1359 – 1360). From this perspective, it is peculiar why the manuscript commissioned by a Bulgarian tsar and a prominent Orthodoxy champion contained Thomas’ Infancy Gospel. Krstev argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript was intended to serve as an anti-Jewish propagandistic text. The commissioner, Ivan Alexander, consequently came to be associated with anti-Jewish sentiments.³⁴⁷ However, Jews lived in eleventh- and twelfth-century Bulgaria. The Asen family (who founded and ruled the Second Bulgarian Empire) encouraged Jewish merchant families to settle there.³⁴⁸ John Fine is hesitant to claim the anti-Jewish sentiments of the time. Thus, these sentiments in the text would need to be investigated further. The Kalendarium (Kalendologion) and Thunder-book in manuscript St Petersburg appear as new and specifically Slavic addition to the contents. The Kalendologion is an omen book about “the day of the week on which Christmas falls.” The “Thunder-book” or Gromnik (a manual of divination by thunder, Brontologion) is a sermon about the seven heavenly planets, describing thunder in terms of the zodiac and the age of the moon.³⁴⁹ Such divination books as the Gromnik and the Kalendologion were regarded in the medieval Slavonic tradition as “rejected by God.” They were included in the lists of prohibited books, but they continued to be copied.³⁵⁰ The prognostic books were widespread and appeared in collections associated with astrological and medical manuscripts in Late Antiquity.³⁵¹ In the Slavonic tradition, they appear in various  Krstev, “Мястото на детство Исусово.”  John Fine is cautious about concluding whether there existed anti-Jewish public opinion as a state policy in Bulgaria. His caution is due to the large numbers of Jewish refugees who arrived in Bulgaria from Bavaria and Hungary. The contacts between Christians and Jewish communities resulted in conversions and a certain degree of syncretism, which was rejected as heretical by the Orthodox establishment. John V. A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1987), 449.  See Robert Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa: The Written Tradition,” in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995): 155 – 178, 167.  See Anissava Miltenova, “Marginality, Intertextuality, Paratextuality in Medieval Bulgarian Literature,” in Marginality in/of Literature, ed. Raya Kuncheva (Sofia: Boyan Penev Publishing Centre, 2011): 108 – 133, 112.  They also contained Lunaries, predictions of lucky and unlucky days. Such texts appeared in the broader context of medical texts because they contained guidance for healing procedures, helping the doctors choose the date for healing interventions and similar issues. See Adelina Angusheva, “The Application of Computer Tools to an Investigation of the Place of Prognostic

80

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

manuscripts containing monastic and liturgical texts.³⁵² Their presence in miscellanies of mixed contents can be explained by the need to include texts in the “medical section” of the manuscripts. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, aligned next to these texts, may have been perceived to have a focus on the healing miracles of Jesus, constituting in this way the “medical section.” The manuscript altogether could have been devised as a tool for a program of “healing body and soul.” The texts focusing on the “soul” were the introductory Sayings of the Fathers, while the “body” section contained the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the two other prognostic books. Eventually, the “Sbornik of Loveč” was transferred to the royal library of Veliko Tarnovo, the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire.³⁵³ Nina Gagova argues that Ivan Alexander did not possess this manuscript personally.³⁵⁴ Only six manuscripts are known to have belonged to him, but the Loveč miscellany is not among them.³⁵⁵ Even if not his personal property, the manuscript was possibly used by both rulers and courtiers at the Bulgarian court.

Books in Medieval Slavic Tradition,” in Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML: Problems and Perspectives, eds. Anissava Miltenova, and David Birnbaum (Sofia: Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, 2000): 222– 230, 225.  From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, they appear in the manuscripts of mixed contents in the Orthodox Slavic milieu. The Old Slavic tradition diverges from the Latin and Byzantine because it did not include all the varieties of manuscript types in which Prognostic books may appear. Angusheva, “The Application of Computer Tools,” 225.  Kuev, “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник,” 80.  It is generally known that Ivan Alexander was a generous patron of monasteries, art, and literature. Certain monasteries acquired the reputation of being educational and literary centers, and many of them were under the tzar’s patronage. Cultural activities were strongly supported at his court. Ivan knew Greek and had a large library. Under his patronage, many works were copied, and many new translations from Greek were done. The translations included religious, liturgical works, early Church fathers, contemporary Byzantine theologians, saints’ lives, accounts of the Ecumenical councils, Byzantine chronicles, popular tales (Fall of Troy, Alexander), legal works, and works on medicine and natural science. Ivan Alexander, at this time, also commissioned an encyclopedia with a heavy theological emphasis. Many Bulgarian manuscripts from this period were illuminated by outstanding illuminations, such as the London Gospel. See Fine Jr, The Late Medieval Balkans, 436.  Nina Gagova, “A Study of Groups of Manuscripts Chosen by Socio-Cultural Criteria (Manuscripts Belonging to Rulers’ Libraries from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries),” in Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML: Problems and Perspectives, eds. Anissava Miltenova, and David Birnbaum (Sofia: Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, 2000): 131– 169, 131. See also Vasil Gjuzelev, Učilišta, skriptorii, biblioteki i znanija v Bălgarija: XIII–XIV vek (Schools, Scriptoria, Libraries and Knowledge in Bulgaria: Thirteenth–Fourteenth Century) (Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1985).

Slavonic evidence

81

Rulers needed to read Christian ecclesiastical authors of high authority in Byzantine and Slavic traditions.³⁵⁶ Rulers also had to read historical works. The choice of rulers’ readings was based on a straightforward concept: the medieval Orthodox Christian ruler should be a true believer and defender of Orthodoxy, a victor in battles, honest, and wise. They needed books “for spiritual health and salvation of the soul, their own and of their families and for strengthening their kingdom.”³⁵⁷ This argument partly accords with the “body and soul program,” which I have suggested earlier. Another Slavonic manuscript containing the Infancy Gospel is Moscow, Russian State Historical Museum, Collection of A. I. Hludov, Cod. 162, dated to the fourteenth century. It is written on parchment in semi-uncial letters by Serbian redaction of the Old Slavonic language. It is a Festal Menaion with synaxarion entries and a collection of encomia and sayings.³⁵⁸ One single hand wrote the manuscript, which means that the contents were planned for the collection. A note on folio 247r from the fifteenth century reveals that the manuscript was kept in the monastery St. Nicholas (Vuneš), near the village Ljubanci and close to Skopje in North Macedonia. I have personally inspected this manuscript. This manuscript is a “trefologium,” i. e., a selection of services for the saints. The manuscript has three parts. The first part contains the services for the saints for the immovable feasts of the summer part of a calendar year, from February until August.³⁵⁹ The second part contains selected entries from the “Prologue,”

 Gagova, “A Study of Groups of Manuscripts,” 155.  Gagova, “A Study of Groups of Manuscripts,” 154.  See Svetlina Nikolova, Maria Yovcheva, Tanya Popova, and Lora Taseva, Българското средновековно културно наследство в сбирката на Алексей Хлудов в Държавния исторически музей в Москва. Каталог (Bulgarian Medieval Cultural Heritage in the Collection of Alexey Hludov in the State Historical Museum of Moscow. Catalog) (София: Кирило-Методиевски научен център, 1999), 44– 45. The manuscript contains 254 folios (26,5x20,5 cm). Folios 1 and 254 were added later, and folio 109v is empty. On the first folio of the manuscript, which was left blank, there are notes, two of which are in Greek. The texts begin in red letters. The titles are visible and marked. Dates are written too, which implies the arrangement according to a calendar. Every text starts with “In the month of…” See Popov, Описание рукописей, 316.  The contents are the following: fol. 2r-6r: St. Tryphon (14 Feb); fol. 6r-11r: The presentation of Jesus in the Temple (15 Feb); fol. 11r-12v: Saint Symeon the God-Receiver (16 Feb); fol. 12v-13v: Memory of St. Symeon who received God (16 Feb); fol. 13v-17r: Burying the head of St. John the Baptist (24 Feb); fol. 17r-20v: 40 holy martyrs of Sebaste (9 Mar); fol. 20v-31v: Annunciation of the Theotokos (25 Mar); fol. 31v-34v: Archangel Gabriel (26 Mar); fol. 34v-42r: St. George (23 Apr); fol. 42r-45v: St. Mark the Apostle (25 Apr); fol. 45v-48r: St. Jeremiah the Prophet (1 May); fol. 48r-58r: The Apostle John (8 May); fol. 52r: a marginal note in red letters, Cyrillic; fol. 58r62v: St. Constantine and Helena (21 May); fol. 62v-66v: St. Theodore Stratelates (8 June); fol. 66v-72r: St. Bartholomew and Barnabas (11 June); fol. 72r-78v: St. Onuphrius and Peter the

82

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

i. e., the synaxarion. It is not visible where the first part ends and the second part begins since the text is continuous. The only indicator is the entries, which are shorter in the following section. The second part follows the entries for the winter part of the calendar year, from September until January.³⁶⁰ The section with the encomia starts from folio 197 as a continuous text. It contains the texts for the most important feasts of the calendar year, including the encomia on the Birth, Epiphany, and Resurrection of Christ, and encomia of prominent authors, such as John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, John the Exarch, and Theodosius the Athonite.³⁶¹ This part also contains the Miracles of St.

Athonite (12 June); fol. 78v-82v: St. Elisha the Prophet and St. Methodius Patriarch of Constantinople (14 June); fol. 82v-92r: Birth of St. John the Baptist (24 June); fol. 92r-102r: Apostles Peter and Paul (29 June); fol. 102r-109r: Synaxis of the Twelve Apostles (30 June); Half of folio 109r is empty; the text continues in 110r. Folio 109v has a note, which seems like a later addition, an interpretation of the title from 110r, saying: in the month of June, saint and miraculous Cosmas and Damian; fol. 110r-113v: St. Cosmas and Damian of Rome (1 July); further in the continuation of the same folios, 110r-113v: The placing of the Robe of the Theotokos (2 July); fol. 113v-118v: St. Andrew of Crete and St. Martha the mother of Symeon (4 July); fol. 118v-124r: St. Procopius (8 July); fol. 124r-125r: The placing of the Robe of the Theotokos; fol. 125r-129r: Sts. Cyricus and Julitta (15 July); fol. 129r-132r: St. Marina (17 July); fol. 132r-139r: St. Eliah the Prophet (20 July); fol. 139r-144v: St. Petka/Paraskeva (26 July); fol. 144v-151r: St. Panteleimon (27 July); fol. 151r153r: Holy Maccabees (1 Aug); fol. 153r-156v: Translation of relics of St. Stephen (2 Aug); fol. 156v-164r: Transfiguration of Christ (6 Aug); fol. 164r-167r: St. Matthew the Apostle (9 Aug), St. Micah the Prophet (14 Aug) and Assumption of the Theotokos (15 Aug); fol. 167r-175r: Assumption of the Theotokos (15 Aug); fol. 175r-185v: Beheading of St. John the Baptist (29 Aug); fol. 185v-186r: Placing the robe of the Theotokos.  The contents are the following: fol. 186r: Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept); fol. 186v: St. Thecla (24 Sept); fol. 187r: Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian (26 Sept); fol. 187r: St. Thomas the Apostle (6 Oct); fol. 187v: St. Sergius and Bacchus (7 Oct); fol. 187v: St. Luke the Evangelist and Apostle (18 Oct); fol. 188r: St. James the Apostle (23 Oct); fol. 188v: St. Demetrius (26 Oct); fol. 188v: Sts. Cosmas and Damian (1 Nov); fol. 189r: Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel (8 Nov); fol. 189v: Sts. Minas, Victor, Vicentius, and Stephen (11 Nov); fol. 189v: St. John Chrysostom (13 Nov); fol. 190r: Holy Apostle and Evangelist Philip (16 Nov); fol. 190v: Entrance of the Theotokos (21 Nov); fol. 191r: St. George (23 Nov) and St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle (30 Nov); fol. 191v: St. Barbara (4 Dec); fol. 191v: St. Nicholas the Archbishop (6 Dec); fol. 192r: St. Daniel the Prophet (17 Dec); fol. 193r: St. Ignatius of Antioch (20 Dec); fol. 193v: The Birth of Christ, Christmas (25 Dec); fol. 194r: St. Stephen the Protomartyr (27 Dec); fol. 194v: Circumcision of Christ (1 Jan); fol. 195v: Synaxis of St. John the Baptist (7 Jan); fol. 196r: The Apostle Peter’s Miraculous Chains (16 Jan); fol. 196v: St. Athanasius of Alexandria (18 Jan); fol. 196v: St. Gregory of Nazianzus (25 Jan).  John the Exarch was an important champion of the Orthodox faith against the dualistic, Manichean and Bogomil heresies. This fact is striking since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has been considered a text close to the Bogomil heresy. See Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди, 20.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts

83

Nicholas, the Encomium on the Birth of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica, the Martyrdom of St. George, the apocryphal Apocalypse of the Apostle John (Jovan Bogoslov), as well as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ³⁶² The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is placed in this section together with the other prominent texts between the encomia on the Birth of Christ and the Epiphany of Christ. Anissava Miltenova notes that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was copied in Slavonic liturgical manuscripts, e. g., in a manuscript from the end of the fourteenth century (she probably means this manuscript), where it was a reading for Christmas.³⁶³ The appearance of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is here explained by the felt need to bridge the gap between the birth of Christ and the other significant events of his life. This argument was heard in earlier scholarship, and it may apply here.³⁶⁴ Bridging the gap in the description of Jesus’ life in this manuscript, as well as the healing miracles in manuscript St Petersburg, may have been the essential features of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the eyes of the contemporary Slavic scribes and commissioners who placed this text in these collections. In this way, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was found in new contexts in the Slavonic sphere, where it was used in liturgy and the royal settings.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts Only one Byzantine manuscript containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is extant from the fourteenth century. The fourteenth-century Codex Vatopedi 37 comes from Mount Athos (Vatopediou monastery). A part of this manuscript,

 The contents are the following: fol. 197r-200v: John Chrysostom, Encomion on the Birth of Christ; fol. 200v-206r: The Childhood of Jesus (Placed between 25 Dec and 6 Jan); fol. 206r208v: John the Exarch, Encomion on the Epiphany of Christ; fol. 208v-212r: John Chrysostom, Encomion (Slovo) on the Resurrection of Christ; fol. 212r-215v: Theodosius the Athonite, Encomion on repentance; fol. 215v-219r: Ephrem the Syrian, On repentance; fol. 219r-222r: Ephrem the Syrian, Encomion; fol. 222r-223v: The Miracles of St. Nicholas; fol. 223v-224v: Encomion on Annunciation of Birth of St. Demetrius; fol. 224v-228v: Encomion on the Birth of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica; fol. 228v-237v: Martyrdom of St. George; fol. 237v-247r: John of Damascus, Encomion on Annunciation of the Theotokos; fol. 247r: the text is finished by half of the page; the rest of the page is empty. There is a note, not very visible; fol. 247v: a note in Greek; fol. 248r-252v: Encomion of the Apostle John; fol. 252v-253v: Laudation of the Mother of God of Constantinople; fol. 254r-v: a note.  Miltenova, “Marginality, Intertextuality, Paratextuality,” 118.  Scholars think that the texts about the childhood of Jesus, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, appeared to fill the gaps in our knowledge about this period of Jesus’ life. See footnote 5. See also Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 254.

84

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

namely, folios 9 – 12 and 267– 272, are written by a second hand and added in the sixteenth century.³⁶⁵ Folios 22– 24, which contain the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, have suffered damage. The manuscript is written on paper, hence the damage. The manuscript’s cost was probably not high. The destiny and use of this manuscript were linked to the monastery at Mount Athos. It may have been a monastic reader used in everyday life. I have not had a chance to inspect this manuscript personally; accordingly, the information drawn here is from secondary literature. In Burke’s view, the manuscript contents open with an unpublished witness to a section of Pilate’s Letter to Tiberius (BHG 779xI).³⁶⁶ However, the cataloguer Eustratiades reports that the opening text is the Anaphora Pilati (BHG 779z).³⁶⁷ Elliott reports that these are two different texts, but they belong to the same cycle, the Pilate Cycle.³⁶⁸ Ehrman and Pleše call the Anaphora Pilati the Report of Pontius Pilate and explain that this is the “Report” of Pontius Pilate to Emperor Tiberius describing the events of Jesus’ trial, death, and resurrection from the perspective of the Roman governor.³⁶⁹ The motives behind the account are to celebrate Jesus’ miraculous character, to exonerate Pilate for his death, and in so doing to inculpate the Jews.³⁷⁰ This text needs further investigation since different scholars have different things to say about it. Be that as it may, the Pilate Cycle relates to the Acts of Pilate, which is the Greek version of the Latin Gospel of Nicodemus. The Gospel of Nicodemus appeared in some Latin manuscripts together with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Another text in this manuscript may have had its parallel in Latin (but also in Slavonic), namely, the Narratio de capta Ierusalem (BHG 778) on folios 44r-55r; it may have had links to the History of Titus and Vespasian in Jerusalem that appeared in manuscript Paris 3014. This text is also mentioned among the contents of the Serbian manuscript destroyed in World War II, Srećković, Codex 637, from which Novaković edited the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Such parallels indicate an interaction between Latin and Byzantine and between Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts in the period.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 132; François Joseph Leroy, L’Homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople. Tradition manuscrite, inédits, études connexes (Vatican City: Biblioteca Vaticana, 1967).  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 132; Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts. In this text, Pilate writes to the emperor concerning the deeds and death of Christ and mentions the miracles that attended his Crucifixion and Resurrection. This text was composed in Greek probably in the fifth century, and it survives in two Greek versions. See Izydorczyk, The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus, 6 – 9.  Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts, 13.  Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 206 – 211.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 491.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 491.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts

85

This Byzantine manuscript contains homilies and logoi of John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem, Anastasius the Sinaite, Basil, Sophronius of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Antioch.³⁷¹ Some texts were encountered in the earlier Byzantine manuscripts (Vienna 123) and the Georgian manuscript that contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Their subjects are Jesus, Mary, saints, their miracles, and feasts. This section includes texts on female saints, virgins, and prostitutes. Most of the texts are homilies by prominent authors. According to the catalog, manuscript Vatopedi has the earliest attribution of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to Thomas as the author. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript contains episodes 2– 5, 6, and 7– 16, and this is the earliest manuscript containing the Ga variant. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears unrelated to the other texts.

 The contents are as follows: fol. 1r-8v: Anaphora Pilati (Report by Pilate to Emperor Tiberius) (BHG 779z); fol.9r-21r: Archippus the hermit, Narration of St. Michael’s miracle in Chonae (Narration and Apocalypse of Archangel Michael) (BHG 1282); fol.21v-28r: History and partial narration of miracles of Thoma Israelite and philosopher of the childhood and deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ; fol.28r-33r: De sacerdotio Christi (Narration of Philip the silver-seller and Theodosius the Hebrew about the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ) (BHG 810); fol. 33r-36v: John Chrysostom, On the vision of God (BHG 1932); fol.37r-44r: Vision of the monk Cosmas (or De inventione crucis); fol.44r-55r: Narratio de capta Ierusalem (Narration on the Lamentation of the prophet Jeremiah about the siege of Jerusalem and the astonishment of Abimelech) (BHG 778); fol.55r-72r: Anastasius the Sinaite, In sextum psalmum; fol.72r-77v: Cyril of Jerusalem, Logos in Hypapantes (In occursum Domini) (BHG 1973); fol.77v-86r: Basil of Cesarea, Logos on fast on the Fourth day of Tyrophagy (De ieiunio 2); fol.86r-89v: John Chrysostom, In ieiunio sermones 1– 7; fol.89v-109r: John Chrysostom, In genesim (BHG 25pa); fol.109v-113v: John Chrysostom, Logos in Mid-pentecosten (De non iudicando proximo); fol.114r-119v: John Chrysostom (or Germanus patriarch of Constantinople), Logos on dormition of the Theotokos (BHG 1135); fol.119v-124v: John Chrysostom, In ascensionem Deiparae; fol.124v-146r: Sophronius of Jerusalem, Vita of Mary of Egypt (BHG 1042); fol.146r-169r: Narration of Akathistos (BHG 1060); fol.168v-173r: John Chrysostom, Homily on the prostitute who anointed Jesus with sweet oil (De meretrice); fol.173r-177r: John Chrysostom, Second Logos on the council that Jews convened; fol.177r-185v: John Chrysostom, In decem virgines; fol. 185v-189v: Proclus of Constantinople, In feriam quintam; fol.190r-201v: The letter of the holy fathers Christopher Patriarch of Alexandria, John of Antioch, Michael of Jerusalem, Ad Theophilum imperatorem de imaginibus; fol. 201v-211r: John Chrysostom, In pentecosten; fol.211r-216v: John Chrysostom, Homily on martyrs (BHG 1187); fol.217r223r: John Chrysostom, In resurrectionem Domini; fol.223r-234r: Basil of Cesarea, In sanctam Christi genesin (BHG 1922); fol.234r-243r: Gregory of Antioch, Homilia in Theophania (BHG 1926); fol.243r-255v: John Chrysostom, De beato Philogono (BHG 1532); fol.255v-268: Ephrem the Syrian, Sermo compunctorius (Logos on the second appearing of Christ); fol.268v-272: Logos on Holy Ephrem the Syrian (or John Chrysostom, De oratione). See Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts, 13 – 14.

86

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

In the fifteenth century, the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas written in paper continue appearing in connection with monasteries, but their contents become diversified. The fifteenth-century manuscript Athens, Ethnike bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355 originates from a monastery in Malesina in Locris in today’s Greece, which was at that time occupied by Ottoman Turks.³⁷² The manuscript introduces content innovations unusual for the Greek tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ³⁷³ It contains apocalypses, Apocrypha, and texts about the Antichrist. Among the authors is John of Damascus. The manuscript places a more significant focus on eschatological literature, which is not surprising in the historical context of the Ottoman occupation of Greece. Also, the manuscript contains some parallels to the Latin and Slavonic traditions. It contains the Apocalypsis Methodii, previously seen in the Latin manuscript Cambridge and Slavonic manuscript St Petersburg. It also contains the Abgar Legend, which we will see appearing in manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Paris 6041 A.³⁷⁴ Towards the end of the manuscript, several texts are written about Mary, such as Nativitas Mariae and Presentatio Mariae, written by John of Damascus and Germanus. Manuscript Athens 355 contains a text about the Birth of Christ, written by John of Damascus. The joint Prologue in Egypt and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas follow after it. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins without any title from folio 61v. The texts seem to have had a specific chronology, starting with Jesus’ birth, his adventures in Egypt when he was two years old, and continuing with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas until he was twelve. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas ap-

 Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits, 45.  The contents: fol. 1– 5v: Basilius iun., Excerptum aceph. Auctar.; fol. 6r-9v: Annuntiatio (BHG 1128 f); fol. 10r-15v: Baptistae decollatio (BHG 859); fol. 16r-21r: Defuncti (BHG 2103n); fol. 21r-30r: Zosimos (BHG 1890d); fol. 30r-37v: John the Apostle, Apocalypsis (BHG 921); fol. 38 – 47v: De antichristo; fol. 48r-60v: John of Damascus, Birth of Christ (BHG 1912); fol. 61r-68v: Brother Jacob, Iesu infantis miracula (BHG 779n); fol. 68v-75v: Apocalypsis Methodii (BHG 2036); fol. 75v-77v: Gregory; fol. 79r-85v: Andreas; fol. 85v-87r: De Abgaro rege; fol. 101v119v: Ephrem, Andronicus and Athanasia (BHG 123g); fol. 129v: Narratio de Zenone imperatore (BHG 1322z); fol. 130 – 147v: Basilius (BHG 253 – 256, 258 – 259); fol. 148 – 152: Chrysostom, Theophania (BHG 1932); fol. 152v-164: John of Damascus, Nativitas Mariae (BHG 1112); fol. 164v-166v: Germanus, Praesentatio Mariae (BHG 1104); fol. 167– 168v: Germanus, Dormitio (BHG 1155); fol. 169 – 180: Crux, Visio Constantini (BHG 396 – 409). See Halkin, Catalogue des manuscrits, 45.  The exchange of letters between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa describes how the king hears of the miraculous healings of Jesus and invites him to Edessa to cure the king and protect him from the hostility of the Jews. See Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha I, 492– 499.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts

87

pears in the Gd variant.³⁷⁵ The lack of independence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its merging with the Prologue in Egypt can be ascribed to Latin influences (see, e. g., BnF lat. 6041 A). Another Byzantine manuscript of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. hist. gr. 91, dated from the fourteenth to the fifteenth century and written on paper, has contents different from what we have seen thus far in the Byzantine tradition.³⁷⁶ This manuscript has a surprisingly diverse assortment of texts, which possibly indicates its encyclopedic character. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is found among New Testament excerpts, homilies, sermons, and other texts.³⁷⁷ The manuscript contains medieval historical writings (chronicles), church history, late antique Greek rhetoric, homilies, texts of John Chrysostom, of Gregory of Nazianzus, canonical Gospels, epistles, sections of the liturgy, texts of Michael Psellos, passions, lives of saints, Apocrypha, encyclopedic entries of the Suda Lexicon, Civil Laws, the Nomokanon, medical writings, polemical literature, Byzantine imperial poetry, texts related to Jesus (his funeral, his childhood), texts about the Theotokos, and Erotapokriseis.³⁷⁸

 The Gd variant is complete in this manuscript. It contains the Prologue in Egypt, Introduction by James, and episodes 2– 5, 6, 7– 19. It is the only complete Greek manuscript of the Gd variant. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 143.  See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 131– 2. See also Hunger, Katalog I, 94– 102; Paul Gehin, and Stig Frøyshov, “Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques: À propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscrits grecs,” Revue des études byzantines 58 (2000): 167– 184; Dorotei Getov, and Andreas Schminck, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts II (Nr. 328 – 427) (Frankfurt am Main: Lowenklau Gessellschaft, 2010).  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 131.  The contents: fol. 1r-8v: Constantine Manasses, Chronicle (Compendium chronicum); fol. 10rv: Synaxarion (1 Jan); fol. 11r: Libanius, Fragment; fol. 11v: Sophronius of Jerusalem (Hunger: Cyril of Alexandria), Homilia in festum palmarum; fol. 12r-15v: Anonymous, Chronicle; fol. 16rv: Narration of King Abgar; fol. 17r-v: Anonymous, Homilies; fol. 17v: John Chrysostom, In nativitatem Christi; fol. 18r-v: Anonymous, Fragment of the Funeral of Jesus; fol. 19r-v: an unknown text; fol. 19v: On the meaning of the letter; fol. 20r-21v: Anonymous, Fragment of Homily; fol. 22r-v: Gospel of Luke 7, 2– 16; fol. 23r-v: Anonymous, De dormitione Deiparae; fol. 24r-25v: Homily; fol. 26r-26v: Fragment of Liturgy on Holy Saturday; fol. 27r: Michael Psellos, De operatione demonum; fol. 27v-30v: Anonymous, Homily on Sunday of Lent; fol. 31r-v: Gospel of Mark 10, 32– 45; fol. 32r: Gregory of Nazianzus, Opera; fol. 32v-33r: Anonymous, Homily on Sunday of Lent; fol. 33v-36r: Gospel of Mark 10, 32; fol. 36v-44v: Gospel of John 12, 1– 16, 11, 1– 45; fol. 45r-v: Varia (Samsadin of Isfahan, Erotapokriseis); fol. 46r: Anonymous, Fragment of Sermon for Lent; fol. 47r: Erotapokriseis; fol. 48r-v: Gospel of John, 10, 24– 40; fol. 49v-51v: Philagatus of Cerami, Homilies (Hunger: Theophanus Kerameus, In festum palmarum); fol. 51: Homilies; fol. 52r-v, 59r-v: John Chrysostom, Ad populum Antiochenum homilies 1– 21 (De statuis); fol. 53r: Epistulae hebraicae, 6, 13 – 20; fol. 53v: Gospel of Mark 9, 17– 31; fol. 54r-57r: George of Nicomedia, In deiparae ingressum in templum 1– 2 (De praesentatione Deiparae); fol. 58r: Epis-

88

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The textual genres are very diverse, but the texts are almost entirely written as excerpts. Very often, the texts appear in the form of fragments on single folios. These contents possibly reveal an encyclopedic character of the manuscript, which may have been used in education as part of a curriculum or private reading. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears towards the end of the manuscript in the Ga variant, containing episodes 2– 5, 6, 7– 19 (folios 199v-204r).³⁷⁹ It is the complete Ga variant that appears in this manuscript. It has a distinct title, Λόγος ἰσραηλίτου φιλοσόφου εἰς τὰ παιδικὰ κεφὰλεια τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρίστου.³⁸⁰ However, the text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is crossed over at an unknown date, which indicates that it should not be read. The provenance of this manuscript is unknown, but its contents imply a secular context. Since it is deposited in Vienna, it may have originated from Constantinople. To sum up, the contexts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas changed by the turn of the fifteenth century. The text appeared in various miscellanies, some of which were of apocalyptic and encyclopedic character. The encyclopedic character may have linked this manuscript to secular and educational contexts. On the other hand, the trend to gather Apocrypha, apocalypses, Antichrist treatises, and writtulae hebraicae, 9, 11– 14; fol. 61r-66r: Anonymous, Sermon for Lent; fol. 63v: Excerpt, Passion of Nikephoros; fol. 67r-68r: Gospel of Luke 15, 11– 32; fol. 69r-70r: Glossary, Fragment; fol. 70v, 73r74v: Fragment; fol. 71r: From Church History; fol. 71v-72r: Anonymous, On Armenian Lent; fol. 72rv: Anonymous, Peri typographou; fol. 75r: Gospel of Matthew, 17, 24– 27; fol. 76r-78r: Liturgy of Chrysostom; fol. 78r-81v: Fragment, Lexicon, Suda; fol. 82r: Ius civile (On divorce); fol. 83r-98r: Aristenus Alexius, Commentaries on Canons or Nomokanon; fol. 104r-v: Eusebius of Alexandria, Sermo 13: De adventu Iohannis in infernum; fol. 105r-v, 99r-100r: Excerpts about matrimonial questions; fol. 100v: Anonymous, De gradibus cognationis; fol. 101r-v: an unknown text; fol. 102r-103r: Fragment, Dioscorides, De materia medica; fol. 103v: Fragment of Pharmakopoeia; fol. 104r-v: Apocryphon; fol. 106r-v: ?; fol. 107r-v: Joseph Hieromonachus, Nea Mone, Chios; fol. 108r-v: Anonymous, Homily; fol. 109 – 109v: Nilus Diasorenus, Ep Ioanicium Monachum Introducens; fol. 110r: Medical Fragment; fol. 110v: Constantine of Rhodes, Works; fol. 111r-v: Cleobulus of Lindos; fol. 112r-162r: Bertus Nilus, Uersus; fol. 162r-v: Chronological notes; fol. 163r-164r: an unknown text; fol. 165r-v: Anonymous, Hygromanteia; fol. 166r-v: Prayers; fol. 167r-173r: Anonymous, Incantation; fol. 173r-174v: Anonymous, Geographica; fol. 175r-176v: Passion of Barbara and Iuliana from Heliopolis (metaphrastic text); fol. 176v-179r: Theodorus Paphius bishop, Vita of St. Spyridon; fol. 180r-v: George, Fragment, Canons; fol. 181r-v: Basil’s Liturgy; fol. 181v: an unknown text; fol. 183 – 190v: Triodion; fol. 191r-v: an unknown text; fol. 191v: an unknown text; fol. 193r, 194v-197v: Anonymous; fol. 193r-194v: Anonymous, Contra Latinos; fol. 198: Leo VI the Wise, Oracula; fol. 199v-204r: Infancy Gospel of Thomas; fol. 205r-v: John Chrysostom, In Mattheum homilies; fol. 206 – 208v: Leo VI the Wise, Oracula.  In Burke’s view, this manuscript version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas accords well with the tenth-century Vorlage of the Slavonic text. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 129.  See manuscript Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. hist. gr. 91, fol. 199v.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Latin manuscripts

89

ings of John of Damascus in Athens 355 could indicate that the ideas about the end of the world were frequently circulating in the territory of modern Greece that Ottomans occupied at that period. One can also spot the connections of Byzantine manuscript contents with those of Latin and Slavonic manuscripts, which indicate rich cultural exchange.

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Latin manuscripts In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in the Latin manuscripts in both Lm and Lt variants, which were sometimes combined or enriched by additional episodes. Such hybridization of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas could have started even before the fourteenth century, judging by the evidence. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas still appears bound to the PseudoMatthew in this period, but we also find examples unrelated to this group. The manuscript London, British Library, Harley 3199 is a composite of two parts.³⁸¹ The manuscript is digitized; I consulted it online. The first part is a miscellany collection of computistic and musical treatises, dated to the first half of the twelfth century.³⁸² It covers folios 2r-94v.³⁸³ The second part is a late-four-

 London, British Library, Harley 3199 is a parchment codex, 132x92 mm, 109 fol. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 164– 165; A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum 3 (London: British Museum, 1808), 8 – 9.  George Frederic Warner, and Julius Parnell Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections II (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1921), 323; Alfred Cordeliani, “Les traités de comput du haut Moyen Age (526 – 1003),” Bulletin Du Cange 17 (1943): 51– 72, 62– 63; C. E. Wright, and Ruth C. Wright, eds., The Diary of Humfrey Wanley 1715 – 1726 I–II (London: Bibliographical Society, 1966), I, 51, n. 5; 68, n. 1; C. E. Wright, Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1972), 74, 183, 300, 424; Hans Schmid, ed., Musica et Scolica enchiriadis una cum aliquibus tractatulis adiunctis (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie de Wissenschaften, 1981), viii, xii; Christian Meyer, Michael Huglo, and Nancy C. Phillips, eds., The Theory of Music IV: Manuscripts from the Carolingian Era up to c. 1500 in Great Britain and the United States of America. Descriptive Catalogue (Munich: Henle, 1992), 81– 83; British Library, “Detailed record for Harley 3199,” Last accessed: 08/06/2021.  The first part is a miscellany of treatises relating to computation and music: fol. 2r-55v: Helperic of Auxerre, Computus; fol. 55v-56r: Guido of Arezzo, De constitutionibus in musica (Regulae rhythmicae); fol. 56v-58r: Guido of Arezzo, Praefatio in Antiphonarium; fol. 58v-65r: Guido of Arezzo, Epistula de cantu ignoto (ad Michaelem); fol. 65r-69v: Hoger of Laon (?), Musica enchiriadis; fol. 71r-74r: Computus; fol. 74r-79r; Guido of Arezzo, De tonis; fol. 79r-88v; Guido of Arezzo,

90

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

teenth-early-fifteenth-century libellus on folios 95r-126v, containing the Liber de infantia Christi, of smaller dimensions (120x92 mm).³⁸⁴ The provenance of the first part is probably France and of the second part England or France. The manuscript had an eventful afterlife in the early modern period. It is a parchment codex, written in Latin Protogothic, with rubrics and highlighted initials in red. Binding took place only when the two libelli arrived at the British Museum. My primary focus is on the manuscript’s second part. After a blank half-page, the second libellus commences on folio 95r with the Pseudo-Matthew, ending on folio 109v.³⁸⁵ Blank spaces possibly left for illuminations frequently appear in this section. Gijsel argues that the Pseudo-Matthew is incomplete here.³⁸⁶ Gijsel and Burke report that a story of a robber and Mary Magdalene’s perfumes is inserted into the Pseudo-Matthew between episodes 17 and 18.³⁸⁷ The titles of the new sections/episodes are marked by red letters. Between the Pseudo-Matthew and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, there is the Prologue in Egypt. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas starts on folio 110r with the sentence: De operibus iesu postquam regressus est de egypto in nazareth. It is the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which ends with episode 42 on folio 122r. The rest of the pages contain some additional episodes seemingly related to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript presents a continuation of the Pseudo-Matthew, where each section and episode has its title. The newly added episodes enrich the Pseudo-Matthew. The Latin manuscript Madrid, Bibliotheca nacional, 9783 (F 152, Ee 103), dated between 1201 and 1500, is a collection of historiographical texts and hagiographies written by different hands.³⁸⁸ The manuscript is dated within several Micrologus; fol. 89r-91r: Office of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary; fol. 91v-94v: Guido of Arezzo, Micrologus. See British Library, “Detailed record for Harley 3199.”  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 165.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 152.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 165.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 165; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 152.  It is a parchment codex, dimensions 230x155 mm, 184 fol., two columns. The contents: fol. 1r-20r: Turpin, Chronicle; fol. 20r-64r: Deeds of Alexander the Great; fol. 64r-67v: The Concise History of Alexander; fol. 67v-79r: History of Apollonius; fol. 79r-81v: Epistola presbiteri Iohanis ad romanum imperatorem; fol. 82r: Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome; fol. 82r-87r: Vita amici et amelii karicimorum; fol. 87v-98r: Gesta salvatoris domini nostri Ihesu Christi (Gijsel: Gospel of Nicodemus); f. 98 – 109v: Variae visiones; f. 109v-119v: Liber de infantia Salvatoris: Jerome’s reply to Chromatius and Heliodorus, Pseudo-Matthew, Prologue in Egypt, Infancy Gospel of Thomas; fol. 119v-122v: Tractatus de confessione; fol. 122v-127v: Purgatory of St. Patrick; fol. 127v-139: John of Damascus, Vita of Barlaam and Josaphat; fol. 139r-144r: Acts and passion of blessed Amasius bishop; fol. 144r-146r: History (Ystoria) of the seven holy sleepers; fol. 146r-148v: Acts and passion of Blessed Matthew the Apostle; fol. 149r-176v: Petrus Tudebodi, Gesta francorum et aliorum

Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Latin manuscripts

91

centuries; some of its features probably could be ascribed to earlier periods, mainly as Gijsel dates it reasonably to the thirteenth century. I have not studied this manuscript in-depth. I leave the dating open while considering the manuscript features to belong tentatively to the period of the fifteenth century. This manuscript is digitized; I consulted it online. In the manuscript, historiographical works, chronicles, and deeds of great men, such as the panegyric biographies of Alexander the Great and Apollonius, precede the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This feature indicates that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been viewed in a corresponding light. Alternatively, it may have been used as a suitable transition from the panegyric biographies to the lives and passions of the saints.³⁸⁹ As arranged, the texts have a specific chronology, starting from Alexander the Great and ending with the Gesta francorum. As a miscellany, this manuscript contains different texts, even medical prescriptions at the end. We encountered the medical excerpts earlier in the Byzantine manuscript Cod. hist. gr. 91 and the Slavonic manuscript St Petersburg. The Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome appears in folio 82r. Several texts appear in between until we encounter Jerome’s reply on folio 109v, where Jerome opens the Pseudo-Matthew: Incipit prefatio sancti hieronimi presbiteri in libro de infancia salvatoris. ³⁹⁰ A text on folios 110r-115v has the incipit: Liber de infantia salvatoris, which is probably the introductory part of the Pseudo-Matthew, referring to Mary.³⁹¹ Gijsel argues that this section contains the opening of the De nativitate Mariae, rather than the Pseudo-Matthew. ³⁹²

ierosolimitanorum; fol. 177r-184v: Medical prescriptions (Medicamentorum praescriptiones). See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 131; Catalogue raisonné des principaux manuscrits du Cabinet de Monsieur Joseph-Louis-Dominique de Cambis, Marquis de Velleron (Avignon: Louis Chambeau, 1770), 400 – 435.  It is interesting to note here that Maureen B. McC. Boulton, in her book Sacred Fictions of Medieval France, discusses the story of the life of Christ and his mother Mary appearing in many texts in various French vernaculars in a large number of manuscripts (the twelfth to the fifteenth century), where the story was told in different genres: epic, romance, allegory, and chronicle. See Boulton, Sacred Fictions, 8; see also Kathryn A. Smith, Art, Identity, and Devotion in Fourteenth-Century England: Three Women and Their Books of Hours (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 269 – 277; Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Afterlives of New Testament Apocrypha,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, No. 2 (2015): 401– 425, 423.  The title Liber de infantia salvatoris in the Gelasian Decree probably refers to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, but scholars are not in agreement about it. See Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 268, n. 107; Beyers, “The transmission of Marian Apocrypha,” 119.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 131.  Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 131.

92

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The Prologue in Egypt is on folios 115v-116r, entitled once again Liber de infantia salvatoris. ³⁹³ On folio 116r, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Lm variant continues without any title after the Prologue in Egypt. The insistence on the title Liber de infantia salvatoris misguides the reader that the focus of this group of texts is on Jesus. On folio 116v, after episodes 26 (Pools) and 27 (Sparrows) of the Lm end, several episodes of the Lt are inserted before the text of the Lm continues. The trend of hybridization of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this and the previous manuscript was attested in other manuscripts, starting from the fourteenth century (or even earlier).³⁹⁴ The fourteenth-century Latin manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 6041 A contains the continuous text of the Prologue in Egypt and the complete Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on folios 127r–128r without any titles.³⁹⁵ The text appears as added due to extra space, but there is no way of knowing. The letters of this text are significantly smaller than in the preceding text. We have seen this combination of two texts in Byzantine manuscript Athens 355 previously. This feature makes an excellent link to the parallels of Lt and Gd variants in the scholarship.³⁹⁶ I have personally examined the manuscript. It is a compilation of historiographical works, chronicles, letters, saints’ lives, panegyric biographies, and Apocrypha: the history of Britons, the chronicle from the beginning of the world until King Richard I of England, the history of Jerusalem, the Life of Charlemagne, an Armenian history, a fragment of the Life of Alexander the Great, and other works.³⁹⁷ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Nicodemus (folios 178v–179v) have Jesus as their subject.

 In 115v, there is a title: Incipit liber de infancia salvatoris, and the text follows: Erat autem ihesus annorum duorum quando ingressus in egyptum. It is where the Prologue in Egypt starts.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 156 – 159.  The manuscript contains a note from 1931 in French on the very first folio. In the verso of the first folio, there is a note and the year 1480. The second folio contains the text, preceded by a table of contents. The text is written in two columns. The catalog reports that the manuscript is a parchment codex.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 150.  Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae, 195. The contents are: fol. 1r-56r: Gaufridus Monemuthensis, Historia Britorum a Bruto ad mortem Cadualladri; fol. 56v-104v: Anonymous, Chronicle ab urbe condito ad obitum Richardi I regis Anglorum; fol. 105r-124v: Pontii de Baladuno et Raimondi, History of Jerusalem; fol. 124v-127r: Sibyllae Tiburtinae vaticinium (Liber sibille); 127r-128r: Infancy Gospel of Thomas (with the Prologue in Egypt); fol. 129r-131v: (one folio is blank) Athanasius, Passio imaginis domini salvatoris; fol. 131v-132v: Epistola Abgari ad Christum; fol. 132v-143v: Vita of St. Brendan; fol. 144r-159v: Life of Charlemagne (Turpin), Rotolandus, Narration of Gratianopolis; fol. 159v-160r: Letter of Pope Calixtus; fol.160v-178r: Testa-

Apocryphal manuscript geography

93

The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the West brought innovations regarding the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The text is commonly aligned in manuscripts as a continuation of the Pseudo-Matthew, but it can also appear independently. The Gospel of Nicodemus also appeared in the contents of the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ³⁹⁸ Little was settled in terms of textual stability and fixity, defined beginning and end, connection to the other texts, and merging this text with other texts. The Pseudo-Matthew dissolves as a compact group of texts in some manuscripts. Simultaneously, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas evolves into its hybrid form where the Lm and Lt variants are mixed, with the insertion of various new episodes (this feature may originate already from the thirteenth century). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in manuscripts with various other historical writings and panegyric biographies.

Apocryphal manuscript geography and the changing genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas Uncovering the entire manuscript transmission of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is beyond the bounds of possibility because we have only bits and pieces of what once constituted the complete material. In this chapter, I tried to draw the most accurate possible map based on sporadic witnesses, a feature previously not attempted in the scholarship on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Although it consists only of scattered information, the manuscript geography of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas nevertheless points to some transmission directions. A fragmentary Infancy Gospel of Thomas is attested in the fifth-century Latin palimpsest from Bobbio (Vienna lat. 563), one of the several monastic foundations in late antique Italy that cultivated the manuscript exchange and conducted translations, mainly from Greek to Latin. The two surviving Syriac manuscripts from the sixth century contain the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The libellus Add. 14484 was copied in Syria in the sixth century. It was brought in Baghdad by the tenth century and was transferred to the Deir-Al-Surian monastery in Egypt later. The other manuscript, Göttingen

menta 12 Patriarcharum; fol. 178v-179v: Evangelium of Nicodemus; fol. 180r-204r: Haytoni Armeni Historia (Flos historiarum terrae Orientis); fol. 204r-213r: Fragment of the Life of Alexander the Great; fol.214r-v: an unknown text.  Seventy-one manuscripts contain the Gospel of Nicodemus and some version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: either within the Pseudo-Matthew, the Lt Infancy Gospel of Thomas, or some other unidentified text. Burke and Landau, New Testament Apocrypha, xxx, n. 29; Izydorczyk, Manuscripts of the Evangelium Nicodemi.

94

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

syr. 10, was copied in Syria and transferred to the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai. By the tenth century, the Georgian manuscript (Cod. A 95) containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in the Parhali monastery from the transitional region of Tao-Klarjeti, which stretched from southwestern Georgia to Byzantium. In the eleventh century, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in the Byzantine manuscript from Cyprus (Sabaiticus 259), at the time included in the Byzantine empire. From the monastery of St. Nikolaos in Akrotiri, this manuscript was eventually transferred to Palestine and Jerusalem. Simultaneously, the Latin manuscript with part of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas turns up in the German Benedictine Abbey, Reichenau (Paris 1772). Another thirteenth-century Latin libellus which became part of a composite manuscript (Cambridge), testifies this text’s appearance in Canterbury, England, in the prominent Christ Church Cathedral. In the thirteenth century, this text occurred in Latin parchment manuscripts originating from France, among which the manuscript from the Abbey NotreDame de Cîteaux in Saint-Nicolas-lès-Cîteaux, south of Dijon, to name some examples, and in at least eight other manuscripts. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the text was copied in larger numbers in the West, such as in the manuscripts Paris 3014 and Berne (from a Carmelite monastery of Dijon and Metz). The thirteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts written on paper may have originated in Constantinople and some of its city monasteries and scriptoria (Vienna 123). By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was found in parchment manuscripts from a few Serbian monasteries, such as the monastery St. Nicholas (Vuneš) in North Macedonia (Hludov), and the Bulgarian urban setting of Loveč, a Metropolitan seat of the Second Bulgarian Empire (St Petersburg). The latter manuscript was brought to the royal library of Veliko Tarnovo, where it may have been available to the Bulgarian royal family. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was disseminated on Byzantine paper manuscripts of the monasteries of Mount Athos (Vatopedi), Malesina in Locris, Greece (Athens 355), and possibly in a Constantinopolitan secular context (Vienna hist. 91). In the Western Latin parchment libelli and manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared in England, France, Spain (Harley, Madrid, Paris 6041 A), and other areas. The mapping of the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas by geographical areas is by no means complete since I did not include all the manuscripts from the Byzantine and particularly Latin realms. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was also widely disseminated in western vernacular languages, and it is preserved in many manuscripts to date.³⁹⁹

 See Dzon, The Quest for the Christ Child, 110 – 111; Boulton, Sacred Fictions.

Apocryphal manuscript geography

95

According to the evidence, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas occurred exclusively in monastic settings until the late Middle Ages. In the thirteenth-century West, some manuscripts with this text were used for educational purposes, such as the manuscript Dijon. Some codices were of small dimensions and were probably devotional private readers, such as Paris 3014. The thirteenth-century Byzantine paper manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been everyday readers in monasteries. Only in the fifteenth-century Byzantine manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas moved from monastic settings to secular educational contexts. Gero has shown that Greek and Slavonic versions of apocryphal gospels were generally used in Orthodox monasteries as devotional reading, but they were not utilized in the liturgy.⁴⁰⁰ In my view, his statement generally applies to the considered material, with one exception: the Slavonic manuscript Hludov, which was used in the liturgy. In the Slavonic settings, some specific uses of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas were introduced; the text was read in the liturgy and at the Bulgarian royal court. Most of the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas were miscellanies. As Dinkova-Bruun argues, “primary miscellanies” had the overarching idea and a vision of their purpose from the beginning, and their contextualization was unproblematic.⁴⁰¹ All the Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts analyzed here are primary miscellanies; the same applies to many Latin manuscripts (Paris 1772, Paris 3014, Dijon, Berne, Madrid, Paris 6041 A). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was envisaged as part of their contents. Nevertheless, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is sometimes found in “secondary miscellanies,” where its separate libelli could have contained texts ordered with clear aims and purposes; the binding which occurred later was sometimes conducted based on unknown criteria whose inner logic is hard to grasp, as in the case of the manuscripts Cambridge and Harley. The other “secondary miscellanies,” such as the Syriac and Georgian manuscripts, had a meaningful and comprehensible system. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has been erased only from one known manuscript, the fifth-century palimpsest in Vienna lat. 563. In the tenth-century Georgian manuscript A 95, the text is physically damaged, and several folios are perhaps ripped off. In the eleventh-century Latin manuscript Paris 1772, the copying  Gero, “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 75; see also Hurtado, “Who Read Early Christian Apocrypha?” 158. In Gero’s view, the Slavonic translations could undoubtedly be accounted for such monastic use, which was only one manifestation of the continued widespread interest in the apocryphal narratives.  Dinkova-Bruun, “Medieval Miscellanies,” 15.

96

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

of the text was abandoned in the middle of a sentence after several episodes. The Byzantine thirteenth-century paper manuscript Vienna 123 suffered significant damage due to the material. Several manuscripts contain notes warning about the apocryphal nature of the text, as in Sabaiticus 259; these notes usually appear from the sixteenth century. When it first appeared in the manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was combined with different other texts. The combination of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Matthew in the Latin palimpsest Vienna 563 is an isolated occurrence. We may think of the text in this palimpsest as a translation from Greek, but we do not know the origin of the combination of three texts, all dedicated to Jesus. The manuscripts of the earliest Greek tradition are not preserved. However, we have extant the late antique Syriac tradition, i. e., the Syriac texts – the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and the Transitus Mariae – combined in Add. 14484 and Göttingen syr. 10. It has led scholars to conclude that the Syriac tradition promoted the figure of Mary by copying the three texts together. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was copied in this context because of Mary. In the Byzantine, Slavonic, and Georgian manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas mostly appears with a distinct title. In the case of two Byzantine manuscripts, Vienna 123 and Athens 355, we witnessed the absence of a title of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The text is connected to the other texts around it, mainly as a continuation of Jesus’ story. The Georgian manuscript A 95 displays the patterns and influences of Byzantine manuscripts in the alignment of texts; it is a similar type of collection. Scholars traditionally link the Georgian text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to the Syriac version of the text.⁴⁰² Possibly, the manuscript was organized according to the Byzantine manuscript patterns, while some texts were previously translated from Syriac. The scribe who worked on this manuscript copied both newly translated texts and the texts translated earlier, including the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In the West, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was often combined with the group of texts that constituted the Pseudo-Matthew. The Letter to Chromatius and Heliodorus, allegedly written by Jerome, commonly served to justify the appearance of this group of texts in the opening of the Pseudo-Matthew. The texts in the Pseudo-Matthew needed validation for their presence in manuscripts. Scholars argue that the Protevangelium of James, part of the Pseudo-Matthew,

 Akaki Shanidze, “The Fragment of the Georgian Version of the Apocryphal ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and its Incomprehensible Passages” (in Russian), Stalinis Saxelobis T’ibilisis saxelmwipo Universitetis Sromebi 18 (1941): 29 – 40; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 85.

Apocryphal manuscript geography

97

was translated from Greek and appropriated to fit the new contexts, after which it was widely copied. The original text of the Protevangelium of James achieved minor fame in the West, while in the East, it was often copied and present in many manuscripts.⁴⁰³ The evidence of the manuscripts analyzed here shows that the core Pseudo-Matthew, describing Mary’s childhood, often had different titles and was combined with other texts related to her parents. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas often appeared within the Pseudo-Matthew without a title as a continuous text because it was not perceived separately or due to a necessity to keep it disguised within the Pseudo-Matthew. The Pseudo-Matthew changed its contents over time; various new and old texts were added and omitted. In the thirteenth century, it was followed by the Miracles of Mary or the Transitus Mariae, describing her death. The Pseudo-Matthew often appeared in the manuscripts with the Gospel of Nicodemus, which described Jesus’ trial and last days (sometimes also his passion). In the thirteenth-century Latin manuscripts, one can see not only the survival of the late antique Syriac tradition, where the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was attached to the Protevangelium and the Transitus Mariae but the revival of the Latin tradition as we know it from the Latin fifth-century palimpsest, which binds the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of Nicodemus. In two examples, Berne and Paris 6041, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is either a text unrelated to the texts around it or attached only to the Prologue in Egypt. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (or even earlier), the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was hybridized by the addition of new episodes and mixing the extant variants (Lm with Lt). As Burke argued, the ascription of this text to a named author is only a secondary feature found in Byzantine, Lt, and Slavonic manuscripts.⁴⁰⁴ It seems that the apocryphal status of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas did not present an obstacle to placing this text in the contents of the Byzantine manuscripts with other texts prominent for faith and religious instruction. We here disregard the later note in Sabaiticus and the crossing out of the text in Vienna hist. 91, the features that occurred after the fifteenth century. In the Slavonic tradition, Apocrypha and canonical literature were bound together in manuscripts, although some scholars argued for a parasitic position of Apocrypha in manu-

 Elliott argues that it was due to Jerome’s disapproval of the teaching about Joseph’s first marriage that the Protevangelium was condemned in the West. It is somewhat ironic that the Pseudo-Matthew, which also preserves this teaching, was published with prefaces associated with Jerome’s name. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 85.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 205.

98

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

scripts.⁴⁰⁵ There is no evidence for such a status of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Slavonic tradition because this text was an integral part of the manuscripts. Scribes planned the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to be part of these collections within an executed copying program and a designated position. The Bulgarian scholar Naumov has distinguished Old Bulgarian Apocrypha according to their reception and function into quasi-canonical, non-canonical, and anti-canonical.⁴⁰⁶ Quasi-canonical Apocrypha were included in church rites and read as homilies and vitae during the services on feast days. They were present in liturgical Menologia from the earliest period. The non-canonical texts were not used in the liturgy, but they did not dogmatically contradict the official Church. These texts benefited from being adjusted by the spirit of the official dogma.⁴⁰⁷ Naumov places the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this group. Noncanonical writings were often appropriated and adjusted by the Church, and they often supported the official literature in the combat against heresies. Most of the apocryphal writings of this kind were accepted and read within the Church. As to the reading of Apocrypha in the medieval West, Mary Dzon argued that although medieval clerics were wary of apocryphal texts, they did not forbid others to read them.⁴⁰⁸ She argues concerning the social strata that read Apocrypha in the West: “It is sometimes assumed that the church hierarchy was opposed to folklore dealing with religious matters, that it condemned apocryphal literature, and tried to prevent people from reading or knowing it.”⁴⁰⁹ She holds that this is not an accurate representation of the reception

 While discussing the status and preservation of the Apocrypha in the Slavonic context, Rosén noted that within the system of the Church Slavonic literature, the NT Apocrypha had no identifiable corpus of texts separate from the canonical literature and that Apocrypha and canonical literature were usually bound together in manuscripts, despite the attempts of the Church to eradicate the apocryphal writings by imposing various prohibitions. Also, following the argument of de Santos, Rosén states that the NT Apocrypha owe their survival to the form in which they were transmitted. They were commonly bound within the collections of Menaia, Prologs, homiletic compilations, hagiographic and theological collections. For this reason, the NT Apocrypha were called parasitic; in his view, they owe their survival to the other texts with which they were bound. Their parasitic form presented a constant threat to the stability of the textual versions since various titles frequently disguised these texts. See Rosén, The Slavonic Translation, 14.  See Miltenova, “Marginality, Intertextuality, Paratextuality,” 71– 74.  Aleksander Naumov, “Apokrifite v sistemata na starata slavjanska literatura,” (Apocrypha in the System of the Old Slavic Literature) Palaeobulgarica 4, No. 2 (1980): 71– 74.  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 267.  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 266.

Apocryphal manuscript geography

99

of the Infantia salvatoris in the medieval West.⁴¹⁰ I agree with her view that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had an audience in the medieval West. Moreover, the text appears in a large number of manuscripts. However, the fact that it appeared within the Pseudo-Matthew and was occasionally merged with other texts, sometimes as a continuation of another text or without a title, implies that ambiguous attitudes may have existed, even if only as scribal presuppositions. Alternatively, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been understood as part of a larger narrative. The average readers and listeners may not have known that the text had an apocryphal status.⁴¹¹ As for its changing genre: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared in Late Antiquity with the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Matthew, bound under the same umbrella by the same subject matter – Jesus. We can draw next to nothing from the title of “Gospel” here because we do not know if these texts were referred to as “Gospels” in the manuscript and because they were only mixed excerpts. It is better to refer to them as “Jesus-related” texts. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also emerged within the “Book of Mary” in a Syriac context. In this way, this text was aligned subject-wise with other literature related to Jesus and Mary. In the Byzantine tradition, it was mainly bound with panegyric, homiletic, and hagiographical works; these genres could have been applied to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas too. In this tradition, the text bore the title Paidika, or Logos, or it appeared without a title. In the Latin tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was predominantly aligned within the Pseudo-Matthew, accompanying other texts about Mary. This group of texts was subsequently expanded to include other texts about both Mary and Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas started appearing in Latin manuscripts with historiographical contents from the thirteenth century. It was perceived as a historicized account of the childhood of Jesus and entitled Tractatus or De operibus Iesu. In the fourteenth century, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared aligned with panegyric biographies and other deeds of great men (such as Alexander the Great and Apollonius). In this way, it switched various genres and was placed in different contexts from its emergence until the dawn of the early modern period. In what follows, my focus moves further from the contexts to the text itself. The variations in the different textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (the  Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 266.  Similarly, Mary Dzon concluded that Cecily Neville, a fifteenth-century widowed duchess of York and the mother of Edward IV and Richard III, must have found the book edifying, but might not have known that it was apocryphal, or (if it was the case), that it was still acceptable reading material in a private setting. Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 290.

100

Chapter 2 Codex and Genre of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

subject of Chapter 3) are juxtaposed to the contexts presented in this chapter. The aim is to assess whether the reasons prompting various scribes and binders to place the text in the manuscripts corresponded to what was written in the text.

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure When one wishes to read anything from an ancient or a medieval text, one first needs to define the text’s beginning and end. It means its transcription from the primary transmission medium (such as manuscript) from the beginning, which is sometimes marked by a title or a first word, until the end, enclosed by a concluding sentence or an end title. What if there is no title or a concluding sentence? What if the first sentence is not the same in all the manuscripts in which a given text appears? Such inconsistency is not rare in medieval manuscripts. As a transmission medium, manuscripts allowed for such discrepancy. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is no exception. It both begins and ends in different ways in the different manuscripts.⁴¹² The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was transmitted in many medieval manuscripts in various languages, albeit not in a fixed textual form. The transformations are present among the different language groups and within the same language. The text folds and unfolds in the different traditions and reshapes according to specific criteria. The standard textual form of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas – the contents between the beginning and the end – was debated among scholars. Some scholars argue that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas became an amalgam of different Jesus-related stories that were bound together at a certain point, where the separate stories gradually became the episodes of a more comprehensive narrative. Sheingorn argues that “there is no reason to assume that such stories, as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, had a completely fixed form.”⁴¹³ Hock observes that “the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not a lengthy and coherent narrative but a collection of largely self-contained stories that are only loosely held together by a series of indications of Jesus’ age.”⁴¹⁴ Ehrman and Pleše note that only the loosest organizational patterns can be found in this book.⁴¹⁵ Gero refers to it as “the fixation in writing of a cycle of oral tradition, of religious folklore.”⁴¹⁶

 Similar concerns are expressed in Davis, Christ Child, 20.  Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 254.  Hock, The Infancy Gospel of James and Thomas, 85.  Ehrman and Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels, 6.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 56; see also Hurtado, “Who Read Early Christian Apocrypha?” 158. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-004

102

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Hurtado asserts that “the extant manuscripts exhibit considerable fluidity in the transmission of the text, with deletion and insertion of some stories in a loose collection of vignettes, at least some of which circulated on their own before being collected in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.”⁴¹⁷ Davis assumes that episode Zeno (9) circulated initially independently.⁴¹⁸ It was not only the beginning, the end, and the presence and absence of the specific episodes within the text that made a difference in the manuscripts. At times, the same episode is written down differently and with differing length in the manuscripts. Scholars generally conclude that the reshaping and augmentation of apocryphal texts were the deliberate work of writers and artists in the past.⁴¹⁹ The episodes of this narrative were written down in a greater or lesser number of words in the different manuscripts. During transmission and translation, the narrative logic of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was disrupted at times. This feature is particularly evident where one episode ends and the next begins. It suggests that the episodes may have initially circulated alone before they were compiled together. An additional challenge to studying this text is that it was probably orally transmitted before it was written down. Possibly, oral and written transmission for a while occurred concurrently. Some of the differences in the textual forms could be ascribed to oral transmission.⁴²⁰ In this chapter, I elaborate on the structure and transformations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts. It requires scrutinizing what constitutes the text’s beginning and end and the internal variations in the manuscripts,  Hurtado, “Who Read Early Christian Apocrypha?” 158.  Davis, Christ Child, 102.  See Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 255; Kathryn A. Smith, “Accident, Play and Invention: Three Infancy Miracles in the Holkham Bible Picture Book,” in Tributes to Jonathan J. G. Alexander: The Making and Meaning of Illuminated Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts, Art, and Architecture, eds. Susan L’Engle, and Gerald B. Guest (London: Harvey Miller, 2006): 357– 69.  Aasgaard argues that the variants of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas should be studied as written manifestations of material that has to a large extent been orally transmitted. He proposes studying it according to an “oral/written paradigm,” with a slightly more significant emphasis on the oral. As the markers of orality in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, he suggests the story’s episodic character, the existence of multiform stories, the possible independence of episodes, and memorization aids in the story that helped to remember it better. To define the interrelationship of oral and written elements, Aasgaard joins the discussion started by Gero, Cameron, and others and proposes that this story has been transmitted with episodes added and omitted. While it was written down at different points, at the same time, it continued to circulate orally. It is why the transmission process was double and interrelated; the oral and the written were in mutual exchange. See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 14– 34.

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

103

namely, the order, the presence and absence of episodes, and the inner length adjustments within individual episodes. In this chapter, I employ narratology as a methodological framework to help answer the questions about a text written down in medieval manuscripts, displaying a variety that is a consequence of transmission processes and the contexts in which it was used. Narratology helps us comprehend the text’s structure, its transformations, reductions, and augmentations in different settings. The study of the multiple textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas pertains to New Philology in the most fitting way because New Philology approaches each manuscript as an individual source. Arguing that “variation is what medieval text is about,” New Philology relies on the premise that it is possible to have as many versions of a text as we have manuscripts. According to New Philology, varieties usually correspond to the specific environments in which the manuscripts were produced and used. In the first section of the chapter, I deal with the episode order within the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The order is linked to the structure and has a direct impact on the narrative’s meaning. The following questions are of particular interest: Which episodes are present in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in each of the manuscripts? In which order are the episodes aligned in the manuscripts? What do the differences in order mean in a broader context? The episode order and consequently the meaning of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may be affected by the rearrangement of the episodes. Since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is at times part of a larger cycle of texts, I also look into these cycles and the texts that precede and follow the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts. In the next section of the chapter, I analyze the junctures between the episodes to see how they link the text. Sometimes the junctures (the end of an episode and the beginning of another) have awkward transitions that interrupt the narrative logic. I have already introduced the scholarly view that the episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are loosely held together with unconfined junctures. In this section, I investigate whether the narrative logic is interrupted equally in the manuscripts. Additionally, I analyze why interruptions occur. In the final section of the chapter, I look into individual episodes to assess their length, augmentations, and reductions compared to the same episode in the other manuscripts. The aim is to see in which contexts and why specific episodes give more or less space to particular topics within the narrative. Why would a specific episode in a particular manuscript devote more space to a subject? This question pertains to the structural category of pseudo-duration. I aim here to bring to light specific features of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in each manuscript, which make its text different from the texts in other manuscripts, related to the specific agendas and contexts of the manuscripts. I am

104

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

convinced that a single text could have been transformed many times in different contexts and utilized in different ways, following the needs of the groups and societies that used it.

Pseudo-temporal order The story about Jesus’ childhood presents a sequence of events in his early years over several years, in the same way as any story one may think of shows a series of certain events. As was elaborated in Chapter 1, the events that comprise the subject of a narrative occupy a certain amount of time. They are connected in some form of temporal order.⁴²¹ Genette defines temporal order as the succession of the events in the story and pseudo-temporal order as their arrangement in the narrative.⁴²² The study of the temporal order presupposes a comparison of the order in which events/temporal sections are arranged in the narrative discourse with the order of succession the same events have in the story.⁴²³ When the events are turned into a story, they may be presented in a different order, omitted, told more than once, or reported at greater or lesser length.⁴²⁴ The story can be laid out in an order different from the chronological order. In this sense, some episode orders are anachronistic in comparison to others. At times, the succession of episodes has no connection to the temporal order of events. When it is impossible to determine the temporal relationship between the various events, we deal with an achronical narrative.⁴²⁵ In what order did the events in Jesus’ childhood take place? The manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appear to narrate the story about Jesus’ childhood chronologically, with occasional references to his age. Some of the later dated manuscripts even have an introductory statement and an enclosing statement (Postscriptum) of the ascribed author, testifying its credibility and source.⁴²⁶ Nevertheless, the order and choice of the episodes of this narrative

 de Jong, Narratology and Classics, 73.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35.  de Jong, Narratology and Classics, 77.  de Jong, Narratology and Classics, 73.  Gero reports that the earliest versions, the Syriac Add. 14484 and the Georgian manuscript A 95, do not have a prologue that mentions Thomas. Burke argues that the ascription of this text to a named author is only a secondary feature, found in Byzantine, Lt, and Slavonic manuscripts. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 205; Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 57.

Pseudo-temporal order

105

are not identical in the manuscripts. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not maintain a fixed textual form. Some scholars argue that the symbiosis of various episodes about Jesus’ childhood was constructed at some point, but the details of the symbiosis process are unclear. The narrative form folds and unfolds in multiple traditions; the episodes fall in and out according to the preferences and different aims of the specific manuscripts. Gero argues that the order seems to be relatively unimportant and varies among the versions.⁴²⁷ In his view, the stories in the episodes seem reasonably self-contained and only loosely connected.⁴²⁸ Although I do not entirely agree with his statement, I must acknowledge the importance of “episode” as a principal constituent of the narrative. Besides the absence of specific episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in some manuscripts, their differing position is also characteristic. For example, in the Greek manuscript Sabaiticus 259, the episode Injured Foot (10) occurs after James’ Snakebite (16). The narrative does not refer to this episode as a flash-forward (prolepsis) or a flash-backward (analepsis) but an event that follows chronologically. It justifies asking: When did the healing of a young man’s injured foot occur in the story? Did it happen when Jesus was five or when he was eight? Does the placing of the episode in any way influence the narrative flow? The narrative in Sabaiticus does not appear as anachronistic regarding the event; the event is not described as a flash-back. It is rather achronical, meaning that the narrative does not specify when the event happens. As the basis of numbering the episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I use Burke’s book De infantia Iesu. ⁴²⁹ I take the Greek variant Ga as the standard form for marking the episodes. Burke numerates the episodes by number, where the maximum length is nineteen episodes (1– 19), as in the Ga variant.⁴³⁰ In this way, each episode that constitutes the standard narrative has its number. I transfer this numbering to the other Greek variants (Gs, Gd) and the versions in the

 Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 59.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 58.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 302– 539.  The standard form is as follows: Prologue (1), Pools (2.1) Sparrows (2.2– 2.5), Annas’ Son (3), Careless Boy (4), Joseph’s Rebuke (5), First Teacher (6 – 8): Dialogue (6), Lament (7), Exclamation (8), Zeno (9), Injured Foot (10), Water in Cloak (11), Harvest (12), Carpenter (13), Second Teacher (14), Third Teacher (15), James’ Snakebite (16), Dead Baby (17), Dead Laborer (18), Jerusalem (19). While this enumeration is taken from Burke’s De infantia Iesu (who took it over from Tischendorf), most of the titles of the episodes are borrowed from Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 246– 247. I use only the shorter titles of the episodes.

106

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

other languages.⁴³¹ Although the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has the editions of the Latin and Slavonic manuscripts, I transfer Burke’s numbering to the structure of the episodes in these manuscripts to maintain consistency and clarity. In the Lm variant, I use both Burke’s numbering of the episodes and Tischendorf’s numbering of the text as part of the Pseudo-Matthew, in which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas covers episodes 26 – 42. In designating the episode names, for the most part, I use Aasgaard’s titles.⁴³² I also use Aasgaard’s numbering of the episodes that fall outside of the standard form.⁴³³ Whenever a single episode is mentioned in what follows, I first use its title (from Aasgaard) and mark its number in brackets (Burke). In the case of the text of the Lm variant, I first use Tischendorf’s numbering of the episodes within the Pseudo-Matthew (26 – 42) and then Burke’s numbering. The analysis commences with the Latin manuscripts because they offer a significant point of departure compared to the rest of the corpus and furnish a reasonable basis for establishing further connections among the manuscripts.

Latin manuscripts In the following analysis, I use the Latin manuscripts presented in Chapter 1, Paris 1772, Dijon, and Cambridge, which scholars categorized to belong to different variants. The variant Lm is represented by the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon.⁴³⁴ In Burke’s view, Lm belongs to the first Latin translation from Greek, which comes from a Greek text related to the other early translations, such as Syriac, Georgian, and Ethiopic.⁴³⁵ The manuscript Cambridge belongs to what Burke calls the “late Latin” Lt variant. He regards the Lt as a second translation from Greek, related to the Greek variant Gd. The variant-based distinction helps present the pseudo-temporal order of the episodes because the two manuscripts containing the Lm variant have the same order of the episodes up to the point where the text in Paris 1772 ends,

 It should be noted that Burke uses the different numbering for his edition of the Gs variant, for example. R. Aasgaard follows Burke’s numbering in his edition of Gs.  See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 245 – 7.  See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 245 – 7.  Comprising episodes 26 – 42 of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 145.

Pseudo-temporal order

107

yet their order differs from the Cambridge manuscript (Lt representative).⁴³⁶ The pseudo-temporal order must be analyzed in connection to the other narratives combined with this text in the manuscripts, for example, the texts within the Pseudo-Matthew, which frequently constitute a continuous text. The pseudo-temporal order of the episodes in the three manuscripts is presented in the following table: Manuscripts

Title ()

Paris 

Dijon

Cambridge

Epistula of Chromatius and Heliodorus

Letters of PseudoJerome, PseudoMatthew

Gospel of Nicodemus, Vindicta salvatoris, Diatribe against Jews

Pseudo-Matthew

Prologue in Egypt

Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus, De cognatis Ioachimo et Anna, Prologue in Egypt

x

Prologue ()

x

Pools (/.)

x

x

x

Sparrows (/. – .)

x

x

x

Annas’ Son (/)

x

x

x

Careless Boy (/ – )

x

x

x ()

Joseph’s Rebuke ()

x

First Teacher (/)

x

x

Lament, Exclamation (/ – )

x

x ( and )

Zeno (/)

x

x

Injured Foot ()

x

Water in Cloak (/)

x

x

Harvest (/)

x

x

Lions (/)

x

 The manuscript Cambridge has the same order of the episodes as the two thirteenth-fourteenth-century manuscripts, Paris 3014 and Berne 271 (1– 19.4– 5), which also contain the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

108

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Continued Manuscripts Paris 

Dijon

Cambridge

Lions (/)

x

Carpenter (/)

x

x

Second Teacher (/)

x

x

Third Teacher (/)

x

x

Joseph Raises Dead (/)

x

James’ Snakebite (/)

x

Dead Baby ()

x x

Family Meal (/)

x

Jerusalem (. – )

x

Postscriptum

x Augustine, Sermons on St. Vincent

De miraculis beatae Mariae

Story of the Cross/Post peccatum Adae

The eleventh-century Paris 1772 contains the text only in part. Preceded by the Epistula of Chromatius and Heliodorus and the core of the Pseudo-Matthew, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas opens with the introductory sentence (title) and contains episodes 26 – 29 of the Pseudo-Matthew. ⁴³⁷ After the Infancy Gospel of Thomas ends in the middle of a sentence, the manuscript continues immediately with another text, Augustine’s Sermons on St. Vincent. The textual interruption came in either through careless planning or else it was done purposefully. The first option is more likely since occasional capital letters appear in margins that accompany the main text. These capitals could have been inscribed when the textual planning was carried out (if there was such planning). In this way, the capital L next to the title of Augustine’s Sermon on St. Vincent could have been written earlier to mark the beginning of a new text. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is interrupted mid-sentence, but the line above L goes until the end. The text was undoubtedly not violently interrupted or destroyed.

 The introductory sentence (title) in fol. 88v: De infantia domini nostri Iesu Christi; Incipit infancia domini nostri Iesu Christi. Postquam reversus est in Galilea de Egipto.

Pseudo-temporal order

109

Alternatively, a scribe could have stopped copying this text after realizing what he was copying. Within the Pseudo-Matthew, the core text focuses on Mary, while the fragmentary Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears to be almost of secondary importance, all the more so, since a little bit further, we find two other texts about Mary and her parents (Descendance of St. Anne, and De genealogia beatae Mariae). The four initial episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas copied in this manuscript describe Jesus “in a bad light.” It appears as if a scribe had thought that enough information had been given about the child Jesus, particularly since he was described negatively, and that he, therefore, turned back to the main subject, namely, Mary. Altogether, it is difficult to comprehend why the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was copied only in part, and it is likewise challenging to say whether such self-contained fragmented parts were considered a text and copied in their entirety from other manuscripts or seen only as fragments. In any case, the abrupt ending of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript could not be considered an ending. The second among the Lm manuscripts, Dijon 38, contains the Letters of Pseudo-Jerome, the Pseudo-Matthew, and the Prologue in Egypt preceding the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which contains episodes 26 – 42. The text is continuous and without any titles. The De miraculis beatae Mariae follows it. The complete cycle of Mary’s life and times is placed in this manuscript’s order. The focus of the Pseudo-Matthew is on Mary. It is interesting to light on this order of texts in the context of this manuscript and its provenance since it comes from a founding abbey of the Cistercian order, Notre-Dame of Cîteaux, located south of Dijon, France, and it was used in Cistercian education. Cistercians were known for their veneration of Mary. While her place was not prominent before the twelfth century in the West, the Cistercians played a significant role in the explosion of Marian piety in Europe.⁴³⁸ It is no wonder that this manuscript, with Mary as its principal subject, was used in education in a Cistercian setting. How do the episodes about Jesus fit in this corpus? The core episodes are present in the structure of this manuscript: episodes 26 – 32 (2– 9) and 33 – 41 (11– 16). Dijon does not contain the episodes where Jesus helps other people, performs miracles, and heals them, such as Injured Foot (10), Dead Baby (17), and Dead Laborer (18), but it contains the episodes where Jesus’ hostility towards humans and his good relations with animals and wild beasts are emphasized, such as Lions (35 – 36/03). The episode Joseph Raises Dead (40/04) is a healing episode

 See Rozanne E. Elder, ed., Mary Most Holy: Meditating with the Early Cistercians (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2003).

110

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

where a man is raised not by Jesus but by Joseph through Jesus’ intercession. Dijon ends with the episode Family Meal (42/05), where the members of Jesus’ family are all mentioned by name, including Joseph’s sons and daughters from the first marriage and Mary’s sister and mother. The extended family is wholly omitted in the other manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon contain external analepses, the references to the past events which are not covered by the narrative. Their opening mentions that the events narrated in what follows occurred after Jesus came back to Galilee from Egypt.⁴³⁹ These analepses are employed to link the standard narrative with the previous events (in Egypt) and produce a meaningful sequence.⁴⁴⁰ The libellus of manuscript Cambridge (twelfth-thirteenth century) containing the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins with several texts dedicated to Jesus (Gospel of Nicodemus, Vindicta salvatoris, Diatribe against Jews) before it turns to the Pseudo-Matthew. We find there De cognatis Ioachimo et Anna, the text which tells about Anne’s three successive marriages to Joachim, Cleophas, and Salomas.⁴⁴¹ After describing Jesus’ passion and resurrection, we encounter the defense of Christ, the treatise against Jews, and the description of Mary’s parents, possibly also containing the description of her childhood, Prologue in Egypt, Jesus’ childhood, and the history of the cross, before we find other moral histories, apocalypses, and letters. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins without any title. It contains both Prologue (1) and Postscriptum, which testify to Thomas as its author. The text follows the order from the Prologue (1) to the episode Jerusalem (19.4– 5). The episodes describing Jesus’ miracles, Injured Foot (10) and Dead Baby (17), are present here, unlike in Dijon.⁴⁴² The episode Dead Baby (17.2) is followed immediately by the episode about scribes and Pharisees talking to Mary about Jesus

 In the Prologue or the title or the introductory sentence of episode 26.  This feature is also present in the fourteenth-century manuscript Berne 271, which contains the Lt variant.  This text was otherwise called the Trinubium Annae. It is a short Apocryphon that narrates Anne’s three successive marriages to Joachim, Cleophas, and Salomas and identifies her as the mother of three New Testament Marys (all but Mary Magdalene). Gijsel reports that the insertion of the Trinubium Annae within the Pseudo-Matthew has been typical for the family Q, to which this manuscript belongs. Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 95, 168.  It is important to note that another Lt manuscript, Paris 3014, contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas after the core Pseudo-Matthew (De nativitate Marie) and the Prologue in Egypt, and also begins without any title. This manuscript follows the chronology of Mary’s life, while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is taken as a segment of a broader narrative. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains both Prologue (1) and Postscriptum, episodes 2– 17, and Jerusalem (19.4– 5) in part.

Pseudo-temporal order

111

(19.4– 19.5). Therefore, the episode Jerusalem (19) is present in this manuscript only in part. The manuscript does not contain much of Jerusalem, which describes the setting and the events. The part where Jesus gets lost and his parents look for him is absent. The focus of the libellus is on Mary, Jesus, Jews, and Mary’s parents. Altogether, significant differences occur in the episode order of the two Latin variants, Lm and Lt. The Lm representatives, most notably Dijon, do not contain the episodes where Jesus performs miracles, heals, and helps other people, which Cambridge has. Dijon, however, contains the episodes where Jesus’ hostility towards humans and his good relations with animals and wild beasts are emphasized, as well as the description of Jesus’ family relations, which is all absent from Cambridge. The question of these differences needs to be considered further. I will offer some possible answers to these questions further in the book. It is essential to say that despite the differences between the texts of the two variants, they both appear in the manuscripts in similar contexts, with similar overarching themes, and bound with similar texts, without title in one and the other variant. Finally, the analyzed manuscripts containing the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas are three out of many. The analysis of a larger body of Latin manuscripts is beyond the scope of this book, but it deserves attention in future research.⁴⁴³

Byzantine manuscripts The Byzantine manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are less numerous than the Latin manuscripts. The information about the pseudo-temporal order of the episodes in all extant Byzantine manuscripts is available thanks to Tony Burke. Therefore, I build the table based on Burke’s presentation of the episode order in the manuscripts, including the manuscripts that will not be the subject of my further study. In what follows, I will focus on the order of the episodes of the three manuscripts presented in Chapter 1, namely, Sabaiticus 259, Athens 355, and Vienna hist. gr. 91. The eleventh-century manuscript Sabaiticus includes the Prologue, episodes 2– 5, 6 (including 6.2a-f), 7– 9, 11– 16, 10, and 19.⁴⁴⁴ The order is not the same

 Here, I have in mind particularly the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas where Lm and Lt variants are intertwined into a single text, as in the manuscripts Paris BnF lat. 1652, Florence Gaddi 208, Harley and Madrid. The order of episodes in the manuscripts during the high and late Middle Ages demonstrates the freedom and playfulness of transmitters to come up with unexpected forms of what they saw as a text of Jesus’ childhood. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 156 – 160.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 127.

x

x x

x

x

First Teacher: (Dialogue) ( – .)

Lament ()

Exclamation () x

x

x

x

x

x x (in part)

x

x

x

x (in part)

x

x

x

x

x (in part)

x

x

x

x

x (in part)

x

x

x

x

x

x (in part)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Joseph’s Rebuke ()

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Careless Boy () x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Annas’ Son ()

x

x

x

x

Sparrows (. – )

x

D

John of Damascus, Birth of Christ

Athens 

x

x

Athos Lavra

Pools (.)

x

Samos

x (James)

x

Dresden

x

x

Bologna

Prologue ()

x

Paris 

x

Leo IV Wise, Oracula

Pseudo-Eusebius Alexandrinus, Sermo de proditione ludae

Vatopedi

A

Egypt Prol.

Vienna hist. 

Sab 

S

Manuscripts

Vienna theol. 

112 Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

x x x

x

x

x

x

Harvest ()

Carpenter ()

Second Teacher x ()

x

Water in Cloak ()

Third Teacher ()

James’ Snakebite () x x

Dead Baby ()

Dead Laborer ()

x

x

x

x

x (after )

Injured Foot ()

x

Vienna hist. 

x

Sab 

S

Zeno ()

Continued

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Vatopedi

Paris 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bologna

A

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Dresden

Manuscripts

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Samos

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Athos Lavra

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Athens 

D

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x (.)

Vienna theol. 

Pseudo-temporal order

113

Dyer ()

Jerusalem ()

Continued

Epiphanius Monachus, Vita Deiparae (frag.)

x

Sab 

S

Chrysostom, In Mattheum homilies

x

Vienna hist. 

Vatopedi

x

Paris  x

Bologna

A

x

Dresden

Manuscripts

x

Samos

x

Athos Lavra

Apocalypsis Methodii

x

Athens 

D

x

Vienna theol. 

114 Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Pseudo-temporal order

115

as in the other manuscripts. From the episode Zeno (9), the text goes straight to the episode Water in Cloak (11). We have seen the same transition from episode 9 to 11 in Dijon (32 to 33). The episode Injured Foot (10) appears after the episode James’ Snakebite (16). In Dijon, episode 10 is not present. Episode 10 in Sabaiticus is not used as a flashback (analepsis) but is set chronologically. It means that the healing of an injured foot of a young man occurred in this manuscript when Jesus was eight years old, not five as in the other manuscripts. Sabaiticus does not have the two episodes related to the healing miracles, Dead Baby (17) and Dead Laborer (18). Episode 18.2 occurs as the ending of the episode Injured Foot (10). This manuscript also does not contain parts of some episodes. The end of the episode Annas’ Son (3.3), describing the lament of the dead child’s parents, is absent. Sabaiticus does not contain the opening of the episode Joseph’s Rebuke (5.2), where the fear of the miracle witnesses is described. What is also absent is the part of the episode Second Teacher (14.1), representing the second teacher’s educational program for the study of Hebrew. The absence of the scenes of emotional tension, fear, and pain, the segments related to Jews, and the lack of Jesus’ healing miracles are the characteristics of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Sabaiticus. The fragment from the Vita Deiparae (Life of Mary) by Epiphanius Monachus follows the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is an exciting and unique detail among the Byzantine manuscripts that I analyze here – the texts about Jesus’ childhood and Mary’s life are placed one after another, even if they are not joined into one. Another Byzantine manuscript, the fifteenth-century Athens gr. 355 contains the Prologue in Egypt, preceding the standard narrative form, and the Prologue (by James), episodes 2– 5, 6 (6.2a-f), and 7– 19. It is the most extended narrative in the Byzantine tradition (when taken as a whole with the Prologue in Egypt). Moreover, the Prologue in Egypt is preceded in this manuscript by John of Damascus’ Birth of Christ. The two texts may have formed a more extensive sequence describing Jesus’ birth and childhood, with the Prologue in Egypt between them, particularly knowing that the Infancy Gospel does not have a title. Gero reports that this manuscript agrees significantly with Slavonic manuscripts and is thus a witness to a tenth-century Greek version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ⁴⁴⁵ Other scholars connect the Gd variant, which is written in this manuscript, with the Lt variant. Unlike Sabaiticus, Athens 355 contains all the miracle episodes. The same applies to the fourteenth-fifteenth century Vienna hist. gr. 91

 Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 50.

116

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

– all the miracle episodes are present.⁴⁴⁶ This manuscript includes the nineteenepisode form: Prologue, episodes 2– 5, 6 (6.2a-f), and 7– 19.⁴⁴⁷ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is unrelated to the surrounding texts in this manuscript. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Sabaiticus does not have the episode Injured Foot (10) in the same place as we have it in the two other Byzantine manuscripts and the Latin manuscript Cambridge. We have seen the direct transition from episode 9 to 11 already in Dijon. Also, Sabaiticus does not contain the two other miracle episodes, Dead Baby (17) and Dead Laborer (18), which two other manuscripts have. Aside from the absence of the miracle episodes, rearrangement of the episodes proves to be the most significant difference among the Byzantine manuscripts.

Slavonic manuscripts Among the Slavonic manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, three manuscripts are analyzed: St Petersburg 13.3.17, Novaković (edition), and Hludov 162. Manuscripts St Petersburg

Hludov

Novaković

Paterikon (Sayings of the Fathers)

Chrysostom, Birth of Christ

Prologue ()

x

x

x

Pools (.)

x

x

x

Sparrows (. – )

x

x

x

Annas’ Son ()

x

x

x

Careless Boy ()

x

x

x

Joseph’s Rebuke ()

x

x

x

First teacher ()

 – .c

x

x

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 48. The rest of the manuscripts presented in the table above, which also belong to the Ga variant (Bologna, Dresden, Samos, Athos Lavra), repeat episodes 1– 19 and contain episode 6 in part. The manuscript Paris 239 is unusual since it contains only episodes 1– 6 (in part) and the beginning of the episode otherwise unknown in the Byzantine manuscripts – Dyer (07).  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 131.

Pseudo-temporal order

117

Continued Manuscripts St Petersburg

Hludov

Novaković

Lament ()

x

x

Exclamation ()

x

x

Zeno ()

x

x

Injured Foot ()

x

x

Water in Cloak ()

x

x

Harvest ()

x

x

Carpenter ()

x

x

x

Second Teacher ()

x

x

x

Third Teacher ()

x

x

.

Temple of Idols

x

x

Blind Man ()

x

x

x

James’ Snakebite ()

x

x

x

Dead Baby ()

x

x

x

Dead Laborer ()

X

x

x

Jerusalem ()

.

x

. – 

Children Made Swine ()

x Jerusalem . –  Kalendologion

John the Exarch, Epiphany of Christ

In the fourteenth-century St Petersburg, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is preceded by the Paterikon and followed by the Kalendologion. This manuscript lacks much of the episode First teacher (6.2d-8.2) and the whole episode Zeno (9), Injured Foot (10), Water in Cloak (11), and Harvest (12). It is difficult to conclude whether the absence of these episodes was intentional or whether it occurred through translation or copying from a document that lacked these episodes. The First teacher (6 – 8) seems to have been an unstable episode, judging by some Byzantine manuscripts. St Petersburg also does not contain Zeno (9) and Injured Foot (10) episodes, including healing miracles and raising the dead. However, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript has a sequence of Jesus’ miracles related to rising from death and healing towards the end of

118

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

the text (013, 16, 17, 18), starting with the episode Blind Man (013), otherwise unknown in Greek. The absent episodes are probably not omitted intentionally in the manuscript. Scribe(s) could have skipped the episodes accidentally. Also, they may have been copied from another source that lacked these episodes. Finally, the manuscript St Petersburg contains only the beginning of the episode Jerusalem (19.1). The Novaković edition is a considerably longer narrative in comparison to St Petersburg. In this text, a few episodes are placed amid other episodes. It is the case with Third Teacher (15), where the text starts with section 15.1 but then continues disconnectedly with Blind Man (013.1). Both sections 15.1 and 013.1 have better transitions in the other Slavonic manuscripts. Novaković contains the complete episode Jerusalem (19) but is interrupted by Children Made Swine (012). Novaković is the only Slavonic text containing the Jewish children’s turning into swine (012) in the middle of the Jerusalem episode (between 19.2 and 19.3). Possibly, this text was copied from at least two different sources, and the episodes were combined. I have already shown that manuscript Hludov contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas between the texts about the Birth of Christ and Epiphany of Christ, making a topical sequence. In Hludov, a delicate transition is made between the Third teacher (15) and Blind Man (013). The Third teacher is a complete episode. The episode where Jesus destroys and rebuilds the Temple of Idols follows. The initial section of the episode Blind Man (013.1) is finely expanded to explain Joseph’s reasons for sending Jesus to sorcerers for instruction. The end of the episode Third teacher (15) is different from that in the Byzantine manuscripts. This episode ends with Jesus’ success in school (15.4): Hludov relates that Joseph gave up sending Jesus to teachers and decided to send him to sorcerers instead. Several episodes in the Slavonic tradition are otherwise almost unknown. The episode Blind Man (013), where Jesus as a doctor’s apprentice heals a blind man, appears only in Slavonic and Arabic translations.⁴⁴⁸ The episode of Jesus turning the Jewish children into swine appears in Slavonic (one manuscript), Arabic, Old English, and Provençal translations.⁴⁴⁹ The episode where Jesus destroys and rebuilds the Temple of Idols appears only in the Slavonic manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg, but it can be found in the Pseudo-Matthew and the Arabic version.⁴⁵⁰ The link to the Arabic tradition is an exciting line for further investigation, but it will not be this book’s subject. The additional  See Gero, “The Infancy Gospel,” 58.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel,” 58.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel,” 58. Burke calls this episode Jesus and the Temple of Idols and writes that foreign gods bow to the young Jesus there. Burke, De infantia Iesu, VIII.

Narrative logic

119

episodes mentioned above generally introduce different Jesus’ miracles into the narrative, either related to healing or another kind. To sum up, a significant difference among the various versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the multiple languages and manuscripts is the presence and absence of the episodes about healing and other miracles. Dijon does not contain the episodes where Jesus helps other people by performing miracles and healing them. In contrast, it includes the episodes where Jesus’ hostility towards humans and his good relations with animals and wild beasts are emphasized. By the time the Lt variant was coined (approximately in the twelfth century) and appeared in manuscript Cambridge (among other manuscripts), some of these episodes had disappeared from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, such as Lions (35 – 36) and Family Meal (42), while the healing episodes Injured Foot (10) and Dead Baby (17) were introduced. Manuscript Sabaiticus also lacks the two episodes describing healing miracles, Dead Baby (17) and Dead Laborer (18). Additionally, this manuscript misses the scenes of emotional tension, fear, and pain. The explicit mention of Jews is also mostly absent from this manuscript. The healing episodes are included in Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355. Manuscript Athens 355 additionally attaches the Prologue in Egypt to the opening of its core narrative. The Slavonic manuscripts introduce additional healing and miracle episodes, such as Blind Man, Temple of Idols, and Children Made Swine (otherwise characteristic of Arabic, Old English, Provençal, and Latin versions). External analepses are present in Latin manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon and in Greek manuscript Athens 355 in the form of references to the events in Egypt. They link with the Prologue in Egypt, to which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was attached in these manuscripts. The inconsistencies in the number and choice of the episodes leave the impression that this narrative was not firmly fixed in time and was achronical.

Narrative logic The episode sequence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas reveals inconsistency concerning the story and the events in several places and some manuscripts more than the others, particularly where one episode ends and another begins. Scholars have already argued that this narrative is a collection of loose and self-contained episodes about Jesus’ childhood. I address this scholarly consensus and argue that the narrative logic is not affected in all manuscripts, but only in some of them, and not to an equal extent.

120

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

The narrative logic is not affected in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in these manuscripts is a logical narrative throughout. In these manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has analepses, where the beginning of one episode refers to the previous events, making a good narrative flow.⁴⁵¹ Several episodes are of particular interest here. In what follows, I discuss how they are related in these two manuscripts before I turn to other manuscripts. In the episode Sparrows (27/2.2– 5), when Jesus plays with other children, one of the Jews sees him making the sparrows and slanders him to Joseph.⁴⁵² Later on, Jesus makes the birds alive, and they fly away in the sight and hearing of all that stood by. ⁴⁵³ The setting in this manuscript describes the presence of both children and adults. The focus on the audience proves to be particularly important for avoiding confusion in the narrative. The text further says: And, when all those who gathered saw such signs and miracles performed by him, the Pharisees were filled with great astonishment. Some praised and admired him, and others reviled him. And they went away to the chief priests and the heads of the Pharisees and reported…⁴⁵⁴

Further on, in episode Annas’ Son (28/3) of Paris 1772 and Dijon, the son of Annas, a priest of the temple, who destroys Jesus’ pools, dies after Jesus’ curse in the sight of all. ⁴⁵⁵ The line refers to the same audience as the previous episode and follows the narrative logic. In the episode Careless Boy (29/4), Jesus curses and kills another child who collides with him. The child’s parents come to talk to Joseph, who is concerned about Jesus’ life and is wary of the community of the people of Israel. He wants to protect Jesus from the community. When Joseph asks Jesus about the reasons, Jesus’ reply in this episode is consis The opening of episode 28: And again (Nam it[eru]m); episode 31: A second time (It[eru]m); episode 32: After these things (Post hec); episode 36: After this (Post h[ae]c); episode 39: Again (It[eru]m), and so on.  In the following analysis, I use A. Walker’s translation of the Lm variant, based on Tischendorf’s edition. I adjust the translation where it differs from the text in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon. See Alexander Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873).  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Tunc stantib[us] om[n]ib[us]. Illis. et videntib[us] et audientib[us]; dix[it].  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Cu[m] aut[em] om[ne]s qui aderant ei. vidissent talia signa. et virtutes ab eo factas fuisse. pharisei repleti sunt stupore magno. Alii laudabant eu[m]. et mirabantur. Alii vituperabant eu[m]. Et habies ad principes sacerdotum et adprimates phariseor[um]. et nuntiaver[unt]…  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: cunctis videntib[us] et audientib[us].

Narrative logic

121

tent and logical: No one is a wise son but he whom his father had taught according to the knowledge of this time; and a father’s knowledge can hurt no one but evildoers. ⁴⁵⁶ At the end of the episode, Joseph does not punish Jesus, and Jesus makes the boy alive again. These two features contribute to the narrative logic. In the episode First teacher (30/6) of the manuscripts other than Dijon, the conversation between Joseph and the teacher Zacheus appears confusing (as will be demonstrated further in the text), particularly when Joseph replies to the teacher, who persuades Joseph to send Jesus to school. This confusion is avoided in Dijon, where Joseph answers: Is there anyone who can keep this child and teach him? But if you can keep him and teach him, we by no means hinder him from being taught…⁴⁵⁷

Further, in the First teacher (30/6), Jesus talks to the teacher. The audience of the event is mentioned: Then, all who heard these words were exposed to astonishment. ⁴⁵⁸ In Dijon, the audience is always the same – the people of Israel. When Jesus answers this audience, he says: And you wonder because you heard these words from a child, due to which you did not believe in what I said to you. And I said to you: I know when you were born, and all of you wonder. I will tell you more incredible things, that you may wonder more…I was with you among children, and you have not known me; I have spoken to you as to wise men, and you have not understood me; because you are younger than I am and of little faith.⁴⁵⁹

This passage does not confuse Jesus’ explanation of his status; he talks from the perspective of a divine in a child’s body. Throughout the text, Jesus’ divine nature is stressed and openly claimed. Such an announcement makes this episode logical and clear.

 Dijon, fol. 11v: Nullus fili[us] sapiens est nisi que[m] p[ate]r suus s[e]c[un]d[u]m sci[enti]am hui[us] t[em]p[or]is erudierit. Et p[at]ris sui sapi[enti]a nemini nocet. N[ec] male agentib[us].  Dijon, fol. 12r: q[ui]s est q[ui] possit ho[c] i[n]fante[m] tene[re] et doce[re]. Et si potes tene[re] et doce[re] eum. nos mi[ni]me p[ro]hibem[us] doc[er]i eu[m] a te que ab ho[min]ibus dicu[n]t[ur].  Dijon, fol. 12v: Tu[n]c om[ne]s q[ui] audier[un]t v[er]ba h[aec] panefacti obstupueru[n]t.  Dijon, fol. 12v-13r: in h[oc] vos admirami[ni]. Q[uia] talia v[er]ba ab infante d[icu]n[tu]r q[ua] re [er]go n[on] c[re]ditis m[ihi] in hiis q[uae] loquut[us] sum vobis: Et dixi vobis. Scio q[ua]n[do] nati estis. Quo om[ne]s mirami[ni]. Ampliora audietis et dicam vob[is] ut magi[s] miremi[ni]…Fui int[er] vos ex infantib[us] a n[on] cognovistis me. Loquut[us] su[m] vob[is] q[uas]i cu[m] p[ru] dentib[us] et n[on] intellexistis me. Q[uia] mi[n]ores me estis et modice fidei.

122

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

In manuscript Cambridge, which contains the Lt variant, we are given less information about the audience, which immediately affects the narrative logic. Without a more specific reference to the audience, it is not completely clear in the episode Sparrows (2) how the Jewish children slander Jesus to Joseph (2.2), and afterward, Jews (who were not mentioned earlier) witness the miracle in 2.5. The logic fails in this manuscript in the episode Annas’ Son (3) because initially, a certain Pharisee destroys Jesus’ pools; yet, his parents arrive later and describe the dead Pharisee as a child. This scene recurs in Greek manuscript Athens 355 and some Slavonic manuscripts. In Cambridge, the logic is disturbed in episodes Careless Boy (4) and Joseph’s Rebuke (5). In 4.1, Jesus collides with a child whom he curses and who dies. The child is with his friends, who witness the curse and the child’s death, and who talk to Joseph about Jesus’ behavior in 4.2. However, when Joseph talks to Jesus about it (5), he says that the village’s inhabitants disapprove of his behavior, not the friends of the dead child. In an otherwise confusing part of First teacher (6), when Joseph talks to the teacher about Jesus’ going to school, Joseph’s answer appears logical in Cambridge compared to the Byzantine manuscripts. Joseph says: Nobody can teach him (Jesus) but God alone. Do not believe that this small boy will be small in anything. ⁴⁶⁰ These lines follow the logic. The audience problem arises in episodes Joseph’s Rebuke (5) and First teacher (6) in manuscript Cambridge. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1), Jesus blinds the people who complained about him. The episode First teacher (6) continues immediately after this. In 6.2c, the audience is Jews who stood and listened to what Jesus said. ⁴⁶¹ This audience is unexpected, and readers are left to wonder about the blinded people in the scene just a little earlier. The same audience, Jews who stood and listened to what Jesus said, recurs in 6.2e.⁴⁶² Jesus offends them in 6.2e in manuscript Cambridge: I say this word to you. I know that you are frail and ignorant. ⁴⁶³ The offense is unexpected and somewhat odd.

 Cambridge, fol. 79v: Nemo p[otest] docere eu[m] n[isi] solus d[eu]s. Nu[m]q[ui]d paru[m] creditis. erit parvulus iste. The fourteenth-century manuscript Berne 271 has somewhat different lines. In fol. 41v, it is said: Nobody can teach him (Jesus) but God alone. But even if he is small in age and body, he is perfect in knowledge (Nemo potest eu[m] docere n[isi] sol[us] deus. S[ed] enim etate et corpore sit p[ar]vus tu[m] i[n] scientia p[er]f[ec]t[u]s est).  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Iudei aute[m] qui astaba[n]t et audieba[n]t.  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Cum audissent Iudei sermone[m] quem dixerat infans.  Cambridge, fol. 80r: P[ro]v[er]biu[m] dixi vobi[s]. ego aute[m] scio quia debiles estis et nescientes. Berne manuscript does not contain this line and thereby avoids more confusion at this point.

Narrative logic

123

All the Byzantine manuscripts have a rupture in the narrative logic.⁴⁶⁴ Vienna hist.91 gives little information about the audience, and this sows confusion. In the episode Sparrows (2.3), this manuscript refers to a Jew (an adult) who witnesses Jesus’ misdeed and slanders Jesus to his father.⁴⁶⁵ When Jesus makes the sparrows alive, Jews (otherwise unmentioned) witness this miracle in the same episode (2.5). This inconsistency disturbs the narrative logic. In Athens 355, the children of the Hebrews, who played with Jesus, slander him to his father in the episode Sparrows (2.3).⁴⁶⁶ In the same episode (2.5), after Jesus made the sparrows alive, the same children witnessed this miracle and went to report about it. Athens 355 appears coherent in this episode by mentioning the Jewish children. However, in episode Annas’ Son (3.1), Annas, the scribe (not the son of Annas), destroys Jesus’ pools.⁴⁶⁷ When Jesus curses him, he dies, and his parents appear to carry him away (3.3), although he is initially described as an adult person, a scribe. In this way, the narrative logic is disrupted. Sabaiticus avoids the confusion in the episode Sparrows (2.3 – 2.5) by sticking to “a certain Jew,” an adult person, who witnesses Jesus’ misdeed and slanders him to his father.⁴⁶⁸ The same person appears later (2.5) as a Pharisee, the witness of the miracle. The logic is respected in this episode of Sabaiticus because one person continuously appears from the beginning until the end. In episode Annas’ Son (3), Jesus curses a boy who withers away. The child’s parents do not appear at this point. In the following episode Careless Boy (4.1), Jesus leaves the place with his father immediately after this event. The narrative logic is respected by linking the two episodes. In the other Byzantine manuscripts, the scene of Jesus walking with his father Joseph takes place after some days. In Sabaiticus, the parents appear after Jesus kills another child (4.2). The scene with the mourning parents recurs twice in Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355. In these examples, therefore, Sabaiticus consistently follows the logic. In all three Byzantine manuscripts, however, the First teacher (6.2a) seems unclear. Joseph answers the teacher who asks him to send Jesus to his school.

 In the following analysis, I use Tony Burke’s translations of the Greek variants. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 466 – 539.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: Ἰδὼν δὲ τις Ἰουδαῖος ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἐν τῷ σαββάτ[ῳ] ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλε τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ λέγων.  Athens 355, fol. 62r: ἦν δὲ σάββατον ὅτε ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παίζων μετὰ τῶν παίδων τῶν Ἑβραίων. ἀπῆλθον δὲ πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ λέγοντες αὐτῷ.  Athens 355, fol. 62r: Ἄννας δὲ γραμματεὺς ἐκεῖ ἦν μετὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ λαβὼν κλάδον ἐτέας διέτρεψε τοὺς λάκκους καὶ ἐξέχεε τὸ ὕδωρ ἐξ αὐτων ὃ συνήγαγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.  Sabaiticus, fol. 66v: Ἰδὼν δέ τίς Ἰουδαῖος τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων παιδίων ταῦτα ποιοῦντα, πορευθεὶς πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ διέβαλλεν τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν λέγων.

124

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

This section is the most concise in Athens 355: Joseph answered and said to him, “No-one can subjugate this one but God alone. Do not think him to be a small cross, brother.”⁴⁶⁹ In Vienna hist.91, Joseph became furious and said to the teacher: Who can teach such a child? Do not consider him a small cross, brother. ⁴⁷⁰ The description of Joseph’s fury contradicts the logic. These lines are equally confusing in Sabaiticus: Who can restrain this child and teach him? Do not consider him to have the worth of a small man, brother. ⁴⁷¹ It is not easy to understand what is meant by these lines. Interestingly, however, Sabaiticus refers to Jesus as a small man in the same way as manuscript Cambridge (and other Lt manuscripts). Sabaiticus gives misleading information about the audience in Joseph’s Rebuke (5) and First Teacher (6). The scene in which the teacher talks to Joseph (6.1) about Jesus going to school comes immediately after the scene in which Jesus blinds the group of people who complained about him (5.1). During episode 6, there is no mention of any other audience; yet, in 6.2c in Sabaiticus, the Jews who cried out aloud suddenly appear as the audience.⁴⁷² In all three Byzantine manuscripts, the First teacher (6.2e) presents a challenge to the logic, as does its transition to episode 6.2 f. People listen to Jesus’ words and are speechless. Jesus approaches them and explains why he played with them (the verb may mean: why he mocked them). He says in all three manuscripts: I played with you because I know you are amazed by trifles and smallminded. ⁴⁷³ In this way, Jesus offends them. However, all three manuscripts have a line in episode 6.2 f: Now that they seemed to be comforted by the child’s consolation…⁴⁷⁴ How could Jesus comfort his audience by uttering harsh words in the previous paragraph and offending them? This line disrupts the narrative logic.

 Athens 355, fol. 63r: Οὐ δύναταί τίς τοῦτον ὑποτάξαι εἰ μὴ μόνος Θεός. μὴ μικρὸν σταυρὸν νομίζῃς αὐτὸν εἶναι ἀδελφέ.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ὀργισάμενος πρὸς αὐτ[ὸν], εἶπε τῷ καθηγητῇ Ζακχαί [ῳ]. τίς δύναται τοῦτον παιδίον διδάξαι μικροῦ στ[αυ]ροῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος. μή νομίσῃς ἀδελφέ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: Καὶ τίς δύναται τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο κρατῆσαι καὶ παιδεῦσαι αὐτὸ μὴ μικροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἶναι νομίζῃς ἀδελφὲ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v-68r: ᾿Aνεβόησαν δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι μέγα καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: Ἔπαιζον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐπειδὴ οἶδα μικροθαύμαστοί ἐστε. καὶ τοῖς φρονίμοις ὀλίγοι. Vienna, fol. 201r: Ἔπαιξα πρὸ[ς] ὑμᾶς. ἐπειδὴ οἶδα ὅτι μικροί θαυμαστοί ἐστὲ καὶ μικροὶ τοῖς φρονήμασιν; Athens 355, fol. 63v: Ἔπαιξα ὑμᾶς. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μικροθαύμαστοί ἐστε μικροὶ τοῖς φρονήμασιν.  Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παριγορίσθαι. ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδίου; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 201r: Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παρηχωρεῖσθ[αι] ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδὸς; Athens 355, fol. 63v: Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παρηγορεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδίου.

Narrative logic

125

The episode Zeno (9.3) also strikes the reader as odd in Sabaiticus. Jesus makes the dead boy Zeno alive in front of his parents. However, Jesus asks Zeno to fall asleep again.⁴⁷⁵ In this way, Zeno dies again. This scene does not appear in the other manuscripts analyzed here.⁴⁷⁶ Athens 355 applies analepsis (an allusion to the previous event), albeit a false one, in episode Third Teacher (15.4). At the end of this episode, Jesus brings back to life the second teacher because the third teacher praised him. Jesus says: The one who had suffered yesterday also shall be saved. ⁴⁷⁷ The word yesterday strikes the reader as odd because, in 15.1, it is indicated that some days had passed. This internal analepsis (occurring within the time of the narrative) shows the irrelevance of the temporal component of this narrative and makes it achronical. The Slavonic manuscripts mostly repeat the stumbling stones of logic in this narrative.⁴⁷⁸ Manuscript Hludov interrupts the logic in the episode Annas’ Son (3.1– 3.3) in the same way as Athens 355, because an adult person, a scribe, destroyed Jesus’ pools while his parents came later and referred to him as a child.⁴⁷⁹ In the manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg, the episode Careless Boy (4.2) ends with the confusing sentence that the dead child’s parents utter when they talk to Joseph about what he did to other children: He makes our children artful. ⁴⁸⁰ This line varies among the manuscripts, and the confusion may result from the processes of translation.⁴⁸¹ The lines in the episode First teacher (6.2a), when Joseph talks to the teacher about Jesus going to school, are confusing in the Slavonic manuscripts. These lines may have been misunderstood in the translation process or loosely interpreted. They differ in the manuscripts. In Novaković, Joseph says to the teacher:

 Sabaiticus, fol. 69v: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. καὶ κοιμοῦ.  Burke notes that the Armenian Gospel of Infancy and the Irish version of IGT speak about Zeno, who “falls asleep” again. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 169.  Athens 355, fol. 67r: ἐπειδὴ ἀληθῶς ἐμαρτύρησας διὰ ἐσὲ κἀκεῖνος σωθήσεται ὃς χθὲς πέπονθε καὶ παραχρῆμα.  In the following analysis, I translate the examples from the Slavonic manuscripts.  Hludov, fol. 200v-201r: И се видѣвь, іже бѣ книжникь тоу стое сь Їѡсїфомь…И родителѩ же ѡслабленнааго приидоста плачющасе ѡтрочета своего.  Hludov, fol. 201r: наше дѣти иско[у]сни творити; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: Нашѧ бо дѣти искоусны твори[т].  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: τὸ γὰρ παιδίον ἡμῶν ἐστερήθημεν (For we have been deprived of our child); Vienna hist.91, fol. 200r: τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν θανατοὶ; In Athens 355, fol. 62v: τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν ὡς ἀνάπηρα ἐποίησεν (For he made our children cripples). In Cambridge, fol. 79v: filii aute[m] n[ost]ri insensati sunt (As our children are dead).

126

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Who could teach him, my little Christ, who could be better than him, my brother…⁴⁸² In Hludov, Joseph says: And who could be both young and clever? He is calm and meek…⁴⁸³ In St Petersburg, Joseph says: And who could teach him? By which …⁴⁸⁴ It makes little sense that Joseph gets angry at this point, as in Novaković, St Petersburg, and Vienna hist.91. The confusion also exists in episode 6.2e in Novaković and Hludov (St Petersburg does not have this episode), when Jesus offends his audience.⁴⁸⁵ It is followed in Novaković and Hludov by sentences with an unclear meaning.⁴⁸⁶ If one observes the logic of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the various manuscripts, the text in manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon is generally more logical than the other manuscripts. There are, in fact, no illogical transitions in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in these manuscripts. The manuscript Cambridge (Lt) and the Greek manuscript Sabaiticus (Gs) contain many inconsistencies, but fewer than the other Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts, such as Vienna hist. 91 (Ga), Athens 355 (Gd), Hludov, St Petersburg, and Novaković. The manuscript Cambridge and Greek manuscript Sabaiticus can be considered an intermediate phase, although they too have some illogical sections. The inconsistency in the narrative logic indicates that what we read today in the manuscripts in various languages are, in fact, translations.⁴⁸⁷ The majority of scholars considered Greek as the original language, although some argued in favor of Syriac.⁴⁸⁸ The complicated question of the original language is not of

 Novaković, 49: Оучителю, томоу кто можеть наоучити ѥго, кто моу маломоу Христоу или мниши быти ѥго, брате мои!  Hludov, fol. 201v: да кто можеть мла[д] соуща хитра. Смѣрен бо ѥ[ст] и кротькь.  St Petersburg, fol. 178v-179r: да кто може[т] наоучити его. чим же маломоу гви его мниши бо ти ѩко бра[т] ти е[сть].  Novaković, 50: Пришьдь же отроче Ісоусь сказаше играѥ и роугаѥ се имь, глаголаше, зане ихь вѣдѣше мало чюдьнѣхь и мало разоумьныхь; Hludov, fol. 202r: И ѡш[д]ьшиихь ѡтрочеть. Играахоу ра[д]ваахоу се. И досаж[д]аше гл[агол]ь. Понеже азь вѣде ѩко чюдни ѥсте. и маломощни есте.  Novaković, 50: ѩкоже слава вь мнѣ вьмѣнѩше се на оутѣшениѥ отрочетоу; Hludov, fol. 202r: Ѩко слава вьмѣнѩше се, на поспѣшение ѡтрочете.  An alternative explanation to this could be confusion. Scribes could have also combined different variants in creating a new text.  Peeters argued for the Syro-Arabian theory of the origin of the various infancy gospel traditions. The Greek Tradition of IGT goes back to a Syriac original, in his view. This theory holds that a more voluminous collection of childhood-of-Jesus stories had seen the light of day in Syriac in the fifth century. The IGT material was soon detached from this collection; it circulated separately and was translated into Greek and Latin to form the variants such as in Vienna hist. 91, the variant Gb, and some Latin variants. A. de Santos Otero, S. Voicu, Cullman, and Hock spoke against this theory. Gero and Elliott left the question of the original language

Pseudo-duration

127

concern in this book. The processes that occurred after the translation and transmission are equally complex; yet, they here form part of the subject.

Pseudo-duration This section analyzes the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the help of Genette’s concept of pseudo-duration. Pseudo-duration is a component of his concept of duration. Genette understands duration as the temporal length of the events or story sections, while pseudo-duration is the length of the story told in the narrative.⁴⁸⁹ Duration relates to the time of the events, while pseudo-duration pertains to the time spent reading a text or the space it occupies on paper, i. e., the space its narrators use to describe these events. Pseudo-duration is of interest here, especially when linked to the topics that the text describes. The length of the episodes concerning the subjects they depict helps bring to light the agenda of the specific textual forms and the ideas they promote. The episodes describe the events in more or fewer words. The episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are affected form-wise not only by simple reductions and augmentations but often by more sophisticated alterations in the narratives. I apply several categories of reduction and augmentation described in the section on theory and method in Chapter 1. I analyze the differences in length of episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts to discern whether augmentations and reductions reveal underlying strategies of meaning and the reasons behind the application of such techniques. The following analysis commences with the Latin manuscripts.

Latin manuscripts The analysis of pseudo-duration involves the same Latin manuscripts as in the previous section.⁴⁹⁰ The analysis consists first of the literal counting of the words on the page. The aim is to measure the length of the episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Further, I juxtapose these numbers and compare

open. See Paul Peeters, “Introduction,” in Évangiles apocryphes II, ed. Paul Peeters (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914): i-lix, xx; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 71; Burke, “Authorship and Identity,” 27– 43, 30, n. 32, n. 33; Horn and Phenix, “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac,” 543.  Genette, Narrative Discourse, 35.  Namely, the manuscripts Paris 1772 (eleventh century), Dijon (thirteenth century), and Cambridge (twelfth-thirteenth century).

128

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

them. How many words describe the events of Jesus’ childhood in each of the manuscripts? This analysis provides conclusions about which episodes and topics are more elaborate and given more space within the narrative. Further, I locate reductions and augmentations of the specific episodes and analyze their differences in connection to the topics they describe. The analysis is based on the premise that the topics which take more extensive space were considered more prominent by authors, scribes, and translators, who conducted textual revisions. The following table shows the number of words of each episode in the Latin manuscripts: Manuscripts Lm Episode

Lt

Paris 

Dijon

Cambridge







Pools (/.)⁴⁹¹







Sparrows (/. – .)







Annas’ Son (/)











Prologue ()

Careless Boy (/)⁴⁹² Joseph’s rebuke (/) First teacher (/)⁴⁹³ Lament (/)⁴⁹⁴ Exclamation (/) Zeno (/) Injured Foot ()⁴⁹⁵

  

      

 Episode 2 consists of Pools (2.1) and Sparrows (2.2 – 2.5). In Lm manuscripts, episode 26 corresponds to Pools and episode 27 to Sparrows.  Episode 29 of the Lm manuscripts parallels episodes 4 and 5 in Cambridge (Careless Boy and Joseph’s Rebuke). The manuscript Paris 1772 ends its text in the middle of this episode.  Episodes 30 and 31 in Dijon describe First Teacher, Lament, and Exclamation (episodes 6 – 8 in Cambridge).  The division of episodes 30 and 31 in Dijon does not topically correspond to their arrangement in episodes 6, 7, and 8. In Dijon, episode First teacher topically goes beyond the 401 words counted above (where episode 30 ends). The First teacher is described in 616 words, which makes this part longer in comparison to Cambridge. In episodes 7– 8, Dijon and Cambridge appear almost equal.  The episode Injured Foot (10) is not found in Dijon.

129

Pseudo-duration

Continued Manuscripts Lm Episode

Dijon

Cambridge

Water in cloak (/)





Harvest (/)









Carpenter (/)





Second Teacher (/)





Third Teacher (/)





Joseph Raises Dead ()





James’ Snakebite (/)





Family Meal ()





Dead Baby ()





Jerusalem (. – )





Postscriptum





Lions () Lions ()

Paris 

Lt

What do these numbers mean in terms of the topics that were reduced, augmented, or altered in these episodes? If we exclude the Prologue (1)⁴⁹⁶ from the analysis, the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon demonstrate a significant augmentation of the initial episodes 26 – 30 (2– 6) in comparison to Cambridge.⁴⁹⁷ The

 Prologue (1) contains the title and the opening sentence. Paris 1772 has a title and an opening sentence, while Cambridge has only the opening sentence. Dijon’s opening sentence belongs to episode 26. Both Paris 1772 and Dijon refer to the events in Egypt, but the same happens with the fourteenth-century manuscript Berne 271, although Berne does not contain the Prologue in Egypt before IGT. It is likewise not clear whether Paris 1772 has the Prologue in Egypt. Berne 271 has some words corresponding to the two Lm manuscripts (postquam regressus est ihesus de egypto). Cambridge introduces Thomas as the narrator. Gero argues that the ascription of this text to Thomas did not begin until the Middle Ages, more specifically, before the Greek Vorlage of the Slavonic version appeared around the tenth century. See Hock, The Infancy Gospels, 90; Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 59.  The differences between the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon are insignificant. The manuscripts are comparable only in episodes 26 – 29. Paris 1772 is expanded compared to Dijon with words, phrases, and sentences that do not significantly change the meaning but only better de-

130

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

extension is particularly apparent in episode Pools (26/2.1), where a significant part is excised in Cambridge compared to Dijon and Paris 1772. This excision may attempt to delete Jesus’ behavior “in a bad light” and his aggression towards others. The story in Dijon and Paris 1772 goes as follows: after one of the children shuts the passages of the water flow that Jesus made, Jesus becomes furious and curses the child, after which the child dies. The parents of the dead child complain to Mary and Joseph, who decide to talk to Jesus. Joseph asks Mary to talk to Jesus since he does not dare. Jesus says that the child deserved death. Mary asks him not to kill the child, and he, wishing not to grieve his mother, raises the boy from the dead. He does this by kicking the boy by his foot and uttering harsh words. The child is raised afterward while Jesus restores the pools. The raising of the child to life displays Jesus’ low opinion of the boy; he unwillingly reverses him from death. In Cambridge, the description is brief: it starts with rain, after which Jesus gathers water in a pool and cleans it.⁴⁹⁸ The story is excised in Cambridge

scribe the episodes. The most significant difference between the two manuscripts appears when the parents say in Paris 1772: Take Jesus (Tollite, in plural), while in Dijon, they address only Joseph: Tolle (Take!) (Paris 1772, fol. 90r; Dijon, fol. 11v). The plural form includes Mary as well. In this way, the order that initially refers to Joseph and Mary is later directed only to Joseph. The broader differences among the numerous representatives of the Lm variant have yet to be investigated. Gijsel reports 76 manuscripts containing this textual variant. Such a comparison goes beyond the scope and size of this book.  The IGT in manuscript Cambridge appears to be almost identical with the thirteenth-fourteenth-century manuscript Paris 3014, while the text of these manuscripts slightly differs from the fourteenth-century Berne 271. Berne stands out by having a briefer text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (14 episodes are briefer). In several instances, Jesus is presented as a typical child in Cambridge and Paris 3014, unlike in Berne, where Jesus is a divine figure (a feature that brings Berne closer to the Lm variant). In the episode Careless Boy (4), in Berne, Jesus walks alone in public while he walks with his father in the other two manuscripts. In episode Harvest (12) of the Lm variant, Jesus sows alone, while in the Lt manuscripts, Jesus sows with his father. In both cases, Jesus seems to be closer to being a typical child by being accompanied by his father rather than being alone in the street. In episode Joseph’s Rebuke (5.2), Berne again resembles the Lm variant by stating that the citizens want to expel Jesus’ family from the village (Berne, fol. 41v). The hostility of others towards Jesus is emphasized more in the manuscripts of the Lm variant, Dijon and Paris 1772, than in the Lt manuscripts. The parallels of Berne to Dijon, especially in comparison to Cambridge and Paris 3014, are visible in the choice of some words, in the pseudo-duration of some episodes, and the description of Jesus’ responsibility towards other people. Both Paris 3014 and Cambridge have the ending, Postscriptum. In this section, Thomas Ismahelita gives testimony to the story about Jesus’ childhood based on his remembering and witnessing the events. This part may have been added to lend credibility to the text. Berne does not contain it. Apart from being briefer in several sections, the narrative in Berne is sometimes altered in comparison to Cambridge and Paris 3014. In episode Careless Boy (4.1), Jesus’ curse is harsher in

Pseudo-duration

131

from the moment when another child comes and shuts the passages. Visually, the comparison of the two texts looks as follows. The underlined words differ in the two variants.

(/.)

Paris  (Lm)

Cambridge (Lt)

factum est aut[em] cu[m] eu[m] Ih[esu]s ia[m] inchoante quinto anno etatis sue. Una aut[em] die sabbati. ipse Ih[esu]s cu[m] infantib[us] ludebat ad torrentem iordanis alueu[m]. Cu[m] [er]go sederet Ih[esu]s. fecitq[ue]; ipse sibi de luto septe[m] lacos. in quib[us] singulis eor[um] fecit arati unculas ducati. P[er] quas de torrente ad suu[m] imperiu[m] in eas ducebat aquas in lacos. et iterum reducebat. Tunc aut[em] unus ex eis iuvenis filius diaboli animo invido. clausit eor[um] que aditus op[er]a eiusq[ue] qui ministrabant in lacos. clausit eos atq[ue] evertit quod op[er]atus fuerat d[omi]n[u]s n[oste]r Ih[esu]s Chr[istu]s. Tunc dix[it] ei Ih[esu]s. Vere filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane op[er]a que ego op[er]atus sum tu dissipas. et statim q[ui] hoc fecerat. mortuus est. Tunc aut[em] sediciosa voce clamabant parentes mortui. Cont[ra] ioseph et maria[m] dicentes eis filius v[este]r maledix[it] filiu[m] n[ost]r[u]m. et mortuus e[st]. Cu[m] aut[em] audissent ioseph et maria. statim vener[unt] ad Ih[esu]m p[ro]pt[er] sedicione[m] parentum pueri. Aut adclamationem iudeor[um]. Cepit eni[m] ioseph marie dicere. quod ille non audebat illi dicere. Mone eni[m] tu eu[m]. et dic ei. Quare excitasti nobis hodium populi. et

Cum autem e[ss]et Ih[esu]s .v. annor[um] f[ac]ta est pluvia erat terribilis. quem congregavit in piscinam. et precepit verbo suo ut fieret clara. Et statim f[ac]ta est.⁵⁰⁰

Berne, and in episode First Teacher (6.2d), he expands his response to the Jews in Berne and elaborates on God’s powers that Father gave him. It is difficult to grasp the overall relations of Lt manuscripts based on the three samples, especially since the body of manuscripts containing this text is vast. The text in Berne contains a briefer Lt variant. The expansions in Cambridge and Paris 3014 may be textual interpolations and are possibly a consequence of scribal activities. Further analysis of the Lt manuscripts is undoubtedly a demand for the future.  Paris 1772, fol. 88v-89r.  Cambridge, fol. 79r.

132

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Continued Paris  (Lm)

Cambridge (Lt)

sustinent[ur] molestias homin[ib]us cu[m] venisset ad eu[m] maria mat[er] sua. rogabat eu[m] dicens ei. D[omi]ne n[oste]r. quid faciendo iste fecit. ut moreretur at ille dix[it] ei. Dign[us] eni[m] erat mortis. qui dissipavit op[er]a que ego op[er]or. Rogabat aut[em] eu[m] mat[er] sua. dicens ad eu[m]. Noli d[omi] ne n[oste]r quia homines insurgunt in nos. At ille nolens matre[m] sua[m] contristari pede[m] suu[m] dextru[m] p[er] cuciens innates ei[us]. Dix[it] ad eu[m]. Exurge filius pestilentie iniquitatis. non eni[m] tu dignus es ut intres in requie[m] patris mei. qui dissipas op[er]a que ego op[er]or. Tunc aut[em] qui erat mortuus. Resurrex[it]. Et habu[n]t[ur]. De aqua et de passerib[us]. Ih[esu]s v[er]o iteru[m] ad suu[m] imperiu[m] p[er] aqueductus. Aqua[m] ducebat in lacos.⁴⁹⁹

In the short section 2.1 of manuscript Cambridge, Jesus’ cleaning and purification of the water is described, which manuscripts Dijon and Paris 1772 do not mention. In episode Sparrows (27/2.2– 5), Dijon and Paris 1772 emphasize the audience. On two occasions, they state that the events took place in the sight of all.⁵⁰¹ The section 2.5 states that the audience who witnessed the miracle was astonished, and some praised him, while others blamed him. Some went to the chief priests and reported Jesus’ miracle.⁵⁰² It is made concise in Cambridge through the statement that those who witnessed the event were amazed and went to report what Jesus did.⁵⁰³

 Paris 1772, fol. 89r: videntib[us] cunctis, fol. 89v: stantib[us] om[n]ib[us]. Illis. et videntib[us] et audientib[us].  Paris 1772, fol. 89v.  Cambridge, fol. 79r.

Pseudo-duration

Paris  (Lm) /.

133

Cambridge (Lt)

Cu[m] aut[em] om[ne]s qui aderant ei. Videntes aute[m] Iudei que f[ac]ta sunt. vidissent talia signa. et virtutes ab eo admirati s[un]t. et abierunt nuntiantes factas fuisse. pharisei repleti sunt stusigna que fecit Ih[esu]s. pore magno. Alii laudabant eu[m]. et mirabantur. Alii vituperabant eu[m]. Et habies ad principes sacerdotum et adprimates phariseor[um]. et nuntiaver[unt] eis quod Ih[esu]s filius d[i]i. in conspectu totius p[o]p[u]li isr[ae]litici. hec talia signa et virtutes fecisset et adnunciatu[m] e[st] hoc ad xii trib[us] isr[ae]l[is].

In episode Annas’ Son (28/3), Paris 1772 expands the description of the destruction of the pools with more detail and emphasizes the curse and the audience. Cambridge extends the narrative by describing the parents of the dead child. The toning down of the curse in Cambridge and the appearance of the parents of the dead child may be an attempt to purify the negative behavior of Jesus and to reflect on the people affected by Jesus. The underlined text differs in Paris 1772 and Cambridge, although the two variants speak of the same topic.⁵⁰⁴ Paris  (Lm)⁵⁰⁵ Title

Caput vii. De lacis

Destruction of Pools/Springs

Nam iteru[m] filius anne sacerdotis te[m]pli qui cu[m] ioseph advenerat tene[n]s virga[m] in manu sua de populo. et cunctis videntib[us]. Cu[m] furore nimio exclusit lacos quos Ih[esu]s fecerat manib[us]. suis. et effudit ex eis aquam qua[m] congregaverat Ih[esu]s de torrente in lacos. Nam et ipsum aque ductu[m] unde introiebat aqua clausit atq[ue] iteru[m] evertit.

 dixit  

Cambridge (Lt)⁵⁰⁶

Pharisaeus autem q[ui] erat cu[m] Ih[es]u. apprehendit ramum olive. et cepit derigare fontem que[m] fecit Ih[esu]s.

Certain words and phrases repeat, such as fecit Ih[esu]s, cumq[ue] hoc vidiss[et] Ih[esu]s, ad eum, arida, radices, fructu[m], arefactus, mortuus e[st]. Paris 1772, fol. 89v. Cambridge, fol. 79r.

134

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Continued Paris  (Lm)⁵⁰⁵

Cambridge (Lt)⁵⁰⁶

Title

Caput vii. De lacis

Jesus saw the destruction

Cu[m] aut[em] hoc vidisset Ih[esu]s Cumq[ue] hoc vidiss[et] Ih[esu]s d[omi]n[u]s n[oste]r fieri. Dix[it] ad turbat[us] dixit ad eum. pueru[m] illu[m] qui dissipavit lacos suos.

Curse

O semen iniquitatis pessimu[m]. filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane. vere filius diaboli. erit fructus seminis tui sine vigore. radices er[it] aridi rami tui qui non afferent fructu[m].

Sodomite impie et nesciens. Q[ui]d te dampnaver[un]t fontes aque facture me. Ecce sicut arida fies non h[abe]ns radices nec folia nec fructu[m].

The child is dead Hoc dicto a Ih[esu]m. cunctis Et statim arefact[us] cecidit i[n] t[er] videntib[us] et audientib[us] subito ra[m] et mortuus e[st]. arefactus est puer qui hoc fecerat. et mortuus e[st]. Parents of the dead child

parentes eius detuleru[nt] eum mortuu[m]. et increpabant Ioseph dicentes ecce quid fecit filius tuus doce eum orare et non fecit blasphemare.

Episode 29 in Dijon combines two episodes of Cambridge into one, namely, Careless Boy and Joseph’s Rebuke (4 – 5). The child who attacked Jesus is described more negatively in Dijon. Joseph is wary of Jesus and even hesitates to talk to him and warn him, while in Cambridge, he takes the father’s role and punishes him without understanding his divine nature. The manuscripts have different endings. In Dijon, the community gathers and complains to Joseph about Jesus. Joseph becomes concerned about Jesus’ safety because of the uproar and violence. At the same time, Jesus revives the dead boy by lifting him by the ear. In Cambridge, all who talk against Jesus are blinded. When Joseph sees this, he pulls Jesus by the ear. Jesus gets upset and answers to Joseph. The underlined sections differ in Dijon and Cambridge, although the subject is, to the most part, the same.

Pseudo-duration

Dijon (Lm)⁵⁰⁷

135

Cambridge (Lt)⁵⁰⁸

Joseph walks with Deinde tenuit io[seph] Ih[esu]m. et ibat cu[m] eo ad domu[m] sua[m] et Jesus m[at]r[em] ei[us] cu[m] illo. Et ecce s[u]bito q[ui]dam puer ex adv[er]so. Et ip[s]e puer iniq[ui]tatis c[ur]rens impulit se s[upe]r humeru[m] Ih[es]u. Volens illu[m] illide[re] aut noce[re] si posse. Dix[it] aut[em] illi Ih[esu]s.

Et post paucos dies deambulante Ih[es]u cu[m] Ioseph p[er] villam cucurrit de infantib[us] un[us] et p[er] cussit Ih[esu]m in ulnas. Ih[esu]s aut[em] dixit ad eum:

Curse

Sic p[er]ficias iter tuu[m].

No[n] rev[er]taris san[us] de via tua q[ua] vadis.

The child is dead Et stati[m] corruit et mortu[us] [est]. Et statim cecidit in t[er]ram et mortuus e[st]. Revolt of the parents of the dead child/of the community

Et exclamav[er]unt p[ar]entes mortui qui audiera[n]t et viderant. Q[uo]d f[ac]t[u]m fu[er]at d[ice]ntes. Un[de] nat[us] est hic infans manifestu[m] [est]. Q[uo]d om[n]e v[er]bu[m] q[uo] d dic[it] v[er]um est. Et freq[ue]nter an[te]q[uam] dicat adi[m]plet[ur]. Et accesseru[n]t p[ar]entes mortui ad ioseph: et dixerunt ei. Tolle Ih[esu]m illu[m] de loco illo. no[n] eni[m] potest hic h[ab]itare nob[is]cum eo municipio. Aut c[er]te doce illu[m] b[e] n[e]d[ice]re et n[on] maledicere.

Illi aute[m] vidente[s] mirabilia. Clamaveru[n]t dice[n]te[s]. Unde e[st] puer iste: et dixerunt ad Ioseph. N[on] op[or]tet e[ss]e nobiscum talem pueru[m]. Ille aute[m] abiit et tulit eum. Et dixerunt ei. Recede de loco isto. et si op[or]tet te nobiscum doce eum orare et no[n] blasphemare. filii aute[m] n[ost]ri insensati sunt.

Joseph talks to Jesus

Accedens aut[em] ioseph ad Ih[esu] m: monebat eu[m] dice[n]s. Ut q[ui]d talia facis? Iam m[u]lti dolentes contra te su[n]t. Et p[ro]p[ter] te h[abe]nt nos odio: et p[ro]p[ter] te molestias sustinem[us].

Vocavit Ioseph Ih[esu]m et p[er]cepit eum docere. Ut q[ui]d blasphemas. Habitatores isti odium h[abe]nt s[upe]r nos de loco isto.

Jesus’ answer

Respondens Ih[esu]s dixit ad ioseph. Nullus fili[us] sapiens est nisi que[m] p[ate]r suus s[e]c[un]d[u]m sci[enti] am hui[us] t[em]p[or]is erudierit. Et p[at]ris sui sapi[enti]a nemini nocet. N[ec] male agentib[us].

Ih[esu]s aute[m] dixit. Ego aute[m] scio quia isti sermones no[n] sunt mei. S[ed] tui sunt. ego aute[m] tacebo pro te. Ip[s]i aute[m] videant in sapientia[m] suam.

 Dijon, fol. 11r-11v.  Cambridge, fol. 79v.

136

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Continued

Ending

Dijon (Lm)⁵⁰⁷

Cambridge (Lt)⁵⁰⁸

Tu[n]c cong[re]gati su[n]t om[ne]s adv[er]sus Ih[esu]m. Et acc[us]abant eum adv[er]sus ioseph. Ut h[oc] vidit ioseph p[er]t[er]rit[us] est nimiu[m]. Timens vim p[o]p[u]li sui Isr[ae]l. Eade[m] hora Ih[esu]s app[re]hendit mortuu[m] infante[m] ab aure et suspendit eu[m] a t[er]ram in co[n] sp[ec]tu omn[ium] ut vid[er]ent Ih[esu]m loq[ue]nte[m] cu[m] eo tanq[uam] p[at]rem cu[m] filio suo. Et rev[er]sus [est]. Sp[iritu]s ei[us] in ip[su]m. Et revixit et amirati su[n]t univ[er]si.

Et hii statim q[ui] loquebant[ur] adversus Ih[esu]m. ceci f[ac]ti s[un]t. Et deambulantes dicebat. Omnes sermones qui p[ro]cedunt de ore eius exercitiu[m] h[abe]nt. Et cu[m] vidisset Ioseph que fecit Ih[esu]s: cum furore app[re]hendit eum p[er] auriculam. Ih[esu]s aute[m] turbat[us] dixit ad Ioseph. Sufficit tibi vide[re] me et non me tangere. Tu aut[em] nescis qui ego sum. Q[uod] si scires n[on] me co[n]t[ri]stares. Et q[uam] vi[s] ego modo tecu[m] sum ante te fact[us] sum.

The complete episode First teacher comprises episodes 6 – 8 in Cambridge (Lt) and 30 – 31 in Dijon (Lm). Its first section, First teacher (6), stretches to episodes 30 and partly 31 in Dijon and takes up 616 words, being longer than Cambridge. The topical division of episodes 6 – 8 (First teacher–Lament–Exclamation) is not at the same place in Dijon as the division of episodes 30 and 31. In episode First teacher: Lament (7), the manuscript Cambridge has almost the same number of words (209) as Dijon (205). Also, episode First teacher: Exclamation (8) in Dijon (74) is almost equal to Cambridge (68). In the episode First teacher (30/6), the community’s rules and the attitude to Jesus are described differently in the manuscripts. In Dijon, the community is skeptical and suspicious of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. In Cambridge, Joseph and the others do not seem to understand Jesus’ nature. In the story in Dijon, a Jewish schoolmaster, Zachias, talks to Joseph in a hostile tone, warning him that Jesus should go to school and reminding him that he and Mary should have more regard for the community of the church of Israel. Jesus should go to school to learn Jewish learning and bond with other children.⁵⁰⁹ In Cambridge, the

 Dijon, fol. 11v-12r: Magister aut[em] quidam videns no[m]i[n]e zachias audivit Ih[esu]m talia v[er]ba loq[ue]nte[m] cum eo. Et eo q[ui]d erat insup[er]abilis sapi[enti]e v[ir]tutis. F[ac]tus est dolens. Et cepit indisciplinate et stulte et s[i]n[e] timore loq[ui] contra ioseph. Dicebat enim adv[er]sus ioseph. Tu no[n] vis filium tuu[m] trade[re] ut doceat[ur] sci[enti]am hu[m]ani timoris. sed video te et maria[m] plus velle dilige[re] filiu[m] v[est]r[u]m. Q[ua]m tradito[r]es senior[um] p[o]p[u]li. Oportebat enim nos pri[us] honorare p[res]b[yte]ros toti[us] eccl[es]ie isr[ae]l: ut et ex infantib[us] mutua[m] h[ab]eat cari[ta]te[m]. Ut int[er] illos erudiat[ur] iudaica doct[ri]na.

Pseudo-duration

137

teacher Zacheus listens to the conversation of Jesus and Joseph; he is amazed by a child who speaks in this way. He approaches Joseph, praising Jesus as clever, and asks him to entrust Jesus to his school. He promises to teach him so that he does not stay unwise.⁵¹⁰ Joseph’s answer to the teacher in Dijon expresses flexibility and openness towards the community, yet also the concealed but proper understanding of Jesus’ divine nature. Joseph understands that the community’s rules are clearly defined, and he does not object, although he understands that Jesus, as a divine figure, does not need this kind of education. He says: And is there anyone who can keep this child and teach him? But if you can keep him and teach him, we by no means hinder him from being taught by you those things which are learned by people.⁵¹¹

Instead, Joseph says in Cambridge only: Nobody can teach this child but God alone. ⁵¹² There is no mention of the context and the rules and expectations of the community. In Dijon, the issue of understanding Jesus arises in section 6.2e of First teacher, where Jesus openly expresses that although he was among children, he is not one of the children but a divine being: I was with you among children, and you have not known me; I have spoken to you as to wise men, and you have not understood my words; because you are younger than I am and of little faith.⁵¹³

In Cambridge, this line confuses readers when Jesus says to the audience: I am saying to you. I know that you are stupid and unknowledgeable. ⁵¹⁴

 Cambridge, fol. 79v: Igitur q[ui]da[m] homo nomi[n]e Zache[us] ascultabat om[n]ia que loq[ue]bat[ur] Ih[esu]s ad Ioseph et a[d]miratus in semet ip[su]m dicebat. Talem puerum ita loque[n]te[m] nu[m]q[ua]m vidi. Et appropinquas ad Ioseph dixit ei. Sapiente[m] pueru[m] habe[s] trade eum ad docendu[m] litteras. Cu[m] aut[em] doct[us] fuerit in studio litterarum. ego docebo eum honorifice ut non fiat insipie[n]s.  Dijon, fol. 12r: q[ui]s est q[ui] possit ho[c] i[n]fante[m] tene[re] et doce[re]. Et si potes tene[re] et doce[re] eum. nos mi[ni]me p[ro]hibem[us] doc[er]i eu[m] a te que ab ho[min]ibus dicu[n]t[ur].  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Nemo p[otest] docere eu[m] n[isi] solus d[eu]s.  Dijon, fol. 13r: Fui int[er] vos ex infantib[us] a n[on] cognovistis me. Loquut[us] su[m] vob[is] q[uas]i cu[m] p[ru]dentib[us] et n[on] intellexistis me. Q[uia] mi[n]ores me estis et modice fidei.  Cambridge, fol. 80r: P[ro]v[er]biu[m] dixi vobi[s]. ego aute[m] scio quia debiles estis et nescientes.

138

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

In the continuation of First teacher (31) in Dijon, the teacher is very harsh to Jesus. The teacher Zachias, who previously talked to Joseph and Mary about Jesus’ school, now hands him over to another teacher, Levi. In the class with Levi, Jesus is silent and does not give answers. Levi becomes angry and seizes his storax-tree rod and strikes Jesus on the head. Jesus answers Levi with a long speech.⁵¹⁵ In Cambridge, the teacher Zacheus punishes Jesus more mildly by striking him on the head with his hand.⁵¹⁶ In both examples, Jesus explains the issues to the teacher at length. After analyzing the first six episodes of the Infancy Gospel in Paris 1772, Dijon (Lm) and Cambridge (Lt), where the first two, particularly Dijon, had the advantage in length, I now turn to the rest of the narrative. Dijon has a smaller number of words in comparison to Cambridge in the episodes Lament (7), Harvest (12), and Third Teacher (15). Dijon and Cambridge are of similar length in the episodes Exclamation (8), Water in Cloak (11), and Second Teacher (14). Dijon once again has a more significant number of words in the episodes Zeno (9), Carpenter (13), and James’ Snakebite (16). In the episode Zeno (32/9), Dijon extends the text by describing the departure of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth.⁵¹⁷ The concluding sentence also extends the narrative by saying that Mary and Joseph moved from Nazareth to Jericho.⁵¹⁸ In Cambridge, neither of Jesus’ parents appears in this episode, nor is there any mention of the moving. The description of the whereabouts of Jesus’ family may have been elaborated in Dijon to emphasize a continuation of the travel that starts in the Prologue in Egypt when the family had to move to Egypt because Jesus’ life was in danger. Repeated moving at this point could have meant the same thing – that other people were acting unjustly to Jesus, and his family was forced to leave.

 Dijon, fol. 13r-13v: It[eru]m mag[iste]r zachias legis doctor dix[it] ad ioseph et maria[m]. Date m[ihi] pu[eru]m et e[g]o t[ra]dam eu[m] mag[ist]ro levi. Q[ui] doceat eu[m] litt[er]as et erudiat. Tu[n]c ioseph et m[ari]a blandientes Ih[esu]m dux[er]unt eu[m] in scolam. Ut doce[re]t[ur] litt[er]as a sene levi. Quo cu[m] int[ro]isset tacebat. et mag[iste]r levi una[m] l[itte]ram dicebat ad Ih[esu]m. Et incipiens a p[rim]a l[itte]ra alpha. Dicebat ei. R[espo]nde. Ih[esu]s v[er]o tacebat et n[on] r[espo]ndebat. Un[de] p[rae]ceptor levi irat[us] apprehendens v[ir]ga[m] scoratina[m]. p[er]cussit eu[m] i[n] capite. Ih[esu]s au[tem] dix[it] ad didascalu[m] levi. Ut q[ui]d me p[er] cutis. In v[er]itate scias q[uia] ip[s]e q[ui] p[er]cutit[ur] mag[is] docet p[er]cutiente[m] se. Q[ua] m ab eo doceat[ur]. Sed hi om[ne]s ceci su[n]t qui dicu[n]t et audiunt q[uas]i es sonans aut ci[m]balum ti[n]niens. In quib[us] no[n] est sensus aut int[e]ll[e]ctus ip[s]or[um] que int[e] lligunt[ur] p[er] sonu[m] eor[um].  Cambridge, fol. 80r: Doctor autem ille p[er]cussit infante[m] in capite.  Dijon, fol. 14v: Post hec abieru[n]t inde ioseph and maria cu[m] Ih[es]u in civitate Nazareth.  Dijon, fol. 15r: Abieru[n]t inde maria et io[seph] cu[m] Ih[es]u. i[n] iherico.

Pseudo-duration

139

In the episode Carpenter (37/13), the story is expanded and somewhat altered in Dijon by emphasizing Joseph’s understanding of Jesus’ nature. In the story, Joseph, as a carpenter, specializes in producing ox-yokes, plows, implements of husbandry, and wooden beds.⁵¹⁹ He has a servant whom he orders to cut the wood. The servant makes a mistake, and Joseph becomes perplexed, considering what to do. He knows that whatever Jesus wants to do, he can. It is one of the few episodes in Dijon where Jesus helps other people. In Dijon, Joseph does not appear as desperate or sad as he is in Cambridge. Finally, the episode James’ Snakebite (41/16) in Dijon begins with another moving of Jesus’ family, from Capernaum (where they arrived in episode 40) to Bethlehem. James is mentioned as Joseph’s first-born son. In Cambridge, the explanation of the family ties of Joseph with James is excised. In Dijon, Joseph sends James to the garden to gather vegetables for broth. Jesus follows him, while Mary and Joseph do not know this. A viper strikes James, and he cries out and calls for help. Jesus comes, blows on the bite, and heals James. The parents run out to the garden to see James cured and the serpent dead. This story has a slightly different plot in Cambridge: James collects wood while Jesus follows him. From this point, we turn to the episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas augmented in Cambridge in comparison to Dijon, namely, the episodes Lament (7), Harvest (12), and Third Teacher (15). In Lament (7), not only does Cambridge expand the teacher’s lament with the focus on self-pity, but the teacher reveals a different attitude to Jesus. The teacher begs Joseph to take Jesus away from him since he cannot look him in the face or listen to his speech. The teacher only guesses Jesus’ background but quickly goes back to himself, describing his embarrassment and the limitation of his mind. Above all, he mentions his old age and the additional embarrassment that this causes. In Dijon, the teacher starts to cry out loud, asking whether Jesus ought to live on earth, and he answers that Jesus should be hanged on the cross. He says that Jesus lived before the flood. The teacher withdraws because he cannot withstand Jesus’ words and claims that nobody can understand him except God. He calls himself an unfortunate wretch and a laughing-stock.⁵²⁰ The teacher reveals that Jesus is not of

 Dijon, fol. 16v: Nich[il] q[uod] ex ligno op[er]aret[ur] n[isi] iuga boum et aratra t[er]re v[er] soria et culture apta ligneosque lectos.  Dijon, fol. 13v-14r: Tu[n]c cepit cu[n]ctis audientib[us] clamare et d[ice]re. N[on] d[ebet] iste s[upe]r t[er]ram viv[er]e: imo in magna cruce d[ebet] appendi. Na[m] pot[est] igne[m] extinguere: et alia delude[re] torm[en]ta. Ego puto q[uod] an[te] cathaclismu[m] hic fu[er]it nat[us]. Quis eni[m] vent[us] illu[m] portavit. Aut que m[ate]r illu[m] genuit. Aut que ub[er]a illum lactav[er]unt. Fugiam an[te] illu[m] non enim valeo sustine[re] v[er]bu[m] ex ore ei[us]. Sed

140

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

this world, and he is aware of it. He tries to justify himself by saying that Jesus is not a mortal man.⁵²¹ In the episode Harvest (12), Cambridge expands the episode by describing Jesus sowing with his father. In Dijon, Jesus sows alone. He reaped and gave wheat to his acquaintances. Dijon focuses on Jesus and does not introduce other characters. In Cambridge, he comes closer to describing a typical child in this activity with his father. In episode Third Teacher (39/15), Jesus’ divine nature is clear to his parents in Dijon, while this is not the case in Cambridge, where Joseph is not aware of it. In Dijon, Joseph and Mary are asked by the Jews to bring Jesus to school again. They are afraid of the Jewish community and are reluctant to send him to school, knowing that he can learn nothing from human beings. In Cambridge, Joseph sends Jesus to school again because he thinks that Jesus could indeed learn something, although he is skeptical of Jesus’ behavior. In Dijon, Jesus acts more self-confidently in the classroom when he enters and takes the book from the teacher’s hand. The teacher falls on the ground and worships Jesus. In this scene in Cambridge, the teacher is supportive throughout, while Jesus acts as a good student. The episodes which are of a similar length in Dijon and Cambridge are Exclamation (8), Water in Cloak (11), and Second Teacher (14). These episodes sometimes have content alteration from Dijon to Cambridge. In Water in Cloak (33/11) in Dijon, Jesus is put in the victim’s position. Jesus goes to fetch water for his mother, and his pitcher breaks because he is attacked by another child, who bumps into him and strikes the pitcher, breaking it. In Cambridge, the pitcher breaks because of the crowd. In the episode Second Teacher (38/14), the attitude of Jesus’ parents to him is benevolent in Dijon, while in Cambridge, their treatment reflects a lack of understanding of Jesus’ nature. In Dijon, Joseph and Mary are asked for the second time by the people (community) to send Jesus to school, and they do not refuse.

cor meu[m] stupescit v[er]ba audire talia. Nullu[m] enim hominu[m] puto ei[us] consequi v[er] bu[m] n[isi] fu[er]it d[eu]s cu[m] illo. Nam e[g]o ip[s]e infelix t[ra]didi me huic in derisum. Cu[m] e[rg]o ip[s]e putare[m] me habe[re] discip[u]l[u]m. Ignorans eu[m] meu[m] i[n]veni mag[ist]r[u]m.  Dijon, fol. 14r: Q[ui]d dicam. No[n] valeo sustine[re] v[er]ba pu[er]i hui[us]. De hoc iam municipio fugiam: q[uia] illu[m] inte[n]d[er]e n[on] valeo. Ab infante senex vict[us] su[m]. Q[uia] neq[ue] initiu[m] de quib[us] ip[s]e affirmat invenire possu[m] neq[ue] fine[m]. Difficile eni[m] [est]. I[n]itiu[m] cause ip[s]i[us] rep[er]ire. Certe dico vobis n[ec] me[n]tior. Q[uia] an[te] oc[u] los quod meos op[er]at[i]o hui[us] pu[er]i et senia sermonis ei[us] et i[n]tent[i]o[n]is exit[us] nich[il] ex ho[min]ib[us] commune videt[ur] h[abe]re.

Pseudo-duration

141

By the commandment of the elders in charge of the study subjects, Jesus is to be instructed in human learning. Jesus has a dispute in the classroom with the teacher, and consequently, the teacher dies. Jesus goes home to his mother. Joseph complains to Mary that he is afraid for Jesus’ destiny,⁵²² but Mary convinces him that God will protect Jesus.⁵²³ In Cambridge, Joseph forcefully keeps Jesus in the house so that he will not hurt other people. The Latin manuscripts analyzed above are consistent concerning the beginning of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Jesus is five years old. As for speed, in Cambridge, Jesus turned six by episode 11 and eight by episode 13. From this episode on, his age is no longer mentioned in Cambridge. In Dijon, Jesus turns six by episode 30 (6), and eight by episode 35, after which there is no further reference to his age. To sum up, significant differences exist between Paris 1772 and Dijon as the representatives of the Lm variant and Cambridge as a representative of the Lt variant. Jesus’ behavior “in a bad light” is reduced in Cambridge. The excision is enforced by removing Jesus’ lousy behavior and introducing his improved character. Cambridge attempts to filter Jesus’ behavior and focus on the people who are affected by it. Dijon, on the other hand, does not emphasize other people’s suffering and concerns. It negatively describes Jesus’ opponents, thereby justifying Jesus’ behavior. Dijon also describes Joseph and Mary as being on Jesus’ side and completely understanding his divine nature. Many times, Joseph is afraid of Jesus’ destiny, and the parents are concerned about the community of the church of Israel. Cambridge presents Joseph as not being aware of his son’s divine nature. It is why Joseph does not punish Jesus in Dijon, as he does in Cambridge. Dijon emphasizes the moving of Jesus’ family, which starts in the Prologue in Egypt when the family had to move to Egypt because Jesus’ life was in danger. The description of repeated moving seems to emphasize the unjust behavior of other people toward Jesus and his family. Dijon also refers to Jesus’ extended family, including the children of Joseph from his first marriage, which is not mentioned in Cambridge.

 Dijon, fol. 17v: Timens aut[em] ioseph vocavit ad se maria[m] et dix[it] ei. Ve[re] tristis [sum]. A[n]i[m]a m[e]a usq[ue] ad morte[m] p[ro]p[ter] pu[er]um istu[m]. Pot[est] fi[eri] ut aliq[ua]n[do] aliq[ui]s duct[us] malitia p[er]cutiat illu[m]. Et moriat[ur].  Dijon, fol. 17v: Vir dei noli time[re] n[ec] crede[re] q[uo]d h[oc] fi[eri] possit. immo sec[ur]e crede q[uo]d q[ui] eu[m] missit int[er] ho[m]i[n]es nasci: ip[s]e eu[m] ab ho[min]ib[us] malignantib[us] [con]servabit. et in suo no[m]i[n]e custodiet illu[m] a malo.

142

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Slavonic manuscripts I now turn to the three Slavonic manuscripts concerning their pseudo-duration. First, no Slavonic text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in one manuscript is identical to another manuscript, nor do they agree in the selection of episodes. In Gero’s view, the interrelation of the various Slavonic texts is complicated, and they all go back to one or more Slavonic translations made from Greek variants in the tenth and eleventh centuries.⁵²⁴ In addition, the Slavonic variants are not identical to any of the extant Greek texts.⁵²⁵ I will demonstrate that all the Greek and Slavonic manuscripts I analyze have links with the later Latin Lt variant as in the Cambridge manuscript. The connections with the earlier Lm variant, as in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon, will be emphasized, where visible. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas of manuscript St Petersburg does not have episodes 6.2c-13. Consequently, it is the shortest narrative among the Slavonic manuscripts. In the places where the Infancy Gospel of Thomas of St Petersburg contains a comparable episode, it is lengthier than manuscript Hludov in seven episodes (1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 013, 16). Hludov is longer than St Petersburg in four episodes (13, 14, 17, 18). Altogether, Novaković is the most extended narrative, but it is not the longest in every episode. In the places where Hludov is longer than St Petersburg, it is also longer than Novaković (episodes 13, 14, 17, 18). The following table shows the length of the single episodes: Novaković

Hludov

St Petersburg

Prologue ()







Pools (.)













Annas’ Son ()







Careless Boy ()







Joseph’s Rebuke ()







First Teacher ()







Lament ()



















Sparrows (. – .)

Exclamation () Zeno ()

 Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 55.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 55.

Pseudo-duration

143

Continued Novaković

Hludov

St Petersburg

Injured Foot ()







Water in Cloak ()







Harvest ()







Carpenter ()































James’ Snakebite ()







Dead Baby ()







Dead Laborer ()

























Second Teacher () Third Teacher () Temple of Idols Blind Man ()

Jerusalem (. – ) Children Made Swine () Jerusalem (. – )

Novaković has the initial episodes of the narrative expanded in comparison to the other Slavonic manuscripts. This expansion pertains to the first twelve episodes. From episode 13, the manuscripts are of approximately equal length where they contain full episodes.⁵²⁶ In episode Blind Man (013), St Petersburg has a significantly longer text, and in episode James’ Snakebite (16), Novaković again has a lengthier text. In episodes where Novaković and St Petersburg are expanded in comparison to Hludov (1, 2, 3, 5, 013, 16), and where Novaković alone is more prolonged than Hludov (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), they elaborate their narrative by describing the events in more detail, in this way contributing to narration and dramatic intensity rather than changing the story. Such an expansion can be seen in Sparrows (2.3), where Novaković says: When one of the Jews saw what Jesus made while

 Novaković does not contain the full episode 15, and St Petersburg does not have the full episode 19.

144

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

playing on Saturday…⁵²⁷ The line is made concise in Hludov: Jews saw and… ⁵²⁸ In the episode Annas’ Son (3), small extensions can be seen in Novaković through the addition of phrases such as: In that moment…⁵²⁹ In the continuation of the same episode (3.3) in Novaković, the parents of the dead child approach Joseph to take their child while crying. ⁵³⁰ This scene is made concise in Hludov by using one word, crying. ⁵³¹ In the episode James’ Snakebite (16), Novaković extends the narrative by a phrase: And then the other day…,⁵³² where the other two manuscripts have then. ⁵³³ Novaković extends another section of the same episode by a more detailed description of the narrative: As he bound the wood, he brought it to his home. While he was going and collecting wood…⁵³⁴ Gero argues that Novaković is a version rewritten by a verbose redactor who added many embellishing segments.⁵³⁵ Although it is more concise than Novaković, manuscript Hludov contains all or most of the narrative details. Novaković is longer than Hludov in the episodes that St Petersburg does not have. Mainly, the length contributes to the narrative development and intensity. Hludov does not omit information regarding the narrative but only describes it in a more concise way. Novaković, on the other hand, inserts some narratological enhancing phrases and words, which improve the narrative dynamics. In episode First Teacher (6.4), Novaković significantly extends Jesus’ lecture to the teacher. Novaković sets out Jesus’ explanation in detail, whereas Hludov only introduces readers to the scene without relating any of Jesus’ words. This trend continues to episode 12. In episode Zeno (9), Novaković expands the lines: The child rose and said,⁵³⁶ which improves narrative dynamics. In Zeno (9.1), the setting is described in more detail in Novaković than in the other manuscripts. In the episode Injured Foot (10), Novaković is expanded by more detailed medical descriptions. In episode 10.1, Novaković describes at length the medical

 Novaković, 48: Видѣвь же ѥдинь оть Юдеи ѥже твораше Ісоусь играѥ вь соуботоу; St Petersburg, fol. 177r: And the Jews saw what he did while playing (И видѣвше жидове еже творѣше играѫщи).  Hludov, fol. 200v: Видѣвше же їюдеие.  Novaković, 48: Вь ть чась.  Novaković, 48: пришьдьша вьзеста сь плачемь.  Hludov, fol. 201r: плачющасе.  Novaković, 54: Вь дроугы же дьнь.  Hludov, fol. 205r: потомь; St Petersburg, fol. 182v: Посемъ.  Novaković, 54: свезавь дрьва донесеть вь домь свои. Идоуштоу же ѥмоу и сьбыраюштоу дрьва.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 54.  Novaković, 52: И вьскрьсе отроче и рече.

Pseudo-duration

145

condition of the wounded young man: And he hit with the axe and cut his leg, and he was terrified,⁵³⁷ while Hludov says: And he cut his leg. ⁵³⁸ Novaković contains the expanded sentence in 10.2: The sick man’s cut leg was immediately intact again,⁵³⁹ where Hludov has only one word.⁵⁴⁰ In the episode Harvest (12), Novaković expands the introductory sentence: When there was a time of sowing… ⁵⁴¹ Hludov extends several episodes in this narrative in comparison to Novaković and St Petersburg. In the episode Carpenter (13), Hludov and St Petersburg are very similar in their choice of vocabulary, the sentence structure, and the excessive use of dative absolute. Novaković here gives the impression of being retold and very concise. In the episode Second Teacher (14), Hludov is longer than Novaković by several words, but this difference is not relevant. The same applies to Dead Baby (17) and Dead Laborer (18); the word choice does not demonstrate significant differences in meaning. On several occasions, Hludov demonstrates some parallels to Dijon and Paris 1772. Hludov contains some details related to the Jewish setting, describes other people’s hostility to Jesus, neglects the descriptions of other peoples’ suffering because of Jesus, and implies Jesus’ divine nature. In episode Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1), Novaković and St Petersburg state that other people suffer because of Jesus and hate his family,⁵⁴² while Hludov emphasizes that others pounce at them aggressively.⁵⁴³ Hludov highlights the description of other people’s hostility towards Jesus, and the other two manuscripts highlight other people’s suffering because of Jesus. At the end of 5.1, Hludov (unlike Novaković and St Petersburg) does not state that other people are blinded. Similarly, Hludov emphasizes in episode Zeno (9.2) that the dead child’s parents shout at Jesus, while Novaković does not mention this. In First Teacher (6.2a), Joseph gets upset at Jesus in Novaković and St Petersburg, but not in Hludov. The attitude of Joseph, who is understanding and tolerant of Jesus, is an essential characteristic of manuscript Dijon. In the episode Lament (7), Novaković describes the teacher’s desperation by expanding his speech, while in Hludov, the teacher’s speech is briefer. The same recurs in 7.2 and 7.3 – Novaković lengthens the teacher’s speech, emphasizing his despera-

      

Novaković, 52: и оудари се сѣкырою и отсѣче пласоу оть ногы своѥ и оужасе се. Hludov, fol. 203r: И прѣсече си ногу. Novaković, 52: и оусѣченоу и абиѥ цѣла бысть нога болештаго. Hludov, fol. 203r: заврѣдноую. Novaković, 52: Егда бысть пакы вь врѣме сѣдьбѣ. Novaković, 49; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: и страж[д]ѫть си. И ненавидѧ[т] на[с]. Hludov, fol. 201r: И рьпщоуть на на[с] людие вси.

146

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

tion.⁵⁴⁴ In Hludov, the teacher’s embarrassment is toned down. This feature may be similar with what we have seen in Dijon – the teacher understands that Jesus is not of this world, and he cannot compare to him. The episode Harvest (12) contributes to the conclusion that Hludov has some parallels to Dijon: it describes Jesus sowing alone, without his father. Finally, in the Prologue (1) of Hludov, some references are made to the Jewish setting. Thomas the Israelite informs all of you in the city of Jerusalem about the deeds of Jesus Christ.⁵⁴⁵ He relates that Jesus was born from the kin of the Jews from Bethlehem. ⁵⁴⁶ All three Slavonic manuscripts emphasize the episodes of healing that appear towards the end, including the lengthy episode Blind Man (013). In Novaković, this episode, to a large extent, replaces the Third Teacher. Novaković contains only the introduction to the Third Teacher (15.1) and then goes straight to the episode Blind Man. Episode 15.1 in Novaković introduces readers to the episode Blind Man. It is the only manuscript where the teacher stresses that Jesus should be taught from sorcery books. ⁵⁴⁷ The episode Blind Man appears only in the Slavonic and Arabic versions.⁵⁴⁸ St Petersburg has the most extended episode Blind Man. In 013.1, Hludov and St Petersburg describe Joseph’s many unsuccessful attempts to send Jesus to school. In this episode, Joseph’s sending Jesus to sorcerers is justified: As Joseph saw that he (Jesus) did not learn from any teacher but taught the teachers, he sent him to the sorcerers. ⁵⁴⁹ The texts justify studying sorcery rather than attending a regular school. In 013.2, Hludov and especially St Petersburg have a more extended section than Novaković. The scene takes place in the sorcerer’s office, where a semiblind man comes to have his sick eye treated. Jesus sits there while the sorcerer is absent. Hludov and St Petersburg expand the scene by explaining how the

 Novaković, 51: Азь бо не знаю ѥго. О горѣ мьнѣ дроузи мои? Забыхь се и не имаю оума своѥго, прѣльстихь бо се много безоумны и страстьны азь.  Hludov, fol. 200v: Азь ϴѡма Ис[раи]льтѣнинь избраннѣ вьзвѣстихь вамь всѣмь вь градѣ їер[осо]л[и]мѣ.  Hludov, fol. 200v: рождеи се вь странѣ жидовсцѣмь виθлеωмѣ. Вь градѣ Назарѣте.  Novaković, 53: врачебьнымь боуквамь.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 58: Gero calls it Jesus as doctor’s apprentice heals a blind man.  Hludov, fol. 204r-v: Ѩко видѣ їѡсїфь ѡ[т] ни единого оучителѩ не наоучи се нь па оучителѥ оучаше и потомь прѣда его врачеви; St Petersburg, fol. 181r: Прѣдаваеть его їѡсїфа ини единомоу ненавыченѧ ѡнь паче оучаше. И посе[м] врачеви его прѣдаде.

Pseudo-duration

147

man’s other eye had previously been healed.⁵⁵⁰ Both manuscripts describe how the man came to have the eye anointed and found only Jesus there, not the sorcerer. He then asked where the sorcerer is. All this is absent in Novaković. Hludov and St Petersburg expand this section by Jesus’ offer to heal the man’s eye. In Novaković and St Petersburg, the man brings gifts at the end of this section. In St Petersburg, these are bread and wine. In the lengthy section of 013.3, all three manuscripts tell the same story. The wording is more similar in Novaković and St Petersburg than in Hludov. When the man with the healed eye comes to bring gifts, the sorcerer does not recognize him. The man has to remind the sorcerer who he is. The sorcerer asks the man how he was healed, and the man explains that it was the sorcerer’s disciple Jesus who had healed him. The man retells the entire dialogue with Jesus. The sorcerer wonders about Jesus’ skills. In 013.4, the episode ends with the sorcerer’s invitation to Joseph to come and take his son Jesus home since he already knows the sorcerers’ work. Hludov and St Petersburg have an episode Temple of Idols between the episodes Third Teacher (15) and Blind Man (013). This episode is characteristic only of Slavonic and Arabic versions and sometimes of the Pseudo-Matthew. ⁵⁵¹ The story is similar in both manuscripts, albeit with somewhat different wording: Jesus was walking to the church buildings when кїрамида (?) fell and hit him. Jesus cursed this building, and immediately it was destroyed. He ordered that a new building be built, but a good building, not the building of demons and idolatry.⁵⁵² This episode certainly belongs among the miracle episodes in the story of Jesus’ childhood. Finally, the three Slavonic manuscripts have different endings. St Petersburg ends its narrative with Jerusalem (19.1) abruptly in the middle of a sentence: Joseph and Mary came back…,⁵⁵³ after which the title of the following text commences in the same folio.⁵⁵⁴ Novaković has the episode Children Made Swine (012) inserted between Jerusalem 19.2 and 19.3. The episode Children Made Swine (012) comes quite unexpectedly in Novaković. In this episode, Jesus asks Jews about his friends since he wishes to play with them. They are hidden in a cottage.

 Hludov, fol. 204v: Да зреше око исцѣлѩеть а слѣпааго не брѣжаше. Ѡшдьшоу же оучителю. Прииде ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь на помазание; St Petersburg, fol. 181v: Изрѧщее око его болѣше и помазовааше е. Патри лоуча оуже единомоу ѡбрѣтшоусѧ.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 58.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 61.  St Petersburg, fol. 183v: їѡсїфь же и мариа[м], възвратистасѧ…  Reading of Saint (четенїе стго). However, there is only a title here, while the text is missing and the folio is blank.

148

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Jesus approaches the door and says: Let them become swine. ⁵⁵⁵ When their parents come, the swine run out of the cottage. This episode is present in the Slavonic, Arabic, and Old English versions.⁵⁵⁶ After this, Novaković continues with the sections Jerusalem 19.3 – 19.5. Hludov has a complete episode Jerusalem 19.1– 5. Finally, the opening of Hludov in the Prologue (1) contains the word “reading of the childhood…” (Чтениѥ). This word indicates that the text was used as a “reading” in a monastic context, perhaps in the liturgy. All three Slavonic manuscripts additionally have the formula God bless us in the Prologue. Regarding speed, in Novaković and Hludov, Jesus is three years old at the beginning of the Infancy Gospel, while he is four in St Petersburg. In 6.2c, in Novaković, he is five; in Hludov, he is three, and it is not clear how old he is in St Petersburg. By episode 11, Jesus is eight in Novaković and Hludov. He is ten by episode 13 in all three manuscripts and 12 by episode 19 in Novaković and St Petersburg. Novaković, therefore, covers five years in the first 11 episodes (two until 6.2c), two years in episodes 11– 13, and two years in episodes 13 – 19, thus slowing down the speed of the narrative. Hludov covers five years in the first 11 episodes (the same age of three at least in the first six episodes) and two years in episodes 11– 13. After the age of ten, there is no further reference to age in Hludov. It makes readers think that all the events from episode 13 until the end occur when Jesus is ten. St Petersburg covers six years from the beginning until episode 13 and two years in episodes 13 – 19, thus elaborating on his age from ten to twelve. To sum up, Novaković contains a more extended narrative in some episodes. It is extended by elaborating narrative sections in more detail, contributing to narration and dramatic intensity rather than changes in the storyline. Hludov is concise, but it nevertheless contains all or most of the details of the narrative. Hludov additionally demonstrates some parallels to the Lm variant (as in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon), which are reflected in the descriptions of the Jewish setting, in the hostility of other people to Jesus, in neglecting the descriptions of other peoples’ suffering because of Jesus, and in allusions to Jesus’ divine nature. In their narrative about Jesus’ childhood, all three Slavonic manuscripts emphasize miraculous episodes about healing, sorcery, and Jesus’ other miraculous childhood activities.

 Novaković, 54: да боудоуть свиниѥ.  Gero, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 58: Gero calls this episode Jesus turns Jewish children into swine.

Pseudo-duration

149

Byzantine manuscripts In the following, I analyze the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the three Greek manuscripts: Sabaiticus (eleventh century), Vienna hist. 91 (fourteenth-fifteenth century) and Athens 355 (fifteenth century). When we compare the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in these manuscripts regarding the pseudo-duration of its episodes, several specific features come to light. First, not one manuscript is identical to another. Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355 have more corresponding sections in comparison to Sabaiticus. Sabaiticus corresponds to Vienna hist.91 in many parts. In only a few cases, Sabaiticus and Athens 355 overlap, where Vienna hist. 91 differs. The length of the episodes is as follows: Sabaiticus

Vienna hist. 

Athens 

Prologue ()







Pools (.)













Annas’ Son ()







Careless Boy ()







Joseph’s Rebuke ()







First Teacher ()







Lament ()



















Injured Foot ()







Water in Cloak ()







Harvest ()































Dead Baby ()







Dead Laborer ()













Sparrows (. – .)

Exclamation () Zeno ()

Carpenter () Second Teacher () Third Teacher () James’ Snakebite ()

Jerusalem ()

150

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Where Sabaiticus differs from the other two manuscripts, it is often excised of the text that the two manuscripts have.⁵⁵⁷ When I say excised, I do not imply that one of these texts in the manuscripts dates earlier than the others (as we do not know the precise dating of the texts, only of manuscripts). However, it is better to say that the manuscripts Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355 are extended in comparison to Sabaiticus (as they are later manuscripts). Less commonly, Sabaiticus is extended in the sections that the other two manuscripts do not have.⁵⁵⁸ It also alters entire sections by containing a different text in comparison to the two other manuscripts.⁵⁵⁹ In the sections where Sabaiticus lacks the text in comparison to Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355, it does not discuss the subjects that the two other manuscripts cover. In several cases, Sabaiticus does not emphasize that Jesus is a child, such as in First teacher (6.1).⁵⁶⁰ In 6.2, Sabaiticus does not incorporate the lines where the first teacher estimates Jesus as a potential student, using the word child. ⁵⁶¹ In Third teacher (15.2), Sabaiticus (unlike the two other manuscripts) does not include the lines where Jesus is said to be a child.⁵⁶² In a few instances, the descriptions of other people’s anger towards Jesus are missing in Sabaiticus. In Annas’ Son (3.3), Sabaiticus does not depict the parents of the dead child raging and accusing Jesus of his death. These passages are present in the later dated manuscripts Vienna and Athens. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.2), Sabaiticus lacks any mention of the audience’s rage, fear, and disturbance after Jesus had blinded them. The sections where Jesus tries to convince people of his divine nature are also absent in Sabaiticus. In First teacher (6.2b), Jesus does not affirm that he is divine and states that whatever his father said was true.⁵⁶³ In 6.2d, Sabaiticus

 In episodes 2.4, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2b, 6.2d, 6.2 f, 9.1, 12.1, 12.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.2, 15.4, 17, 18. See Burke, De infantia Iesu.  In episodes 3.1, 6.2a, 14.3.  In episodes 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3, 6.2b, 10.3.  Athens 355, fol. 63r: τοιοῦτον παιδίον ταῦτα φθέγγεται; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: ὅτι παιδίον τοιαῦταν ὃν τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται.  Athens 355, fol. 63r: Φρόνιμον παιδίον ἔχεις καὶ καλὸν νοῦν ἔχει; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: τὸ παιδίον α[ὐτ]οῦ φρόνιμον ἐσ[τι] καὶ νοῦν ἔχει.  Athens 355, fol. 67r: ὅτι νήπιος ὢν τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203r: ὅτι νήπι[ος] ὂν τοιαῦτ[α] φθέγγε[ται].  Athens 355, fol. 63v: καὶ ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μου ὃν εἶπεν ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσεις ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπόν σοι ἀληθῆ εἰσιν; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: καὶ ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μ[ου] ὃν εἴπεν σοι ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσει. ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπον σοί ἀληθινά εἰσι.

Pseudo-duration

151

does not confirm that God the Father sent Jesus to the people.⁵⁶⁴ A section in the Second teacher (14.1) is absent from Sabaiticus, where the teacher and Joseph discuss Jesus’ syllabus, and Joseph says that Jesus should study Greek letters first, and then Hebrew letters. The references to Jews mostly lack in Sabaiticus. Sabaiticus does not have the episode Dead Baby (17.1), which describes Jesus’ healing miracle; this episode appears in Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355. Vienna hist. 91 expands it by describing the great sorrow and distress of those who were present at the event.⁵⁶⁵ Similarly, the episode Dead Laborer (18.1) is another healing episode absent from Sabaiticus and appearing in Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355. Sabaiticus expands the Infancy Gospel in a few places compared to the other two manuscripts (or else, the other two manuscripts make it concise). In Sparrows (2.4), Sabaiticus states that the sparrows flew away in front of everyone,⁵⁶⁶ thus emphasizing in greater detail the audience of Jesus’ miracle (which somewhat resembles the Lm variant). Athens 355 and Vienna hist.91 do not describe the audience in this scene.⁵⁶⁷ Besides, the line in the Second teacher (14.3), the child went home to his parents, potentially implies both parents, like the Lm variant.⁵⁶⁸ In several places, Sabaiticus completely alters parts of the text. In Annas’ Son (3.2), Jesus’ speech is amended, and the language of the curse is milder, while in Vienna hist. 91 and Athens 355, we see a very straightforward and harsh language.⁵⁶⁹ The curse in Sabaiticus is written in elaborate, moralizing, and metaphorical language. It is short, and it does not contain the description of Jesus’ anger. Jesus’ curse in Careless Boy (4.1) does not affect the cursed boy directly.⁵⁷⁰

 Athens 355, fol. 63v: ἐγὼ εἰμὶ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πρὸς ὑμᾶς; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: καὶ ὁ πέμψας πρὸ[ς] ὑμᾶς οἶδε.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203v: καὶ ἔκλαιεν ἡ μή[τη]ρ αὐτοῦ σφόδρα. ἤκουσεν δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ὅ[τι] πένθος μέγα καὶ θόρυβος γίνεται ἔδραμεν σπουδαῖος καὶ εὑρ[ὼν] τὸ παιδίον νεκρ[ὸν] ἥψατο τοῦ στήθους αὐτοῦ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 66v: ἐπέτασαν τὰ ὄρναια ἐνώπιον πάντων.  Athens 355, fol. 62r: Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κρωτήσας τὰς χεῖρας λέγει τοῖς στρουθίοις; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203r: Ὁ δὲ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς συγκροτήσας τὰς χεῖρας, ἀνέκραξεν τοῖς στρουθίοις.  Sabaiticus, fol. 71r: καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς γονεῖς αὐτοῦ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Ἄριζος ὁ καρπός σου καὶ ξηρὸς ὁ βλαστός σου ὡς κλάδος ἐκκομένος ἐν πνεύματι τιμίῳ; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: ἄδικε ἀσεβὴ καὶ ἀνόητε τί ἠδίκησάν σε τὰ ὕδατ[α] καὶ οἱ λάκκοι. Ἰδοὺ νῦν καὶ σύ, ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς ὅ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐνέγκῃς φύλλα οὔτε ῥίζαν οὔτε καρπ[όν]; Athens 355, fol. 62r: Σοδομίτα ἄσεβες καὶ ἀνόητε τί σε ἠδίκησαν οἱ λάκκοι οἱ ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ ὕδατα. Ἰδοὺ νῦν ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς καὶ μὴ ἔχῃς ῥίζαν μήτε κεφαλὴν μήτε καρπόν.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Ἐπικατάρατός συ ὁ ἡγεμών σου; Vienna hist.91, fol. 200r: Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου; Athens 355, fol. 62v: Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου.

152

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Confrontational language is absent from Sabaiticus. Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355 describe Jesus’ emotional reaction, his irritation, and fury.⁵⁷¹ The curse is directed against a boy, and it is straightforward. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1), Jesus answers Joseph in Sabaiticus in a tone that implies his divine nature, while he admits his father’s authority in the other two manuscripts.⁵⁷² In First teacher (6.2b), Jesus talks to the teacher in Sabaiticus as a divine being, while in the other two manuscripts, he submits to his father.⁵⁷³ This feature in Sabaiticus, where entire sentences are different from the other manuscripts, may result from rewriting. It appears only in Sabaiticus. I would consider it a particular feature of this manuscript if this was the only manuscript containing this text variant. Sabaiticus has the judgment directed against Jesus by others toned down; it focuses on his deeds. In Careless boy (4.2), Athens 355 and Vienna hist.91 explicitly describe the misdeeds of Jesus towards other children, while in Sabaiticus only one child is harmed, and the parents’ words diminish Jesus’ guilt.⁵⁷⁴ They say that they have been deprived of their child instead of explicitly saying that Jesus killed him and other children.⁵⁷⁵ In Zeno (9.2), only in Sabaiticus is Jesus presented as equal to the parents of the dead child, who attack him in this situation, since he replies to the accusations in an equal manner.⁵⁷⁶ Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355 resemble each other more than Sabaiticus, but not throughout the entire narrative. At times, there are better textual correspondences between Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91 in comparison to Athens 355. In the places where Sabaiticus and Vienna differ from Athens 355, they are extended,⁵⁷⁷ altered,⁵⁷⁸ and excised. ⁵⁷⁹

 Athens 355, fol. 62v: ὀργισθεὶς; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: πικρανθ[εὶς].  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Φρόνιμα ῥήματά συ ἐγινώσκες ἄν πόθεν ἦν τὰ ῥήματά σου οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς. Ἐπίπεπτα διήγισαν κἀκεῖνα; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅ[τι] τὰ ῥήματά σου ταῦτα, ἐμά οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ σά. ὅμως σιγήσω διὰ σέ; Athens 355, fol. 62v: ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅτι τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὰ ἀλλὰ σά εἰσιν. ὅμως ἔχω σιωπῆσαι διὰ σέ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: Καθηγητὴς ὢν εὐφυῶς ἐξήχθης καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ᾧ ὀνομάζῃ ἀλλότριος τυγχάνεις. Ἔξωθεν γὰρ εἰμι ὑμῶν. ἔνδωθεν δὲ ὑμῖν διὰ τὴν σαρκικὴν εὐγένειαν ὑπάρχων. Σὺ δὲ νομικὸς ὢν τὸν νόμον οὐκ οἶδες; Vienna hist.91, fol. 200v: ἀληθ[ῶς] καθηγητά πάντα ὅσα εἴρηκέν σοι ὁ π[ατ]ήρ μου ἀληθὰ ἐισὶν; Athens 355, fol. 63r: ἀληθῶς καθηγητά ὅσα εἴρηκέ σοι ὁ πατήρ μου ἀληθές ἐστί.  Athens 355, fol. 62v: τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν ὡς ἀνάπηρα ἐποίησεν; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν θανατοὶ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: τὸ γὰρ παιδίον ἡμῶν ἐστερήθημεν.  Sabaiticus, fol. 69v: Ἐγὼ οὐ κατέβαλα αὐτό.  In episodes 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 4.2, 6.2c, 6.2 f, 9.1, 9.2, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 15.3.  In episode 4.1.  In episode 5.1, 12.2, 13.2, 19.1, 19.2, 19.5.

Pseudo-duration

153

In the places where Sabaiticus and Vienna are extended, they mainly change the narrative by introducing new characters or relating the narrative in more detail. In the episode Sparrows (2.3), they introduce a character, a Jew, who betrays Jesus to his father. In Athens 355, we see the children of the Hebrews reporting to Joseph about Jesus’ behavior. Similarly, in Annas’ Son (3.1), they present Annas’ son, where Athens 355 has Annas. The correspondence between Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91 is often reflected in similar wording and grammatical forms when they differ from Athens 355, such as in Careless Boy (4.1).⁵⁸⁰ This type of rephrasing or reformulation of the text would be best described as condensation, where different words are used but the meaning is kept. In 4.1, the two manuscripts present the episode’s audience as people, where Athens 355 has Jews. Sabaiticus and Vienna emphasize in the same episode that Jesus’ every word becomes a deed, a line absent in Athens 355. In 4.2, as the episode continues, in Athens 355, the Jews are the same audience, while Sabaiticus and Vienna introduce parents of the dead child, who now talk to Joseph. In First Teacher (6.2c), Sabaiticus and Vienna extend their narrative by describing in more detail the scene in which Jews are amazed by Jesus’ words. In both manuscripts, the Jews say that they have not heard such words spoken by anyone before – neither from high priests, teachers of the law, scribes, Pharisees, as from Jesus. ⁵⁸¹ These lines are absent from Athens 355. In Zeno (9.1), Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91 describe the setting in more detail. The scene occurred after many days, on a roof of an upstairs room. Athens 355 does not have a description of the setting. Further, in episode 9.2, Athens 355 explains the situation with the parents briefly: They came and said to Jesus. ⁵⁸² Vienna hist. 91 expands the lines: They came and made accusations, thinking that he had knocked him down. ⁵⁸³

 Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: καὶ τρέχων ἐκεῖνος ἐρράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: καὶ παιδίον τρέχοντα διερράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ; Athens 355, fol. 62v: καὶ δραμὸν ἓν παιδίον ἔδωκε τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ὦμον.  Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: Τοιούτους λόγους οὐδέποτε οἴδαμεν. οὐδενὸς εἰρηκότος οὐδὲ νομοδιδασκάλου οὐδὲ φαρισαίου τινὸς ὡς τοῦ παιδίου τούτου; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: Τάχα ὅλων πέντε ἐτῶν οὐκ ἐστιν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. καὶ οἶδε ποῖ[α] φθέγγηται. ἤ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν εἰρηκότος […] οὔτε ἀρχιερέ[ως] οὔτε νομοδιδασκάλου οὔτε γραμματέ[ως] ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Φαρισαί[ου] τινὸς ὡς τοῦ παιδίου τούτου.  Athens 355, fol. 65v: ἐλθόντες δὲ οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ τεθνηκότος παιδίου ἔλεγον τῷ Ἰησοῦ.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202r: καὶ ἐλθῶντες οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ ἀποθανώντος παιδίου ἐνεγκάλουν αὐτὸν ὡς αὐτὸς καταβαλόντος αὐτ[ὸν]. Ἐκείνον δὲ ἐπηρεαζόντων αὐτ[ὸν] καταβαλόντων αὐτ[ὸν].

154

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

Where the text is excised in Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91 compared to Athens 355, the latter mainly insists on the descriptions of the emotions of other people who either suffered from Jesus or benefited from him. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1), Athens 355 goes into more detail about how other people suffer because of Jesus, hate them, and wish to drive them away from the village. ⁵⁸⁴ These lines are, to some extent, excised from Vienna and even more from Sabaiticus. The episode Harvest (12) is expanded in Athens 355 and excised in the other two manuscripts, particularly in Sabaiticus. It goes into more detail about how Jesus helped other people and how his father benefited from Jesus’ harvest. Vienna hist. 91 often expands the narrative by introducing more words to describe scenes and improve the narrative dynamics. This manuscript augments the narrative by applying features that make for a more detailed description. The episode Sparrows (2.4) is extended by describing the scene in more words.⁵⁸⁵ The episode Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1) in Vienna hist. 91 describes the fear, disturbance, and rage of the blinded people and the audience after Jesus had blinded some of them.⁵⁸⁶ Athens 355 contains only one sentence on this subject, while this section is absent in Sabaiticus.⁵⁸⁷ Sabaiticus lacks descriptions where people develop negative feelings towards Jesus. In the continuation of 5.2, where Jesus receives the punishment from his father, Vienna hist.91 is extended: When he saw what Jesus did, Joseph rose and…⁵⁸⁸ This line describes the scene better. In the episode First Teacher (6.2), Vienna hist. 91 contributes to a better explanation of the scene: After a few days, he approached Joseph and said to him…⁵⁸⁹ Sabaiticus only briefly states: He said to Joseph. ⁵⁹⁰ The last section of 6.2d, and that before the world was created, lacks in Sabaiticus.⁵⁹¹ Vienna hist.91, on the other hand, extends this line for the sake of narrative embellish-

 Athens 355, fol. 62v: Διὰ τί καταρᾶσαι καὶ πάσχουσιν καὶ μισοῦσιν ἡμᾶς. καὶ διώκουσιν ἐκ τῆς κώμης.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ ἰδὼν ἀνέκραξεν αὐτὸν λέγων. This line is the briefest in Athens 355, fol. 62r: Καὶ ἀπελθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ λέγει. In Sabaiticus, one more word is introduced, fol. 66v: Καὶ ἐλθῶν Ἰωσὴφ ἐπετίμα αὐτὸν λέγων.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202r: Καὶ οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες αὐτ[ὸν] ἐτυφλώθησαν. καὶ ἰδόντες ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα καὶ ἠπόρουν καὶ ἔλεγον περὶ αὐτ[οῦ].  Athens 355, fol. 63r: καὶ διηπόρουν μαινόμενοι.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: καὶ ἐγερθεὶς Ἰωσήφ, ἐπελέβετο αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. καὶ ἔτιλλ[εν] αὐτῷ σφό[δρα].  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: καὶ μετ’ ὀλί[γας] ἡμέ[ρας] προσήγγι[σε] τῷ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: Καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: καὶ ὃ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον κτισθῆναι.

Pseudo-duration

155

ment: And I say this incredible thing to you: I know when the world was created and the one who sent me to you knows. ⁵⁹² In episode Injured Foot (10.1), Vienna hist. 91 gives an additional description compared to the other manuscripts, explaining the narrative better by speaking of the neighborhood, falling of the axe that splits the foot, becoming drained of blood, and dying.⁵⁹³ This part is briefer in both Sabaiticus and Athens 355. In episode Third Teacher (15.4), the opening is extended in Vienna hist.91: When the child heard the teacher saying these things…⁵⁹⁴ This line introduces readers to the scene and improves the narrative dynamics. A similar extension can be seen in Athens 355.⁵⁹⁵ Sabaiticus states only briefly: And he said to the teacher. ⁵⁹⁶ Athens 355 and Sabaiticus textually correspond only in three cases, where the text in Vienna is altered (11.2) or absent (15.2, 19.1) in comparison to these two manuscripts. In Water in Cloak (11.2), Mary addresses the Lord in Sabaiticus and Athens 355, asking him to bless Jesus and have mercy. In Vienna, she keeps to herself the miracles Jesus performed. In Third Teacher (15.2), when the third teacher sits near Jesus, listens to him, and encourages him to say more is absent from Vienna hist.91. Sabaiticus and Athens 355 have this section with similar wording. Athens 355 contains descriptions of excessive emotional characters’ reactions and dramatic scenes. In Athens 355, the family of Jesus is practically thrown out of the village in Careless Boy (4.2).⁵⁹⁷ In Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91, the situation is moderate; Jesus’ family does not need to leave, but only to fulfill the requirements of their stay.⁵⁹⁸ In Lament (7.3), the teacher’s emotional condition is emphasized when the first teacher says in Athens 355: I cannot endure the shame. ⁵⁹⁹ In Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91, he says: I think about my

 Vienna hist. 91, fol. 201r: καὶ τὸ παράδοξον ὅτι οἶδα ὅτε ὁ κόσμος ἐκτίσθη, καὶ ὁ πέμψας πρὸ [ς] ὑμᾶς οἶδε.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203v: τις νεώτε[ρος] ἐν γειτονίᾳ τούτου ἔπεσεν ἡ ἀξίνη καὶ ἔσχισεν τὴν βάσιν τοῦ ποδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτίκα ὄλι[…] ἰαθήμησθεν μικρ[ὸν] δὲ ἀπέθνῃσκεν.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203r: ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν τὸ παιδίον ταῦτ[α] αὐτοῦ εἰρηκό[τος] πρὸτον Ἰωσὴφ εὐθέ[ως] προσεγέλασεν αὐτ[ὸν] καὶ εἶπε.  Athens 355, fol. 67r: ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῦ καθηγητοῦ τούτους λόγους ὄντος μειδιάσας εἶπεν.  Sabaiticus, fol. 71r: Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν τῷ καθηγητῇ.  Athens 355, fol. 62v: λαβὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀναχώρησον ἀπεντεῦθεν.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Εἰ θέλῃς ἴναι ἐνταῦθα…  Athens 355, fol.64v: Οἴμοι ὅτι ἠπατήθην ὁ τάλας ἐγὼ καὶ ἐμαυτῷ αἰσχύνην κατέσχον.

156

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

shame. ⁶⁰⁰ Further on in 7.4, in Athens 355, the teacher begs the father to take back the child. In Vienna hist.91, he asks him. These narrative changes demonstrate a gradation in the teacher’s despair, which is the highest in Athens 355. The level of despair shows how greatly Jesus made other people desperate in each text. In Carpenter (13.1), Athens 355 emphasizes Joseph’s emotional condition; he is in great distress. Jesus tells him not to be distressed. In Vienna hist. 91, Joseph does not know what to do. In Second Teacher (14.2), in Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91, the teacher is irritated (πικρανθεὶς), while in Athens 355, he is furious (ὀργισθεὶς). Athens 355 sometimes describes medical conditions in greater detail, where the other two manuscripts do not do. Athens 355 particularly emphasizes the line in 10.2 the medical nature of Jesus’ activities: The one who heals illnesses, our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁶⁰¹ In James’ Snakebite (16.2), Athens 355 describes more thoroughly the details of the medical condition of James.⁶⁰² The episode Dead Baby (17.1) in Athens 355 states that the child died of sickness, another medical condition that does not appear elsewhere. Regarding speed, in all three Greek manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas starts when Jesus is five. In Sabaiticus, he turns seven by episode 11, eight by episode 13, and twelve by episode 19. In both Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355, he turns six by episode 11, eight by episode 13, and twelve by episode 19. In this way, the episodes from 2 – 11 describe one year in these two manuscripts, while Sabaiticus covers two years in the same episodes. The other manuscripts (Latin and other Greek manuscripts) also cover a year. From episodes 11 to 13, Sabaiticus covers a year, while the other manuscripts cover two years. Sabaiticus, therefore, slows down the speed of its narrative, while the other manuscripts speed it up. This temporal component of the narrative seems to have had little relevance for the narrative in the different manuscripts, making the Infancy Gospel of Thomas an achronical narrative. To sum up, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Sabaiticus demonstrates many specificities. Future research may help determine whether these characterize only this manuscript or reflect the features of a variant (Gs). Sabaiticus lacks the descriptions of other people’s anger towards Jesus, the sections where Jesus tries to convince people of his divine nature, the sections where the emphasis is placed on Jesus as a child, and the episodes that describe healing miracles.  Sabaiticus, fol. 69r: Οἴμοι οἴμοι ἠπορήθην ὁ ταλαίπωρος ἐγώ. ἐμαυτὸν αἰσχύνην παρέσχον ἐπικατασπασάμενος τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο.  Athens 355, fol. 65v: καὶ ἰώμενος τὰς νόσους ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.  Athens 355, fol. 67r: καὶ πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἔμελλε τελευτᾶν ἐκ τοῦ πόνου τοῦ φαρμάκου.

Intra- and inter-lingual connections

157

Sabaiticus tones down other persons’ judgment of Jesus and focuses on his deeds. It also emphasizes the audience of Jesus’ miracle, which brings it close to the Lm variant of Dijon. The most specific feature in Sabaiticus is that this manuscript completely alters parts of the text and replaces them with another text. The manuscript Vienna hist. 91 primarily extends its narrative by introducing readers to the scenes better and improving the narrative dynamics. Sometimes, it changes the narrative by having new characters or by describing the narrative in more detail. Finally, the manuscript Athens 355 contains descriptions of excessive emotional reactions by the characters and dramatic scenes, while it also particularly emphasizes the scenes of illness and injury.

Intra- and inter-lingual connections In this chapter, I compared the textual transformations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in various languages and manuscripts. The analysis was supported by narratology within the framework of New Philology. I have studied the pseudo-temporal order of the episodes, the narrative logic, and the pseudo-duration of the episodes. The chapter aimed to reveal specific meaning and agendas underlying these textual transformations in the different manuscripts. In the Latin tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is closely attached to the other surrounding texts already in the earliest manuscript witnesses from the fifth century. When assessing the pseudo-temporal order of the episodes of the Infancy Gospel in these manuscripts, one needs to consider that these episodes are part of a larger cycle of texts. Manuscript Dijon 38 (Lm) places a complete cycle of Mary’s life and achievements in chronological order of her life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in this manuscript as a continuous text without a title, and it belongs to a larger narrative. Concerning the choice of episodes, Dijon does not contain the healing episodes Injured Foot (10), Dead Baby (17), and Dead Laborer (18), but it has the episodes Lions (35 – 36), Joseph Raises Dead Man (40), and Family Meal (42), which do not appear in the other manuscripts. It emphasizes the Jewish audience of Jesus’ acts, the misdeeds of other people towards Jesus, the understanding of Jesus’ divine nature by his parents, and the explanation of the family ties of Joseph to James. In the Latin tradition, the text in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon (Lm) mainly follows the inner narrative logic better than the other manuscripts. The Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears in the Latin West by the twelfth–thirteenth century. Manuscript Cambridge, which contains the Lt variant, tones down Jesus’ behavior “in a bad light” and his aggression towards others. It emphasizes the cleansing and purification that Jesus performs as an at-

158

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

tempt to polish Jesus’ character. It tones down the curses Jesus utters and describes the feelings of the people affected by Jesus. Joseph no longer understands Jesus’ divine nature. Cambridge extends the sections describing the teacher’s lament and self-pity and introduces the healing episodes Injured Foot (10) and Dead Baby (17), which are absent in Dijon (Lm). Cambridge demonstrates some illogical sections and transitions in the text. When we look into a more extended sequence of texts in Cambridge (Lt), we notice that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript is also part of a larger narrative; it appears without a title.⁶⁰³ One might think that more meaningful structural transformations would occur in the pseudo-temporal order of the extensive sequence of texts in the Pseudo-Matthew with the revision and creation of the Lt variant of Thomas’ Infancy Gospel, but this is not the case. At least according to the available evidence, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in both Lt and Lm variants usually appears in the manuscripts within a sequence of narratives of the Pseudo-Matthew with Mary as their subject (sometimes expanded to both Mary and Jesus). This feature did not change with the emergence of the Lt variant. It means that the Lt variant, as it appears in the manuscript Cambridge, even if constructed to produce the textual differences in comparison to the Lm variant, which I noted above, did not bring in changes in the use of the text because it was still used in the context of the larger cycle of the Pseudo-Matthew in the thirteenth century and later. Possibly scribes, who were in charge of the order of texts in manuscripts, sometimes were not aware of the exact differences between the Lm and Lt variants of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Therefore, they continued copying the two variants within similar contents. The Lt variant with all its inner textual adjustments could have been a Latin translation of a Greek text. Scholars have already argued that the Lt variant is a later Latin translation of a Greek text. The explanation above would make more sense if the text of the Lt variant, as we know it from the manuscript Cambridge, was translated from a Greek text and then inserted into the same old context in the Latin tradition. The changes of the text in manuscript Cambridge (Lt) in comparison to Dijon (Lm) turned Jesus from a divine into a typical child and widened the misunderstanding between him and his father, Joseph.⁶⁰⁴ These details were not necessa-

 The same applies to the manuscript Paris 3014. This manuscript also follows the chronology of Mary’s life, while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a segment of the broader narrative.  I will comment on these features in more detail in Chapter 4.

Intra- and inter-lingual connections

159

rily apparent to those who copied the texts since the evidence in the manuscripts shows that Lt and Lm variants often appeared within similar contents.⁶⁰⁵ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Byzantine manuscripts has proved to be closer to the Latin Lt tradition (as in Cambridge). Sabaiticus is excised of the descriptions of other people’s anger towards Jesus, Jesus’ justification of his divinity, the references to Jews, the scenes of emotional tension, fear and pain, and Jesus’ healing miracles. The variant in Sabaiticus shows some correspondence in detail to the text in Dijon (Lm). This manuscript also contains whole sentences replaced by other sentences. This feature may have been a consequence of rewriting. Voicu, supported by Burke, argues that the Gs variant in Sabaiticus is an intermediate stage in developing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, between the short recension and the long recension.⁶⁰⁶ Voicu argues that the Gs variant is “already interpolated,” while Burke disagrees.⁶⁰⁷ I tend to agree with Voicu’s opinion on this matter. This view is corroborated by the fact that Sabaiticus contains some sentences replaced by other sentences, as I emphasized above, and some illogical sections. The other Greek and Slavonic manuscripts have some logical inconsistencies in the text. Manuscript Vienna hist. gr. 91 includes the nineteen-episode form unrelated to the texts around it. This manuscript extends the narrative by introducing more elaborate descriptions, improving the narrative dynamics, and adding features that contribute to the narrative’s understanding. In Athens gr. 355, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is preceded by John of Damascus’ Birth of Christ. The two may have formed a link by describing Jesus’ birth and childhood, mainly since the Prologue in Egypt goes before the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and since the Infancy Gospel has no title. This sequence of texts reminds, to some extent, of the Latin tradition. The text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains excessive emotional reactions by the characters and more dramatic descriptions. It places a greater emphasis on Joseph’s emotional condition. Athens 355 also, at times, contains more detailed medical descriptions. The miracle episodes were present in the pseudo-temporal order of some manuscripts, while they were absent in others. All three Slavonic manuscripts emphasize the healing and other miracle episodes. The episodes inserted particularly in the Slavonic tradition introduce various Jesus’ miracles, healing mira-

 My conclusions about the Lt variant would undoubtedly strengthen by a more extensive analysis of Lt manuscripts. The manuscript Cambridge and the occasional reference to the manuscripts Paris 3014 and Berne 271 are only a tiny part of the corpus and cannot offer a complete overview of the Lt tradition.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 196; Voicu, “Notes,” 120; Voicu, “Verso,” 26 – 27.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 196; Voicu, “Notes,” 131; Voicu, “Verso,” 24.

160

Chapter 3 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as Text: Transformations of Structure

cles, and other kinds. The Slavonic tradition also demonstrates some links to the Arabic tradition. Similar to Vienna hist. 91, Novaković appears to be a considerably longer narrative (among the Slavonic versions), which extends the text by describing the narrative in more detail, thereby contributing to the dramatic intensity but only slightly to the transformation of the story. Its random insertions of some episodes in the middle of others are difficult to explain, such as when the Third Teacher (15) continues into the Blind Man (013.1) and when Jerusalem (19) is interrupted by the episode Children Made Swine (012). Manuscript Hludov contains the Infancy Gospel of Thomas between the texts about the Birth of Christ and the Epiphany of Christ, thus making a sequence. Hludov does not omit information regarding the narrative but only narrates in a more concise way. It contains the complete episodes without interruption and adds some new episodes, like the Temple of Idols. Hludov demonstrates some correspondence in detail to Dijon (Lm), such as descriptions of the Jewish setting, descriptions of other people’s hostility, lack of descriptions of other people’s suffering because of Jesus, and allusions to Jesus’ divine nature. Enough said about the text. I now move from the form and structure to the content, its meaning, and its significance. I will discuss the details in the different manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that relate to children, childhood, family, and everyday life as windows onto various social, cultural, and religious matters in the environments in which this text was copied and used.

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas In the preceding chapters, I analyzed the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its textual transformations. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas incorporates further specificities concerning differing words and phrases. These seemingly minor details sometimes reveal views on various social, cultural, and religious issues. Whose views are expressed in the different words and phrases? As I understand it, author(s), translators, scribes, and audiences may have contributed to these details during the transmission and may have influenced the transformations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This understanding aligns with New Philology, which studies texts within the environments where they were copied and used, regardless of their original forms. Many persons with different intentions worked on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. We may assume that an author or several authors worked on the original version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, although we have no details of its context. Translators may have inserted some of their ideas and convictions into the text through the transmission. Scribes and copyists as mediators reproduced the text in manuscripts. Some of its parts (or the whole account) may have been transmitted orally for a while. Some features of the text in the manuscripts may reflect oral transmission. When copying the text, scribes and copyists may have attempted to contribute to the presentation of its episodes in more nuanced and picturesque ways. Such a feature was common during rewriting processes in the Middle Ages. The differences we spot in the text may also result from inner textual narration introduced to improve its narrative aspects. Scribes and copyists may have intended to make the text more accessible to a contemporary audience as a written product. They may have adjusted the text to specific agendas or copied it with the presupposition of their knowledge or the common understanding of the environment in which they lived. Their own previous experience may have been embedded in the text. Scribes and copyists may have been aware of what the intended audiences of this text would understand best. In this way, they acted as a medium between the text and the audience. It was not only authors but also scribes who had in mind the “intended audience.” The differences of this text in the manuscripts may reflect everyday matters common in specific environments in which the text was planned to be used. Thus, it was not only the author or the audience, but a complex chain of people, consisting

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-005

162

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

of authors, translators, scribes, and audiences that influenced the textual transformations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In this chapter, I mainly focus on words and phrases that describe children, childhood, family, and everyday life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the different manuscripts. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes the early years of Jesus’ childhood and adolescence, and scholars argue that at least some of these descriptions mirror the ideas and attitudes about children, childhood, and everyday life in the environments in which this text was transmitted.⁶⁰⁸ This distinction is essential because the descriptions of children, childhood, everyday and family life may reflect other concealed textual strategies or speak of Jesus as a divine being. However, some passages relate to ideas and attitudes about children and everyday life in the past. I identify the words and phrases that reflect ideas and attitudes about children and everyday life in the past and examine them with the environments in which they emerge, seeking to determine their proper setting and explanation. To give an example: the Byzantine manuscripts state that Joseph became angry (at Jesus) and took hold of Jesus’ ear and pulled hard ⁶⁰⁹ when punishing him, whereas, in the Arabic text, Joseph thrashed Jesus and scolded him strongly. ⁶¹⁰ Does the difference in the two formulations indicate that mediators chose these ways to present the text to their audience with a presumption of what this audience would understand best? Does this tell us that the intended audience would understand a child’s punishment best as the text presents it? Why is Jesus punished in different ways in these two examples? Children and childhood were perceived differently in different societies; this chapter will build on this idea and add our further knowledge.⁶¹¹ Although my focus is on the descriptions of children, childhood, family, and everyday life communicated through different words and phrases in the manuscripts, I also comment on descriptions that are very similar in wording and

 Aasgaard argues in connection to this: “It has been an assumption in previous chapters to see in IGT’s narrative world a reflection not primarily of first-century Palestine, but of the setting in which the story was transmitted, namely late antique Christianity – although the differences between the two need not be exaggerated.” See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 166.  Sabaiticus, 5.2, fol. 67r: Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπελάβετο τοῦ ὁτίοὐ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔτιλεν σφόδρα; Athens 355, 5.2, fol. 63r: ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἔτεινεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: καὶ ἐγερθεὶς Ἰωσήφ, ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. καὶ ἔτιλλ[εν] αὐτῷ σφό[δρα].  See Sergio Noja, “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas, de la ‘Biblioteca Ambrosiana’ de Milan (G 11 sup),” in Biblische und Judistische Studien: Festschrift für Paolo Sacchi, ed. Angelo Vivian (Paris: Peter Lang, 1990): 681– 690.  Colin Heywood, A History of Childhood: Children and Childhood in the West from Medieval to Modern Times (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001), 4.

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

163

phrasing because they indicate that some ideas about children and everyday life were at least commonly acknowledged if not accepted by different environments. They possibly present a general cultural capital shared or conceded by all the audiences of this text. I, therefore, analyze whether the descriptions of children, family, and everyday life epitomize the ideas and attitudes about everyday life, whether they share some general cultural values, or whether they use expressions that introduce the disguised ideology of the text while talking about Jesus and his divinity. The chapter is organized in a number of sub-sections according to the subjects that they appear to describe. I start by discussing the descriptions of Jesus’ relationship with his parents, which take a great deal of focus in the text. First, I examine how much Jesus’ parents appear in this text. Which of them is more present? Jesus’ mother, Mary, has received unprecedented attention in Christianity as the Mother of God. Differently, however, this text mainly describes Joseph in the scenes with Jesus. Why is this so? Further, I examine how Jesus is depicted as a genuine child of his parents. Does he appear as an average child, or is he the divine Jesus in a child’s body? How are his obedience and submission to his parents expressed in this text in the different manuscripts? I also analyze the examples where Jesus is punished and encouraged by his parents. After this, I discuss Jesus’ relationship with his siblings and teachers, as described in the manuscripts, to see whether they could offer a glimpse of the ideas about sibling, peer, and child-teacher relationships in the past. Then I study the activities and behavior of Jesus described in the text in various manuscripts. I start by discussing Jesus’ experience in school. Could any descriptions of Jesus’ experience in school relate to everyday occurrences in some environments in which the text was used? Since Jesus also carries out physical work in this text, I dedicate a section to this subject to assess whether these activities are related to ideas and attitudes about everyday life features of some environments or tell us something else. I then consider Jesus’ “odd behavior,” expressed in his cursing and anger. Was Jesus supposed to curse and be angry? How is this issue handled in the different manuscripts? Finally, I discuss family and everyday life as depicted in the text. Here I examine the life of Jesus’ family in the community, habits, rules, and different community attitudes towards Jesus and his family and the decisions his parents make under the community’s pressure. Another section touches upon housing as described in the Infancy Gospel, juxtaposed to housing as it looked like in Byzantium, the medieval West, and among Slavs. Since the Slavonic manuscripts describe Jesus having a sorcerer as a teacher, I end this chapter by discussing

164

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

the practices of healing and sorcery linked to this environment. This section may contribute to the history of medicine. In conclusion, I determine whether the examples describing children, childhood, family, and everyday life presented here reflect only their general cultural understanding in the different environments or relate to the features specific to some of them. I also comment on whether the examples talk about Jesus as a divine being (although he is a child in this text). All the conclusions are juxtaposed to the contexts that have already been presented in earlier chapters.

Presence of Joseph and Mary Even a glance at this text shows that Joseph is given a larger space than Mary in most of the textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The mother, Mary, appears only in a few episodes and is given mainly secondary roles.⁶¹² This feature is surprising for several reasons. First, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is often attached in the Latin tradition to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew because of the figure of Mary, where its placing offers details about Mary’s adult years, during which Jesus was a small child. How was this attachment justified, given that Mary appears in the text a few times? Second, this feature is unexpected given Mary’s prominence in the history of Christianity. Mary’s presence in the text contradicts the Christian tradition in which the Mother of God has the most critical position. In late antique and medieval Christianity, the mother of Jesus – Theotokos – gradually became an omnipresent figure. Her status led to an almost total eclipse of Joseph, who was ascribed only a peripheral role.⁶¹³ In contrast to his spouse, Joseph remained limited to the context of these nativity and childhood narratives of Jesus and Mary.⁶¹⁴ On this point, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas runs counter to much of the history of ancient and medieval Christianity.⁶¹⁵ In the view of Voicu, “this remarkable feature of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has not been paid all the attention it deserves, because it is the only ancient text which repeatedly depicts Joseph – who is almost always seen as a shadowy character in the main Christian tradition – as someone who has real authority

 Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 412.  See Patrick J. Geary, Women at the Beginning. Origin Myths from the Amazons to the Virgin Mary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 60 – 75, 61.  Geary, Women at the Beginning, 61.  On the latest views about the family in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, see Christopher Frilingos, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: Family Trouble in the Infancy Gospels (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017).

Presence of Joseph and Mary

165

over Jesus.”⁶¹⁶ While I do not entirely agree with Voicu about the extent of authority that Joseph has over Jesus, I certainly agree that he is more present than Mary in this text. Joseph is more present than Mary in most of the textual forms in different languages.⁶¹⁷ In this section, however, I will highlight those episodes in the various manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which describe Mary’s appearances. Although they are rare and sometimes unexpected, Mary’s appearances may lead to some conclusions about the history and transmission of the text, which I will elaborate in what follows. Mary usually appears only in a few episodes, such as Water in Cloak (11), when she sends Jesus to fetch water.⁶¹⁸ She also appears in episode Jerusalem (19), when she, together with Joseph, searches for Jesus, who got lost.⁶¹⁹ When they find him, his mother is the one to start a conversation with Jesus. It is one of the few places in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas where God is spoken of as Jesus’ father.⁶²⁰ The priests address the mother of Jesus, uttering praises.⁶²¹

 Voicu, “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha,” 412, n. 51.  Joseph is informed when Jesus makes the sparrows out of clay on Sabbath, and he comes to talk to him. Joseph is present in the scene with Annas’ son when Jesus curses him. Joseph listens to the complaints about Jesus from the parents of a dead child. The first teacher approaches Joseph to ask him to send Jesus to his school. Joseph negotiates with Zacheus. Joseph takes him to school for the first time. Joseph takes him back home when the first teacher sends him away. Jesus sows with Joseph. Jesus helps his father Joseph in his carpenter’s work. Joseph decides to send him to school the second time. Joseph decides on Jesus’ initial curriculum. Joseph is distressed and embarrassed because Jesus curses the second teacher, and he forbids Mary to let Jesus leave the house. Joseph discusses with the third teacher – his friend – the return of Jesus to school. Joseph is the one who receives the praises of Jesus by the third teacher, and he is the one who takes him home again.  This episode is present in all the analyzed manuscripts, except in the St Petersburg manuscript.  The episode Jerusalem (19) does not appear in all the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is present in the Byzantine manuscripts Sabaiticus, Vienna hist.91, Athens 355, the Slavonic edition of Novaković, and manuscript Hludov (in St Petersburg only 19.1 in part). Cambridge has the ending of this episode (19.4– 5) when scribes and Pharisees talk to Mary about Jesus.  Jesus answers his mother: “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in the place of my Father?” Sabaiticus, fol. 72v: ἵνα τί ἐζητεῖτέ με οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 204r: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐν τ[οῖ]ς οἴκοις τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου δεῖ εἶναί με τί ἄρα ἐζητεῖτε με; Athens 355, fol. 68r: τί με ἐζητεῖτε οὐκ εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; Novaković, 55: что искаста мене, ли не вѣста, ѩко иже соуть отьца моѥго и мнѣ вь тѣхь подобаѥть быти; Hludov, fol. 205v: почтѡ искасте мене скрьбеше не вѣсте ли ѩже ѥ[смь] оу ѡца моего. Вь тѣх ми достои ть быти.  “Blessed are you among women because God has blessed the fruit of your womb.” Sabaiticus, fol. 72v: μακαρία εἶ σύ ὅτι ηὐλόγησεν κύριος Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου; Vienna hist.

166

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Jesus follows his mother when they decide to go back home. She treasures all the things about him in her heart. In the view of Horn and Martens, the Gospel of Luke gives priority in this episode to God the father over his human parents.⁶²² In Betsworth’s view, more attention is paid to Mary in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ version of Jerusalem episode than in Luke.⁶²³ Mary’s presence becomes prominent in some manuscripts which contain the Prologue in Egypt appended to the opening of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In the Prologue in Egypt of manuscript Athens 355, an angel warns Mary in a dream that Jesus is in danger. This manuscript refers only to Mary going to Egypt with Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus walks in the street with Mary. Jesus is forced to leave a town with Mary. Again, an angel warns Mary to go back home with Jesus. Apart from Athens 355, the Prologue in Egypt is present in the Latin manuscripts Dijon, Cambridge, and perhaps Paris 1772.⁶²⁴ Some manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, such as the Latin Paris 1772 and Dijon, depict the mother and father appearing together in some scenes, where otherwise Joseph has a sole role.⁶²⁵ Voicu notes this increasingly important role of Mary in the Lm variant.⁶²⁶ Mary’s appearance does not play down Joseph’s appearance in these manuscripts; they appear together in several episodes.⁶²⁷

91, fol. 204r: μακαρί[α] σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησ[εν] ὁ Θ[εὸ]ς τ[ὸν] καρπ[ὸν] τῆς κοιλία[ς] σου; Athens 355, fol. 68r: μακαρία σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου; Novaković, 55: благословлѥиьна ты ѥси вь женахь, и благословлень плодь оутробы твоѥ; Hludov, fol. 205v: бл[а]женна ты еси вь женахь. И бл[а]г[осло]вень пло[д] удѣва твоего; Cambridge, fol. 81v: Beata es tu int[er] mulieres q[uonia]m b[e]n[e]dix[it] d[eu]s fructu[m] ventris tui.  Cornelia B. Horn, and John W. Martens,“Let the little children come to me:” Childhood and Children in Early Christianity (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 79.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 156.  It is also present in manuscript Paris 3014. Interestingly, Sheingorn argues that episodes 18 – 24 create a certain distance between Mary and Joseph and construct Jesus as his mother’s primary defender and protector. See Sheingorn, “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus,” 257.  In the fifth-century palimpsest of manuscript Vienna 563, on folio 141v, Joseph appears together with Mary only in episode Jerusalem (19). See Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 408.  Voicu, “La tradition latine des Paidika,” 14.  It is interesting to note that some late medieval manuscripts, such as the fourteenth-century Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Misc. 476 contain IGT with illuminations that accompany the text of Jesus’ childhood. In one of them, Mary leads (if not “drags,” in Dzon’s words) the unwilling son Jesus to school. A straightforward replacement of Joseph with Mary occurs in this visual representation and changes the traditional narrative. Canon. Misc. 476 recycles IGT

Presence of Joseph and Mary

167

In Paris 1772, episode Pools (26) depicts Jesus throwing a curse on a child, who dies afterward. The parents of the dead child complain to Mary and Joseph together.⁶²⁸ The parents come together to talk to Jesus.⁶²⁹ Moreover, Joseph is hesitant to talk to Jesus, and he lets Mary do it.⁶³⁰ Jesus, not wishing to grieve his mother, raises a dead boy to life.⁶³¹ Episode Careless Boy (29) in Paris 1772 presents Jesus together with his father and mother.⁶³² In First Teacher (30), the teacher Zacchias approaches Joseph and Mary and criticizes them.⁶³³ In First Teacher (31), Zacchias asks Joseph and Mary to send Jesus to his school. In Zeno (32), when Jesus plays on a roof with other children, Mary and Joseph appear. In Second Teacher (38), people ask Joseph and Mary to let Jesus be taught the letters in school. At the end of this episode, he kills the second teacher and returns home (to his mother). At this point, Joseph is afraid for Jesus’ safety and complains to Mary.⁶³⁴ However, Mary appears stable and confident in this scene (as always), reassuring Joseph that God the Father will protect their son.⁶³⁵

material within a continuous Life of the Virgin Mary. Also, in the illuminated manuscript L. 58. Sup. from Ambrosiana, Mary takes the boy Jesus to school in the image that accompanies the text, although the text says that Joseph takes him to school. See Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys,” 182; see also Michael Clanchy, “An Icon of Literacy: The Depiction at Tuse of Jesus Going to School,” in Literacy in Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavian Culture, ed. Pernille Hermann (Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press, 2005): 47– 73; Isa Ragusa, “Il manoscritto ambrosiano L. 58. Sup.: l’infanzia di Christo e le fonti apocrife,” Arte Lombarda 83, No. 4 (1987): 5 – 19; Angelo della Croce, Canonical Histories and Apocryphal Legends Relating to the New Testament (Milan: J. B. Pogliani and Co., 1873).  Paris 1772, fol. 89r: Tunc aut[em] sediciosa voce clamabant parentes mortui. Cont[ra] ioseph et maria[m] dicentes eis.  Paris 1772, fol. 89r: Cu[m] aut[em] audissent ioseph et maria. statim vener[unt] ad Ih[esu]m.  Paris 1772, fol. 89r: Cepit eni[m] ioseph marie dicere. quod ille non audebat illi dicere. Mone eni[m] tu eu[m]. et dic ei. Quare excitasti nobis hodium populi.  Paris 1772, fol. 89r: At ille nolens matre[m] sua[m] contristari pede[m] suu[m] dextru[m] p[er]cuciens innates ei[us].  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Et mox tenuit Ih[esu]m ioseph. et ibat cu[m] eo ad domu[m] sua[m] et matre[m] cu[m] eo.  Dijon, fol. 12r: sed video te et maria[m] plus velle dilige[re] filiu[m] v[est]r[u]m. Q[ua]m tradito[r]es senior[um] p[o]p[u]li. Oportebat enim nos pri[us] honorare p[res]b[yte]ros toti[us] eccl[es]ie isr[ae]l.  Dijon, fol. 17v: Timens aut[em] ioseph vocavit ad se maria[m] et dix[it] ei. Ve[re] tristis [sum]. A[n]i[m]a m[e]a usq[ue] ad morte[m] p[ro]p[ter] pu[er]um istu[m]. Pot[est] fi[eri] ut aliq[ua]n[do] aliq[ui]s duct[us] malitia p[er]cutiat illu[m]. Et moriat[ur].  Dijon, fol. 17v: Maria aut[em] dix[it] illi. Vir dei noli time[re] n[ec] crede[re] q[uo]d h[oc] fi[eri] possit. Immo sec[ur]e crede q[uo]d q[ui] eu[m] missit int[er] ho[m]i[n]es nasci: ip[s]e

168

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The examples in Paris 1772 and Dijon show that these manuscripts have a more prominent presence of Mary than the other manuscripts. The Lm variant in these manuscripts has an almost identical form up to the point where the text in Paris 1772 stops. Paris 1772 and Dijon are the two earliest Latin manuscripts that contain this variant in the medieval West and the earliest evidence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas bound together with the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The presence of Mary together with Joseph is uncomplicated to explain here: these manuscripts, as the earliest evidence of the Lm tradition, contained the Infancy Gospel of Thomas within a sequence of texts about Mary. Mary could have been added in these scenes to accompany Joseph. The more of Mary was undoubtedly desirable in the group of texts whose subject was Mary. The manuscripts were tools in the promotion of the figure of Mary. Mary was the overarching figure in this group of texts. Manuscript Dijon was kept in the founding Cistercian abbey, Cîteaux, and was used in the Cistercian education, while the Cistercians were known for their specific devotion to Mary.⁶³⁶ Such devotion was characteristic of an enormous number of monasteries, monastic orders, and churches at the time in the medieval West. The detail above thus fits well into the larger picture. The increased presence of Mary could be a characteristic of the entire Lm tradition, appearing not only in Dijon and Paris 1772 but also in other manuscripts containing this variant.⁶³⁷ A few other manuscripts dating to the thirteenth cen-

eu[m] ab ho[min]ib[us] malignantib[us] [con]servabit. Et in suo no[m]i[n]e custodiet illu[m] a malo.  Rubin, Mother of God, 149 – 157.  Even if it is not the subject of this book, I need to refer here to an “early” dating of the Lm variant, which some scholars argued. Voicu claimed that the Lm variant, otherwise regarded as an “early” Latin variant, had its origin even before the Lv variant, which appeared in the fifthcentury palimpsest. It provokes suspicion that the Lm variant originates from a period earlier than the fifth century. If this is so, in this early variant, Mary and Joseph appeared together, while Mary became a more marginal character in the variants that appeared later. In this context, the interpretations of some feminist scholars in the 1980s and 1990s are particularly exciting. They argue that the Gospels give us a glimpse of an early egalitarian community, which held women and men in equal regard, something that was very unusual at that time. Amy-Jill Levine said that the “feminist NT scholarship in the early 1970s optimistically argued for the existence of an initially egalitarian movement. When the canon did not yield evidence of an egalitarian movement, feminist scholars found what seemed to be proof in the Apocryphal Acts.” In the light of this, is it justified to ask whether the appearances of Mary together with Joseph in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas could be a trace of early Christian egalitarian principles found in the Gospels and the Apocryphal Acts? The hypothesis is nevertheless challenging to prove: that the Lm variant in these two medieval manuscripts, after the lapse of so many centuries, preserved early Christian textual remnants of the Infancy Gospel, in which Mary and Joseph were

Presence of Joseph and Mary

169

tury contain this variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,⁶³⁸ as well as a number of fourteenth-century manuscripts such as London Harley, Madrid, and others mentioned by Gijsel.⁶³⁹ If we consider this option, we must ask: given the growing veneration of Mary in the high and later Middle Ages in the West, why would the Lm variant, which displays Mary’s increased presence, be substituted by the Lt variant, where she was not so prominent? This question is particularly relevant, knowing that the context of the aligned texts about Mary within the Pseudo-Matthew was not significantly different in the thirteenth century compared to the earlier periods. The manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon contain the cycles of Marian texts around the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, but the same goes for the manuscripts Cambridge and Paris 3014, which contain the Lt variant. Why would some of these manuscripts keep the text that presents Mary together with Joseph and others not? This question can be answered by restating my conclusion from Chapter 3: the Lt variant was probably introduced in the West after being translated from a revised Greek version. In this way, everything in the text, including Mary’s decreased presence, was transferred to the West and incorporated into the PseudoMatthew. Scribes may have picked up a text from Byzantium already revised by redactors and translators, not being fully aware of what the text said. Thus, the Lt variant continued serving the purpose of devotion to Mary, even if the text contained less of her. At the same time, a Greek version that served as the basis for the Latin Lt variant (as well as all other extant Greek variants) was not used for the Marian depicted as equally present. See Voicu, “La tradition latine des Paidika,” 15; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 122; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983); Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Ross Shepard Kraemer, with Mary Rose D’Angelo, eds., Women and Christian Origins (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Ross Shepard Kraemer, Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); see also Chris Maunder, “Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary in the New Testament,” in Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (London: Burns and Oates, 2008): 23 – 39, 24; Susan Frank Parsons, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Amy-Jill Levine, “Introduction,” in A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, with Maria Mayo Robbins (London: T&T Clark International, 2006): 1– 17, 1.  The manuscripts London, College of Arms, Arundel XXIV, and Durham, Dean and Chapter Library, B III 26. See Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, 505.  A quick look at Harley 3199 shows that the text of IGT in this fourteenth-century manuscript mentions Mary together with Joseph in some scenes.

170

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

devotion in Byzantium; therefore, the less of Mary in this text would not disrupt the use of the text. Judging by the manuscripts I analyzed, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not among the texts that corroborated the celebration of the most prominent cult of Mary in Byzantium.⁶⁴⁰

Jesus’ obedience to his parents The Infancy Gospel of Thomas devotes significant space to the interaction between Jesus’ parents, particularly his father, and the child Jesus. What is their relationship like in the different manuscripts? How does Jesus appear in connection to his parents? Does he demonstrate any features of ordinary children? Is there anything in the relationship of Jesus and his parents that indicates an ordinary child-parent relationship? Some scholars have already written on this topic. Cornelia Horn and John Martens argue: Jesus is not, in most respects, a model for understanding the infancy of other children nor does the limited portrayal of his childhood give the reader serious data to enhance his or her understanding of the life of children at the time in general.⁶⁴¹

Horn and Martens, nevertheless, conclude that one can derive some insights from this material, saying that “common cultural understandings of childhood and family life often underlie such stereotypical portrayals.”⁶⁴² In Burke’s view, the portrayal of Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas must have been based on the author/compiler’s Christological view of the adult Jesus.⁶⁴³ The literature from the ancient Mediterranean had “the tendency to depict their protagonist children as possessing adult-like features while still being only children.”⁶⁴⁴ Such a child is called puer senex. The child-like qualities are eradicated because ambivalence to childhood was deeply rooted in the Mediterranean societies.⁶⁴⁵ On the other hand, Aasgaard sees the puer senex only in

 In the Byzantine tradition, it is only manuscript Sabaiticus, which contains the fragment of the Life of Mary following the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; yet, this detail is insufficient to claim the role of the Infancy Gospel in the cult of Mary in Byzantium, particularly as such alignment of texts has not reappeared in later manuscripts.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 75.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 75.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 276.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 223.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 261.

Jesus’ obedience to his parents

171

Jesus’ relationships with adults when verbal communication is employed. In all other situations, Jesus acts like a child.⁶⁴⁶ According to Aasgaard, “the most adequate approach is to see Jesus in this text as a fairly true-to-life portrait of a late antique child.”⁶⁴⁷ Betsworth also views Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as indeed a child.⁶⁴⁸ In my view, these opinions depend on the textual forms of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that different scholars used in their research. In the various versions, Jesus’ divinity and child-like features are perceived differently by the other characters of the story, while his relationship with his parents also varies from one version to another. In this section, I mainly focus on the depictions of Jesus’ obedience and submission to his parents. The subject of obedience is essential in the early Christian literature that deals with the topic of children.⁶⁴⁹ For children in antiquity and early Christianity, obedience was a central part of a personal relationship with the parent.⁶⁵⁰ In Christian communities, a lack of discipline in children reflected a lack of adherence to the faith.⁶⁵¹ In Aasgaard’s view, “obedience emerges as an important value in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, within the family and vis-à-vis other authority figures: Jesus is to obey his parents.”⁶⁵² In the following analysis, I will demonstrate that Jesus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is obedient to his parents to a different extent in the different manuscripts. In some manuscripts, while not in the others, the parents try to impose their authority. The dynamics of their relationship must be examined through the parents’ actions and Jesus’ response to these actions. Jesus’ obedience must also be examined through the lens of his divine nature. The critical distinction to be made concerns Jesus’ divinity versus his actions as an ordinary child who is obedient to his parents. The two manuscripts containing the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Paris 1772 and Dijon, describe this relationship significantly differently from

 Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 101.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 101– 102.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 186.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 79.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 79, 85. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus sets the model of children’s obedience to their parents as an expected model of Christian behavior. Jesus is twelve years old at the end of this Gospel pericope. His parents lose him in Jerusalem, and after a three-day search, they find him in the temple. Although the precedence in the episode is given to God his Father over his earthly parents, the story “still ends with Jesus acknowledging his earthly parents’ authority; Luke states that Jesus was obedient or ‘subject’ to them.”  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 81.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 75.

172

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

the rest of the material (although the other manuscripts also have their nuances). In Paris 1772 and particularly in Dijon, Jesus is neither obedient nor rebellious. His parents understand his divine nature and act accordingly. The family gets along, and many times acts against others as a unit. There is no space for Jesus to behave disobediently. In Pools (26), after Jesus kills a child and the child’s parents complain, Joseph does not dare to talk to Jesus, and he asks Mary to do it. Jesus fulfills the request of his mother to bring the child back to life because he does not wish to grieve her…⁶⁵³ After Jesus kills the son of Annas, in the episode Careless Boy (29), his father Joseph took hold of Jesus and went with him to his own house…⁶⁵⁴ In the same episode, the father and the son talk about it reasonably and understand each other.⁶⁵⁵ Joseph’s sole concern is with the uproar of the people of Israel; nevertheless, he does not attempt to impose his authority and force Jesus to obey him. In two further episodes, Carpenter (37) and Joseph Raises Dead (40), Jesus advises Joseph, who takes the advice without hesitation. Jesus appears almost as a father figure, while Joseph fully complies. However, in the rest of the manuscripts, Jesus’ relationship with his father involves more considerable misunderstandings. The father does not seem to comprehend Jesus’ divine nature, and he imposes his authority. I emphasized that Joseph appears mainly without Mary in the rest of the manuscripts, while they appear together in Dijon and Paris 1772. Accordingly, in the manuscripts that I shall comment on further, mainly Jesus’ relationship with his father deteriorates regarding their understanding. In Sparrows (2.4), Joseph imposes his authority on Jesus in manuscripts Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91.⁶⁵⁶ Joseph is warned that Jesus has made sparrows out of clay and profaned Sabbath in this way. In Sabaiticus, the verb ἐπιτιμάω

 Paris 1772, fol. 89r: At ille nolens matre[m] sua[m] contristari pede[m] suu[m] dextru[m] p[er]cuciens innates ei[us].  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Et mox tenuit Ih[esu]m ioseph. et ibat cu[m] eo ad domu[m] sua[m] et matre[m] cu[m] eo.  Dijon, fol. 11v: Accedens aut[em] ioseph ad Ih[esu]m: monebat eu[m] dice[n]s. Ut q[ui]d talia facis? Iam m[u]lti dolentes contra te su[n]t. Et p[ro]p[ter] te h[abe]nt nos odio: et p[ro] p[ter] te molestias sustinem[us]. Respondens Ih[esu]s dixit ad ioseph. Nullus fili[us] sapiens est nisi que[m] p[ate]r suus s[e]c[un]d[u]m sci[enti]am hui[us] t[em]p[or]is erudierit. Et p[at]ris sui sapi[enti]a nemini nocet. N[ec] male agentib[us]. Tu[n]c cong[re]gati su[n]t om[ne]s adv[er] sus Ih[esu]m. Et acc[us]abant eum adv[er]sus ioseph. Ut h[oc] vidit ioseph p[er]t[er]rit[us] est nimiu[m]. Timens vim p[o]p[u]li sui Isr[ae]l.  The two Greek manuscripts insist on the father’s authority over the son; the other manuscripts do not display this trait. Sabaiticus, fol. 66v: Καὶ ἐλθῶν Ἰωσὴφ ἐπετίμα αὐτὸν λέγων; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ ἰδὼν ἀνέκραξεν αὐτὸν λέγων.

Jesus’ obedience to his parents

173

means imposing a moral and corrective value upon someone. In Vienna hist.91, Joseph shouted at Jesus (ἀνέκραξεν). Jesus appears as an ordinary child who receives harsh remarks from his father. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.1), Joseph tries to talk to Jesus after the parents of a dead child complain about him. He explains the situation to Jesus, approaching him as a father proper in manuscript Cambridge.⁶⁵⁷ In manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355, Joseph explains things to Jesus privately.⁶⁵⁸ Joseph called his child Jesus and (secretly – Hludov) taught him saying in all Slavonic manuscripts.⁶⁵⁹ These examples reflect a typical interaction between parents and children. However, Sabaiticus describes the conversation as if two adults conduct it.⁶⁶⁰ In the continuation of episode 5.1, Jesus answers his father Joseph in a complex way, yet he willingly submits himself to Joseph in most manuscripts, saying that he will be silent for his father’s sake.⁶⁶¹ Jesus’s conscious submission may indicate that he acts as a divine being who willingly and generously decides to be subjugated to Joseph. Jesus and Joseph are still able to reach an agreement about the issue. In Sabaiticus, however, Jesus does not act in this way but says: You might know wise words; you are not ignorant where your words came from; they too shall not be raised. ⁶⁶² Here too, Jesus acts as a divine being, but the misunderstanding between the father and the son grows. In most manuscripts, Joseph punishes Jesus after this scene (in 5.2) to impose his authority. It does not happen in Paris 1772 and Dijon, where Joseph does not use physical violence towards Jesus. The way he talks to his father in Joseph’s Rebuke (5.3) does not look like a child’s conversation with a parent. The manuscripts mainly present Jesus as hostile to his father. When he addresses

 Cambridge, fol. 79v: Vocavit Ioseph Ih[esu]m et p[er]cepit eum docere.  Athens 355, fol. 62v: Προσκαλεσάμενος δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐνουθέτει αὐτὸν κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγων; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: Προσκαλεσάμενος δὲ ὁ Ἰωσήφ τὸ παιδίον κατ’ ἰδίαν, ἐνουθέ [τει] αὐτὸν λέγων.  Novaković, 49: призва Иосифь отроче своѥ Ісоуса, и сице оучаше и, глаголѥ; Hludov, fol. 201r: И призва Їѡсїфь ѡтроче ѡ таинно г[лаго]ль; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: Призвав же їѡсифь ѡтрочѧ ї[соу]са, и оучаше е гл[агол]ѧ.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Καὶ λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ; A similar description occurs in the fourteenth-century Berne, fol. 41v: Vocavit ioseph ihesum et dixit ei.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅ[τι] τὰ ῥήματά σου ταῦτα, ἐμά οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ σά. ὅμως σιγήσω διὰ σέ; Athens 355, fol. 62v: ὅμως ἔχω σιωπῆσαι διὰ σέ; Novaković, 49: обаче азь да прѣмлькноу тебе ради, отьче; Hludov, fol. 201r: Ѡбаче тебе рада оумльчоуть; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: ѡбаче тебе ради прѣмлъчѧ; Cambridge, fol. 79v: ego aute[m] tacebo pro te.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Φρόνιμα ῥήματά συ ἐγινώσκες ἄν πόθεν ἦν τὰ ῥήματά σου οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς. Ἐπίπεπτα διήγισαν κἀκεῖνα οὐκ ἀναστήσονται. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 481.

174

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Joseph in Athens 355, Jesus implies that his father does not know his nature.⁶⁶³ In the Slavonic manuscripts, Jesus “protested” and “deprecated,” and additionally offended his father, diminishing his respect for him: Jesus calls him a “scourer” (разбоиниче). Jesus threatens his father directly, and his behavior is disobedient.⁶⁶⁴ The Slavonic manuscripts, and Athens 355, describe Jesus’ hostility to his father, Joseph. In manuscript Cambridge, he is disturbed (turbatus) and implies that his father does not know his nature. Jesus threatens: Do not make me upset. ⁶⁶⁵ This feature is toned down in Sabaiticus and to some extent in Vienna hist.91. Although Vienna hist.91 states that Jesus became angry, he uses milder words in addressing his father,⁶⁶⁶ and reconciliation is close at hand. In Sabaiticus, Jesus’ answer is longer, more elaborate, and less threatening.⁶⁶⁷ Jesus explains to Joseph how he should treat him correctly, and he even admits his father’s authority at the end. Although he acknowledges his submission to his father, he appears eloquently superior here, speaking words unusual for a child. In the episode First teacher (6.2b), Jesus submits to his father in Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355, saying: Truly, teacher, all that my father said to you is true. ⁶⁶⁸ The Slavonic manuscripts repeat the submission of Jesus to his father.⁶⁶⁹ However, they continue: All that my father told you is true – that I am the

 Athens 355, fol. 63r: ᾿Aρκεῖ σοι ὅτι βλέπεις με καὶ μή με λοπϊάζεις. οὐ γὰρ οἶδας τίς εἰμὶ καὶ πρὸς σὲ πάρειμι.  Novaković, 49: Достоить ти, да иштеши мене обрѣзати, отьче, разбоиниче мои, истиноу ты не вѣси ли, твои ли ѥсмь азь? То и ты не оскрьблѩи мене, нь оубо твои ѥсмь сынь, ѩко кь тебѣ придохь; Hludov, fol. 201r-201v: Докле стрти искати мене и неѡбрѣтати. разбоиниче ег[д]а истинине веси твои ли ѥсмь азь. Аще ли то не гнѣваи мене. Обаче твои ѥсмь к тебѣ приидохь; St Petersburg, fol. 178v: Довлеть пти искати мене и не ѡбрѣтати ѡ разбоиниче ѩко въ истинѫ твои ли есмь не вѣси. Абїе не ѡскръблѣи мене. твои бо есмъ и к тебѣ прїидо[х].  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Sufficit tibi vide[re] me et non me tangere. Tu aut[em] nescis qui ego sum. Q[uod] si scires n[on] me co[n]t[ri]stares. Et q[uam]vi[s] ego modo tecu[m] sum ante te fact[us] sum.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: ᾿Aρκετόν σοί ἐσ[τίν] ζητεῖν καὶ μή εὑρίσκ[ειν]. Μάλι[στα] ὅτι σοφὸς ἔπραξας οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σός εἰμί, μή με λύπ[ει].  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r-v: ᾿Aρκείτω σοι τὸ ζητεῖν με καὶ εὑρίσκειν μὴ πρὸς τούτῳ ἔτι καὶ μωλωπίζειν φυσικὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐπιλαβόμενος καὶ οὐκ εἶδες με σαφῶς τί σοῦ εἰμι. Ἴδε οἶδας μὴ λυπεῖν με. Σὸς γὰρ ἡμῖν. καὶ πρὸς σε ἐχειρώθην.  Athens 355, fol. 63r: ἀληθῶς καθηγητά ὅσα εἴρηκέ σοι ὁ πατήρ μου ἀληθές ἐστί; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: ἀληθ[ῶς] καθηγητά πάντα ὅσα εἴρηκέν σοι ὁ π[ατ]ήρ μου ἀληθὰ ἐισὶν.  Novaković, 49: Вьса, ѥлико ти рече отьць мои, истина ѥсть; Hludov, fol. 201v: вса ѥже ти ре[че] ѡ[т]ць мои истина ѥ[сть]; St Petersburg, fol. 179r: истина е[с] оучителю. Въсе еже ре[че] ѡ[та]ць мои.

Jesus’ obedience to his parents

175

Lord….⁶⁷⁰ In manuscript Cambridge, there is no submission of Jesus to his father, nor any mention of the father’s confirmation of Jesus’ words. Whatever comes, not from his father’s mouth, but his mouth, is truth.⁶⁷¹ Jesus is therefore presented as an authority. Sabaiticus also presents Jesus as the sole authority.⁶⁷² At the end of episode 6.2b, Jesus refers to his father, Joseph, as a witness to his authority. In Athens 355 and Vienna hist.91, Jesus says: When you see my cross which my father mentioned, then you will believe that all I said to you is true. ⁶⁷³ The end of episode 6.2b in the Slavonic manuscripts has an exciting line, where Novaković says: When you see my cross, which my father mentioned, it will be true that I am the Lord and father in everything. ⁶⁷⁴ Hludov and St Petersburg have a similar message.⁶⁷⁵ The Latin manuscript Cambridge has the same mention of the father as a witness.⁶⁷⁶ This line does not appear in Sabaiticus, which does not mention Jesus’ acclaimed authority. Episode Carpenter (13) describes Jesus working at carpentry with his father. Jesus helps the father solve a seemingly impossible situation where he does not have good material to make a bed for a customer. Jesus acts as a fatherly figure. In some manuscripts, such as Athens 355, he can help his father, console him, and issue an order.⁶⁷⁷ An ordinary child would do the opposite: obey and be advised. Finally, in Second teacher (14.3), Joseph imposes his authority in almost all the manuscripts by forbidding Jesus’ mother to let Jesus out of the house be-

 Novaković, 49: вьсемоу же Господь азь ѥсмь; Hludov, fol. 201v: ѩко вьсѣмь азь ѥсмь г[оспо]дь. St Petersburg, fol. 179r: и семоу азь г[оспод]ь есмь. These words of Jesus to the teacher are not connected to the previous paragraph because the father did not say that Jesus is God, which this paragraph claims.  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Vere mag[iste]r. q[u]i[a] q[ua]nta de ore meo p[ro]cedu[n]t vera sunt.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: Καθηγητὴς ὢν εὐφυῶς ἐξήχθης καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ᾧ ὀνομάζῃ ἀλλότριος τυγχάνεις. Ἔξωθεν γὰρ εἰμι ὑμῶν. ἔνδωθεν δὲ ὑμῖν διὰ τὴν σαρκικὴν εὐγένειαν ὑπάρχων. Σὺ δὲ νομικὸς ὢν τὸν νόμον οὐκ οἶδες.  Athens 355, fol. 63v: καὶ ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μου ὃν εἶπεν ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσεις ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπόν σοι ἀληθῆ εἰσιν; Vienna, fol. 200v: ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μ[ου] ὃν εἴπεν σοι ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσει. ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπον σοί ἀληθινά εἰσι.  Novaković, 50: Егда хоштеши видѣти крьсть мои, ѥже рече отьць мои, истина ѥсть. Вьсемоу азь ѥсмь Господь и отьць.  Hludov, fol. 201v-202r: Ег[д]а же оузриши кр[с]та моего. Его же ре[че] ѡ[ть]ць мои. Тог[д]а разоумѣеши. Ѩко вса елико ти рекохь, истина соуть. И всемоу азь б[ог]ь ѥсмь; St Petersburg, fol. 179v: Ег[д]а оузриши кр[с]т мои, иже ти ре[че] ѡ[т]ць мои. Тогда вѣрѫ имеши ѩко въсе елико рекѫ ти истина е[сть]. И се азь блгь есмъ.  Cambridge, fol. 79v: ut intelligas quia om[n]ia que procedunt de ore meo vera sunt.  Athens 355, fol. 66r: μὴ λυποῦ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον θὲς τὰ ξύλα καὶ ἰσάζωμεν αὐτό. ἐποίησε ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

176

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

cause of a punishment. This scene is absent from Dijon, a representative of the Lm variant. To sum up, in Dijon, we see a clear strategy concerning what the relationship of Jesus and his parents was supposed to tell the readers: Jesus is divine in a child’s body; his parents understand his nature and support him. They try to protect him as a child from the rest of the world, but at the same time, they talk to him as a divine being. Jesus is neither obedient nor rebellious. Their understanding of Jesus’ nature in the rest of the manuscripts I have analyzed is different. In particular, Jesus confirms on a couple of occasions that his father fails to understand his nature. In manuscripts other than Dijon, the divine nature of Jesus is less evident to others. Consequently, they fail to treat him as a divine and approach him as an ordinary child: his father sometimes shouts at him and punishes him. In these manuscripts, Jesus is still divine, but he is also more of an average child because others fail to understand his nature and act towards him as a child. Comparing this view to Dijon, where Jesus is understood by his parents as divine, in these manuscripts, Jesus becomes more human and appears more like an ordinary child. As I argue below, it could have been part of a more extensive set of ideas about Jesus’ humanity that emerged first in the medieval East and later in the West. Stephen Shoemaker argues that after the defeat of Iconoclasm in Byzantium, a renewed interest in Jesus’ humanity appeared.⁶⁷⁸ In Shoemaker’s view, the iconodules, the supporters of icons, increasingly emphasized the humanity of Christ because they were forced to defend the use of matter to represent the divine.⁶⁷⁹ Ioli Kalavrezou also argues that there was a general effort in the aftermath of Iconoclasm to emphasize Christ’s human nature. It was done, in part, by stressing Mary’s humanity.⁶⁸⁰ This “humanization” of Christ appeared in the Western culture only in the twelfth century, when the insistence on Jesus’ humanity was closely linked to the increased veneration of Mary, mainly through

 Stephen Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary’s Hidden Past: From Ancient Marian Apocrypha to the Medieval Vitae Virginis,” Marian Studies 60 (2009): 1– 30, 24.  Stephen Shoemaker, “Mary at the Cross, East and West: Maternal Compassion and Affective Piety in the Earliest Life of the Virgin and the High Middle Ages,” The Journal of Theological Studies 62, No. 2 (2011): 570 – 606, 585.  Ioli Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became the Meter Theou,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 165 – 172, 169.

Jesus’ obedience to his parents

177

the development of “affective” modes of piety and thanks to the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux and other Cistercian thinkers.⁶⁸¹ It may, at first sight, seem far-fetched to connect the transformation of the ideas about Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to these more significant movements, but the idea deserves consideration. Similarly, Shoemaker linked the development of “affective” modes of piety which appeared at the end of Iconoclasm in the East (Byzantium), with a similar notion that emerged in the High Middle Ages (eleventh century) in the West.⁶⁸² Along with these immense movements, the idea about Jesus’ human and child-like side, which probably first appeared in Byzantium, could have been transferred to the West along with the emergence of the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In its revised form (Lt), the text of Jesus’ childhood may have been one of the media of these changes. Mary Dzon also discusses the increased emphasis on Jesus’ humanity in the high and late medieval Latin and English sources (both written and visual).⁶⁸³ She notes that in the last few centuries of the Middle Ages, Jesus appeared in the medieval representations as both a child-God and a gentler Jesus. In her view, scholars have not yet explored this juxtaposition.⁶⁸⁴ Dzon concludes that people’s thinking in the high and late Middle Ages about the nature of children impacted the reception of apocryphal legends that portray the boy Jesus as a real child who does things that are both child-like and childish.⁶⁸⁵ While the views about the nature of children may have influenced a variety of sources that Dzon considered, particularly late medieval examples, I believe that in its initial phase (twelfth century) and with the outburst of the Cistercian interest in the human side of Jesus, these representations of Jesus in the West were translated from Byzantium, which concurred with the appearance of the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the West. Moreover, while Jesus becomes more child-like in the manuscripts that I analyzed, a significant gap in understanding occurs within his family, where mainly Joseph does not understand Jesus’ divine nature and at times acts malevolently towards Jesus. This distancing of Jesus from Joseph may have been a consequence of Joseph’s general marginalization in the history of Christianity. Patrick

 See Shoemaker, “Mary at the Cross, East and West;” Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145 – 1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard (York: York University Press, 2001); see also Dzon, The Quest for the Christ Child.  Shoemaker, “Mary at the Cross, East and West,” 576.  Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys,” 179 – 226.  Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys,” 180.  Dzon, “Boys Will Be Boys,” 184.

178

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Geary argues that Joseph remained firmly fixed only within the context of the nativity and childhood narratives of Jesus and Mary.⁶⁸⁶ Boff argues that Joseph remained in obscurity and was ostracized by theologians for fifteen centuries.⁶⁸⁷ The Fathers of the Church did not write homilies on Joseph in either Greek or Latin.⁶⁸⁸ The first homilies and treatises on him started to appear only in the fifteenth century.⁶⁸⁹ Joseph was described in greater detail in Apocrypha than in mainstream theological discourse. Justin Glessner argues that “in all of his early (Christian) representations, Joseph appears as a liminal character, in play and contested as he was, not least because of his complicated parental and spousal relationships.”⁶⁹⁰ Glessner calls Joseph “a male character who is almost and not quite a father and/or husband.”⁶⁹¹ Along with the enhanced descriptions of Jesus’ human and child-like side, Jesus and Joseph gradually grew apart as the father and the son in this text.

Parents’ punishment and encouragement The distancing of Joseph from Jesus noted above is particularly visible in this text through the examples where Joseph punishes Jesus. A significant difference occurs between the manuscripts containing the Lm variant and the rest of the corpus. At no point in the manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon does Joseph punish Jesus. His father completely understands his divine nature, and when concerned, he is concerned only with how other people react to Jesus. In manuscript Cambridge, containing the Lt variant, and in the other Greek and Slavonic manuscripts, the misunderstanding between the father and the son widens, and Joseph punishes Jesus. This argument corroborates my previous conclusion about the correspondence of the Lt variant in the manuscript Cambridge with the Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts examined here, in contrast to the manuscripts containing the Lm variant, namely, Paris 1772 and Dijon. The episode Joseph’s Rebuke (5.2) describes Joseph being irritated by Jesus’ behavior and physically punishing him. Both Cambridge and the Byzantine

 Geary, Women at the Beginning, 61.  Leonardo Boff, Saint Joseph: The Father of Jesus in a Fatherless Society (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009), 84.  Boff, Saint Joseph, 84.  Boff, Saint Joseph, 84.  Justin M. Glessner, The Making(s) of an Average Joe: Gender, the Everyday, and the Reception of Joseph of Nazareth in Early Christian Discourse (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2022), 3.  Glessner, The Making(s) of an Average Joe, 3.

Parents’ punishment and encouragement

179

manuscripts testify to the same method of punishment: Joseph pulls Jesus by the ear (sometimes in anger).⁶⁹² The scene as described in Cambridge and the Byzantine manuscripts indicates Jesus’ and Joseph’s lousy relationship. Jesus is depicted as a typical child whom his father punishes. In the same episode of Dijon (29), there is no hint of any aggression of Joseph towards Jesus. Joseph is terrified because the people of Israel are complaining about Jesus, and he fears their violence and uproar.⁶⁹³ If we look at the other descriptions of violence towards children in ancient literature, physical punishment in this text does not come as a surprise. Scholars agree that violence was common in the ancient world. Horn and Martens argue that punishment was known and advised in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman worlds to educate children.⁶⁹⁴ The beating of children by their parents and teachers was common in ancient Greece and Rome, and rabbinic literature provides ample evidence for a similar state of affairs in Jewish circles.⁶⁹⁵ Bloomer confirms that Roman law clarifies that teachers and parents were allowed to punish a child for the sake of correction, but no permanent injury could ensue.⁶⁹⁶ In Late Antiquity, a father (paterfamilias), who already had a range of possibilities for punishment, acquired extended rights for his disciplinary authority towards children for the deeds of “ingratitude, arrogance, and cruelty.”⁶⁹⁷ Children were forbidden to insult a parent verbally. It pertained even to light offenses. Christian authors were generally worried about violence unless it was instructional. Violence per se was not necessarily harmful, provided the correct emotional attitude accompanied it.⁶⁹⁸ If instructional, it was viewed as beneficial. Christian authors were worried that petty violence, such as shoving, smack The Latin manuscript Cambridge describes Joseph pulling Jesus by the ear in anger. Cambridge, fol. 79v: Et cu[m] vidisset Ioseph que fecit Ih[esu]s: cum furore app[re]hendit eum p[er] auriculam. In Byzantine manuscript Athens 355, fol. 63r, Joseph pulls Jesus’ ear: ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἔτεινεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον; Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπελάβετο τοῦ ὁτί οὐ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔτιλεν σφόδρα; Vienna hist.91, fol. 200r: καὶ ἐγερθεὶς Ἰωσήφ, ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. καὶ ἔτιλλ[εν] αὐτῷ σφό[δρα].  Dijon, fol. 11v: Et acc[us]abant eum adv[er]sus ioseph. Ut h[oc] vidit ioseph p[er]t[er]rit[us] est nimiu[m]. Timens vim p[o]p[u]li sui Isr[ae]l.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 120.  Amram Tropper, “The Economics of Jewish Childhood in Late Antiquity,” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 189 – 233, 210.  Martin W. Bloomer, “Corporal Punishment in the Ancient School,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. Martin W. Bloomer (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015): 184– 198, 185.  Julia Hillner, “Family Violence: Punishment and Abuse in the Late Roman Household,” in Approaches to the Byzantine Family, eds. Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013): 21– 46, 27– 28.  Hillner, “Family Violence,” 35.

180

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

ing, and verbal insults, was not adequately addressed in Roman law.⁶⁹⁹ Casual violence, such as shouting, swearing, spying, chaining up, striking with the bare hands, and pulling hair, received particularly negative criticism from Christian authors.⁷⁰⁰ Hillner sees this insistence on petty violence as a reflection of actual occurrences within late Roman households. Christian authors must have had some direct knowledge of the occurrences in their communities.⁷⁰¹ If we look at the same episode of Joseph’s Rebuke (5.2) in the Slavonic manuscripts, they describe this scene differently. More precisely, Novaković still complies with the Byzantine manuscripts: Joseph took Jesus by his ear and pulled it hard. The other children were there with him, playing. ⁷⁰² In Hludov, Joseph gets very upset at Jesus and takes him by the hair, pulling it hard and tearing it.⁷⁰³ In St Petersburg, Joseph gets very upset at Jesus, takes his ear, and starts to pull it while Jesus tries to resist.⁷⁰⁴ These examples describe more severe punishments, possibly opening a window into the perceptions and attitudes towards a corresponding punishment of a child among medieval Slavs. They allow a possibility to think of them as the windows into the everyday life of medieval Slavs. Additional research and the attestation of such practices in other contemporary sources and archeology is needed to establish this evidence’s relevance. For the moment, we may consider that pulling by the ear might have been replaced in this Christian environment by pulling by the hair (also including the child’s resistance) so that the audience of this text hear or read about the punishment in the way they understood it better or even experienced it more commonly. Interestingly, in Robert Bartlett’s study of the symbolic meanings of hair in the Middle Ages, where he deals with some examples predominantly from Western Latin sources, there is no mention of any evidence of punishing a child by pulling its hair. ⁷⁰⁵ A comparative look at this text’s part in the other languages reveals that pulling by the ear is repeated in the Georgian text.⁷⁰⁶ In the Syriac text, Jesus

 Hillner, “Family Violence,” 32.  Hillner, “Family Violence,” 32– 33.  Hillner, “Family Violence,” 33.  Novaković, 49: Тогда абиѥ видѣвь Иосифь что сьтвори, и ѥть Ісоуса за оухо и протегноу и зѣло. И бѣхоу ини тоу сь ними играюште.  Hludov, fol. 201r: И разгнѣва се Їѡсїфь на І[соу]са. И еть его за власи и потезаше зѣло цепено.  St Petersburg, fol. 178v: и видѣ їѡсифь ѩко сътвори и разгнѣва сѧ ѯѣло. и ѧть его за оухо и влѣчаше ѡн же ѡтѧѯаше сѧ.  See Robert Bartlett, “Symbolic Meanings of Hair in the Middle Ages,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 4 (1994): 43 – 60.  Garitte, “Le fragment géorgien,” 511– 520.

Parents’ punishment and encouragement

181

is seized by the hand and pulled hard.⁷⁰⁷ In the Ethiopic text, Jesus is pulled by the ears and cheeks, while in the Arabic text, Jesus is thrashed (beaten with a stick or whip, or lunged at wildly) and severely scolded.⁷⁰⁸ This episode had various contents, possibly according to what was perceived as an appropriate punishment of children by parents in such situations. In this sense, it is a potential window into the attitudes and perceptions of their audiences. We observe that another episode of the Infancy Gospel, which speaks of a different kind of punishment, has been adopted by various groups as a shared cultural element. In the episode Second teacher (14.3), Joseph restricted Jesus’ movements because he had killed the teacher. In this episode, the mother has the role of a mediator and the guardian of the child. This episode does not display any significant difference among the manuscripts, implying that the various areas shared a common cultural understanding of this punishment. The episode appears in Cambridge, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts, but not in Dijon, where Joseph fears for Jesus’ life and safety but does not impose any restrictions on him.⁷⁰⁹ If we now turn to the examples in this text where Jesus is treated positively and encouraged by his parents, we see that his mother is the one who supports Jesus in the few episodes in which she appears. The description of Jesus’ mother, Mary, being proud and optimistic differs little in the manuscripts. In the episode Water in Cloak (11), the mother sees Jesus’ miracle. She marvels, kisses her son, gives thanks to God, and cherishes in her heart what she has just witnessed. Mary’s reaction is similarly described in all the manuscripts, including Dijon.⁷¹⁰ In Dijon (33), Mary was pleased when Jesus brought water in a cloak  This expression comes from Peeters’ edition of Vatican Syr. 159, dated to the seventeenth century. See Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes 2, 304– 308. In the recent publication of the Syriac text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which Tony Burke edited from four manuscripts, two of which are dated to the fifth and sixth century, Joseph becomes angry at Jesus and takes hold of his ear and pulls it hard. See Burke and Landau, New Testament Apocrypha, 62.  For the translation of the Ethiopic text, see Tony Burke, “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Ethiopic,” Last accessed: 07/08/2021; for the Arabic text, see Noja, “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas.”  Dijon, fol. 17v: Timens aut[em] ioseph vocavit ad se maria[m] et dix[it] ei. Ve[re] tristis [sum]. A[n]i[m]a m[e]a usq[ue] ad morte[m] p[ro]p[ter] pu[er]um istu[m]. Pot[est] fi[eri] ut aliq[ua]n[do] aliq[ui]s duct[us] malitia p[er]cutiat illu[m]. Et moriat[ur].  Sabaiticus, fol. 70r: Μαρία δὲ ἰδοῦσα ὃ ἐποίησεν σιμίον ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατεφίλει αὐτὸν λέγουσα. Κύριε ὁ Θεός μου εὐλόγησον τὸ τέκνον μας; Vienna 91, fol. 202r: ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ Μαρία τὸ γεγονὸς κατεφίλῃ αὐτ[ὸν] καὶ διετήρει ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ μιστή[ρια] ἃ ἔβλεπεν αὐτ[ὸν] ποιοῦντα; Athens 355, fol. 65v: ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ἡ ἁγία Θεοτόκος ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σημεῖον κατεφίλησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπε. Κύριε ἐλέησον τὸν υἱόν μου; Cambridge, fol. 80v: Cumq[ue] vidis[set] m[ate]r mi-

182

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

for her, and she wondered and reflected within herself and laid up all these things in her heart. ⁷¹¹ Mary is pleased with her son Jesus in episode Jerusalem (19) when she listens to scribes and Pharisees praising Jesus, and she treasures all these things in her heart. Where this episode is present in the manuscripts, it differs little in contents.⁷¹² It is present in Sabaiticus, Vienna hist.91, Athens 355, and the Slavonic manuscripts Hludov and Novaković edition. Manuscript Cambridge also contains the section where Mary is pleased with Jesus (19.4– 5).⁷¹³ Carpenter (13) is the only episode where Joseph encourages and supports his son Jesus. Joseph hugs and kisses the child and gives thanks to God, considering himself blessed.⁷¹⁴ This scene, which describes a typical parent reaction of being proud of a child, is present in all the manuscripts except Dijon. raculum quod fecit Ih[esu]s osculat[a] e[st] eu[m] et dixit. D[omi]ne exaudi me et salva filium meu[m]; Novaković, 52: Видѣвьши же мати ѥго Мариѩ знамениѩ, ѩже сьтвори Ісоусь и приѥмьши облобыза и матерскыи и блюдѣше ѥго; Hludov, fol. 203r: и видѣвши м[а]т[р]и его еже сьтвори ї[соу]с и лоби злего.  Dijon, fol. 15r-v: At illa videns mirabat[ur]. Et cogitabat int[ra] se et condebat o[mn]ia h[aec] in corde suo.  Sabaiticus, fol. 72v: Σὺ εἶ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου ἡ δὲ εἶπεν ἐγὼ εἰμι εἶπαν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν μακαρία εἶ σύ ὅτι ηὐλόγησεν κύριος Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου. Τοιαύτην γὰρ σοφίαν ἐνεστώς καὶ δόξαν ἀρετῆς οὐδὲ εἴδαμεν οὔτε ἠκούσαμέν ποτε… καὶ διετήρει πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα συμβαλοῦσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς; Vienna, fol. 204r: σὺ εἶ ἡ μή[τη]ρ τοῦ παιδί [ου] τούτου ἡ δὲ εἶπ[εν] ἐγὼ εἰμὶ καὶ εἶπον αὐτὴν μακαρί[α] σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησ[εν] ὁ Θ[εὸ]ς τ[ὸν] καρπ[ὸν] τῆς κοιλία[ς] σου. Τοιαύτην γὰρ δόξ[αν] καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὔτε οἴδαμ[εν] οὔτε ἠκούσαμ[εν] πόπω[τε]; Athens 355, fol. 68r: Σὺ εἶ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου λέγουσι πάλιν αὐτῇ μακαρία σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου. Τοιαύτην χάριν καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δόξαν οὐδέποτε εἴδαμεν ἢ ἠκούσαμν πώποτε…Μαρία πάντα διετήρει ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτῆς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς; Novaković, 55: ты ли ѥси мати отрочета сего? Она же рече: азь ѥсмь. И рѣше ѥи: благословлѥиьна ты ѥси вь женахь, и благословлень плодь оутробы твоѥ. Таковыѥ бо славы и таковыѥ дѣли и прѣмоудрости таковыѥ не видѣхомь… Мати же ѥго сьблюдаше (вьсе) ѥлико твораше величиѩ и слагаше вь срьдьци своѥмь; Hludov, fol. 205v: Ты ли еси м[а]ти ѡтрочета сего. Ѡна же ре[че] азь ѥсмь. Ѡни же рекоше бл[а]женна ты еси вь женахь. И бл[а]г[осло]вень пло[д] удѣва твоего. И г[оспод]ь б[ог]ь бл[а]г[осло]виль те ѥ[сть]. Ѩко таковаго дара б[о]жиа и прѣмоудрости неслышахомь николиже…Марїа же м[а]ти его блюдаше словеса его вь ср[д]ци своѥмь.  Cambridge, fol. 81v: Tu es mater istius infanti[s]. Illa aute[m] dixit. Vere ego sum. Et dixerunt ad eam. Beata es tu int[er] mulieres q[uonia]m b[e]n[e]dix[it] d[eu]s fructu[m] ventris tui q[ui]a tale[m] gloriosu[m] i[n]fante[m] et tale donu[m] sapientie dedit tibi quale nu[m]q[ua]m vidimus n[ec] audivimus…Maria aute[m] co[n]servabat omnia in corde suo q[ua]nta fecit Ih[esu]s signa magna i[n] pop[u]lo sana[n]do infirmos multos.  Sabaiticus, fol. 70r-v: ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ περιλαβὼν κατεφίλει αὐτὸν λέγων μακάριός εἰμι ἐγὼ ὅτι τοῦτον παιδίον ἔδωκέν μοι ὁ Θεός; Athens 355, fol. 66r: ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σημεῖον περιπλακεὶς ἐφίλησε τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγων Μακάριός εἰμι ὅτι τοιοῦτον παιδίον δέδωκέ μοι

Jesus’ siblings

183

Throughout the text of Dijon, Jesus’s parents have warm and positive feelings towards him. There is no specific reason for them to encourage Jesus, just as there is no punishment; his parents fully support him in everything and protect him. It means that the significant divergence between Dijon as the Lm representative and the other manuscripts in the descriptions of Jesus’ encouragement by his parents lies in Jesus’ relationship with his father. They get along in Dijon, while they become estranged from each other in the rest of the manuscripts. Their mutual understanding decreases, punishments ensue, and support is rare. As for Mary, she is only supportive towards Jesus in Dijon and the rest of the manuscripts. These differences may have developed in the text due to the attitudes towards Joseph, who became a neglected figure in the medieval Christian discourse. Unlike him, Mary’s record as a mother in this text is impeccable; no negative description of her appears. In the Middle Ages, Mary has already grown to prominence as the Mother of God. Therefore, such a description does not come as a surprise.

Jesus’ siblings In a few episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus appears together with his siblings. The episode James’ Snakebite (16.1) depicts Jesus with his brother James. James is sent (by Joseph) to pick up wood, while Jesus seems to follow him. A snake then bites James, and Jesus runs to save him. This scene is depicted similarly in the majority of the manuscripts.⁷¹⁵ If we ask how James is the brother of Jesus, we find no further explanation in most of these manuscripts.

ὁ Θεός; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202v: ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ περιλαβ[ὼν] τὸ παιδίον κατεφίλ[ει] αὐτ[ὸν] λ[έγων] Μακάρι[ός] εἰμι ὅ[τι] τοῦτον τὸν παιδίον μοι ἔδωκην ὁ Θ[εό]ς; Novaković, 52: Иосифь же приѥмь облобыза, и рече вь себѣ: Благословлѥнь ѥсмь азь, ѩко сико отроче дасть ми Богь; Hludov, fol. 203v: Їѡсїфь же приѥмь дѣтища и лобзл его. И ре[че] си в себѣ бл[а]жень ѥсмь азь с тобою. Ѩко таково ѡтроче да[с] ми ѣ г[оспод]ь; St Petersburg, fol. 180r: Їѡсїфь же приемъ ѡтрочѧ и ѡблобыза е и ре[че] Бл[а]ж[ен]ь есмъ азъ каково ѡтрочѧ да[с] ми Б[ог]ь; Cambridge, fol. 81r: Ioseph aute[m] cu[m] vidisset q[uo]d fecerat a[m]plexav[it] eu[m] et dixit. Beatus sum ego q[uo]d talem filiu[m] dedit m[ihi] d[eu]s.  In Latin manuscript Cambridge, Jesus follows James (Cambridge, fol. 81v: Dixit aute[m] Ioseph Iacob ad colligenda[m] stipula[m]. et secutus e[st] eum Ih[esu]s). The same scene occurs in Dijon in episode 41, which has a somewhat different plot. In the Greek manuscripts Athens 355 and Vienna hist.91 (Athens 355, fol. 67r: μεθ’ ἡμέρας δὲ τινας ἔπεμψεν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Ἰάκωβον συλλέξαι φρύγανα τοῦ φούρνου ἠκολούθει δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ἰάκωβον; Vienna hist.91, fol. 203v: ἔπεψεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τ[ὸν] Ἰάκωβον τοῦ δῆσαι ξύλ[α] καὶ ἐνέγκαι εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. ἠκολού

184

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

This question seems to have been both important and highly vexed in the early Christian discourse. Three views were held among ancient Christian and contemporary apologists about Jesus’ brothers and sisters: the Helvidian view, the Epiphanian view, and the Hieronymian view.⁷¹⁶ The Helvidian view meant that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Joseph and Mary. It naturally contradicted the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Epiphanian view held that they were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Jesus’ brothers and sisters from Joseph’s previous marriage are rarely mentioned in Christian literature; one example is the Protevangelium of James. ⁷¹⁷ Both Schröter and Jenkins suggest that the Protevangelium of James was rejected in the early church because it supported the idea that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6.3 were sons of Joseph from an earlier marriage, rather than Jesus’ cousins⁷¹⁸ as Jerome later preferred to say.⁷¹⁹ The Hieronymian view, originating from Jerome, presupposed that they were not children of Joseph and Mary but were cousins of Jesus. Naturally, these views involved other vital questions, such as the nature of Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage and Mary’s virginity and conception. By avoiding saying anything further about the sibling relationship between Jesus and James, except for noting that they were brothers, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts analyzed here, in fact, avoided entering this debate. However, the brotherly connection is evident in manuscript Dijon. In James’ Snakebite (41), James is called Joseph’s first-born son (primogenitum). In episode Family Meal (42), Dijon mentions Joseph’s children from the previous marriage in a feast where Joseph comes with his sons James, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and two

[θει] δὲ τὸ παιδ[ίον] ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς), as well as in the Slavonic manuscripts, Jesus follows his brother (St Petersburg, fol. 182v: Посемъ посла їѡсифь с[ы]на своего їакѡва. да свѧжеть храстїе и принесеть въ домь свои. И понемь поиде ѡтрочѧ исъбравшоу же храстїе; Novaković, 54: Вь дроугы же дьнь посла Иосифь сына своѥго Иѩкова да свезавь дрьва донесеть вь домь свои. Идоуштоу же ѥмоу и сьбыраюштоу дрьва идѣѩше Ісоусь изь далече по нѥмь). Hludov does not particularly emphasize this; only when a snake bites James, Jesus comes closer, by which we can conclude that he was in the distance. In Novaković, Jesus follows James, somewhat lagging.  Richard Bauckham, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56, No. 4 (1994): 686 – 700, 687.  Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 59.  Jenkins argues that Latin Western churches tried to suppress the Protevangelium of James because they did not like the accounts of Joseph’s previous family history. See Schröter, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon,” 176; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 104.  Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 59.

Jesus and his peers

185

daughters.⁷²⁰ Mary also comes with Jesus, accompanied by her sister Mary Cleophas, the daughter of Anne. In this episode, Jesus consecrates and blesses them; he is the one to eat and drink first. The brothers and sisters never eat before he blesses them. They observe and fear him.⁷²¹ It seems to have been significant, in the context in which the text of Dijon was written/used, to justify either the existence of the brothers and sisters of Jesus or Mary’s virginity. In the view of Leonardo Boff, the apocryphal books that appeared in early Christianity, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, were preoccupied with an apologetic justification of the existence of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, whom these books present as the fruit of Joseph’s first marriage.⁷²² They were also concerned about defending Mary’s virginity.⁷²³ In the context of the other manuscripts, this vexed question was not relevant, or else it was possible and preferable to avoid it, and so these manuscripts did.

Jesus and his peers The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes Jesus encountering his peers on several occasions when they meet to play together or accidentally in the street. The way Jesus plays with other children in some scenes of this text may well correspond to the ways children played in the past and today. He plays at the ford of a water stream, makes pools of the water, makes figures out of clay, and plays with other children on the upper floor of a house. Jesus shows his childlike side by the way he plays. However, his encounters with other children during play often turn into

 Dijon, fol. 19v: Cu[m] aut[em] veniret ioseph ad co[n]viviu[m] cu[m] filiis suis iacobo et ioseph et juda et sym[e]o[n]e et duab[us] filiis suis [con]ve[n]iebant et b[eat]a maria cu[m] Ih[es]u. Et sorore sua maria cleophe q[uam] do[minus] d[eu]s donavit ioachim pat[ri] ei[us] et anne mat[ri] ei[us]. Et q[uo]d obtullissent maria[m] m[at]rem Ih[es]u d[omi]no. Et h[aec] maria cleophe vocata est si[mi]li no[m]i[n]e maria. Ad concolat[i]o[n]em p[ar]entu[m]. Another apocryphal text, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, also describes Joseph as the father of the six children. See Boff, Saint Joseph, 77.  Dijon, fol. 19v: Et du[m] [con]ve[n]iret Ih[esu]s s[anc]tificabat et b[e]n[e]dicebat illos. Et ip[s] e p[ri]or manducare et bib[er]e incipiebat. Nemo eni[m] illor[um] ma[n]ducare vel bibe[re] audebat. Nec sede[re] ad mensa[m] aut panem frange[re]. Don[ec] ip[s]e s[anc]tificans illos pri[us] hoc fecisset. Et si forte absens fuisset. Exp[ec]tabatur donec hoc fac[er]et. Et q[ua]n[do] ip[s]e nolebat ad refectione[m] acced[er]e. Accedebant ioseph et maria et fr[atr]es ei[us] filii ioseph. Hii siquid[em] tres an[te] oc[u]los suos tanq[uam] lumi[n]aria vita[m] illi[us] h[abe]ntes observabant et timebant eu[m].  Boff, Saint Joseph, 18.  Boff, Saint Joseph, 18.

186

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

conflicts with a detrimental outcome. One cannot say that Jesus is the sole culprit who always starts the conflicts. He displays his divine power by punishing other children, cursing, and killing them, while other children appear to be threats to his divine authority. The manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas analyzed here mainly differ regarding the number of encounters of Jesus with other children and the severity with which Jesus acts towards other children and vice versa. Jesus’ adverse treatment of other children is a characteristic of all the manuscripts, but it is intensified in some more than the others. The manuscripts Athens 355, Dijon, Cambridge, and possibly Paris 1772 display a more significant number of encounters (not necessarily negative) of Jesus with other children because they have the Prologue in Egypt attached to their opening. The Latin manuscripts Dijon and Paris 1772 also have the expanded episode Pools (26), which describes a conflict between Jesus and another child. In this episode, the child is described as a son of the devil who shut the passages of pools and overthrew what Jesus did. ⁷²⁴ The child is a challenge to Jesus’ divine power, and he is described in a highly negative manner. At the same time, Jesus’ dominance is evident. He casts a curse and kills the child, although he later brings him back to life. Dijon and Paris 1772 describe Jesus’ terrible deeds at length, but they also extend the accounts of other children’s terrible deeds towards Jesus. In the episode Annas’ Son (28), the son took his rod and broke down with great fury the dams which Jesus made, letting the water run out.⁷²⁵ In Careless Boy (29), the evil intentions of a child who collides with Jesus are emphasized: Suddenly, from the opposite direction, a boy running pushed Jesus in the shoulder, wishing

 Paris 1772, fol. 88v: Tunc aut[em] unus ex eis iuvenis filius diaboli animo invido. clausit eor[um] que aditus op[er]a eiusq[ue] qui ministrabant in lacos. clausit eos atq[ue] evertit quod op[er]atus fuerat d[omi]n[u]s n[oste]r Ih[esu]s; Dijon, fol. 9v: Tu[n]c un[us] ex ill[is] infantib[us] fili[us] dyaboli a[n]i[m]o i[n]vidie clausit adit[us] qui ministrabant aquas ad lacos. Atq[ue] av[er]tit q[uod] op[er]at[us] fu[er]at Ih[esu]s.  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Nam iteru[m] filius anne sacerdotis te[m]pli qui cu[m] ioseph advenerat tene[n]s virga[m] in manu sua de populo. et cunctis videntib[us]. Cu[m] furore nimio exclusit lacos quos Ih[esu]s fecerat manib[us]. suis. et effudit ex eis aquam qua[m] congregaverat Ih[esu]s de torrente in lacos; Dijon, fol. 10v-11r: Nam it[eru]m fili[us] sac[er]dotis te[m]pli qui cu[m] ioseph advenit. Tenens virga[m] in manu cu[n]ctis q[ui] aderant videntib[us]; cu[m] furore nimio c[on]clusit lacos quos fecit Ih[esu]s manib[us] suis. Et effudit aquas ex eis q[ua]s agregav[er]at de torre[n]te in eis.

Jesus and his peers

187

to strike him or harm him if he could. ⁷²⁶ This sentence tells us about the child’s reasoning and the harm that the others do to Jesus, apparently the text’s strategy. Several other episodes in Dijon also describe children’s cruelty. In episode Zeno (32), Jesus plays with children on a roof when one child falls and dies. In Dijon, one of the children pushed another down from the roof to the ground. ⁷²⁷ In most other Greek, Latin, and Slavonic manuscripts, the child himself falls from the roof. Again, in the episode Water in Cloak (33), it is only in Dijon that one of the children bumps into Jesus and breaks his pitcher with water.⁷²⁸ In all the other manuscripts, the pitcher breaks accidentally because of the crowd. While episode Water in Cloak (33) may be understood to insist on describing the harm that others did to Jesus, when it is considered together with episode Zeno (32), it leaves the impression that peer violence is more accentuated in Dijon. In the rest of the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is not clear (or explicit) whether Jesus encounters adults or other children in some episodes. In the episode Sparrows (2.3) of manuscripts Athens 355 and Cambridge, the children of the Hebrews slander Jesus to his father.⁷²⁹ In the Slavonic manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg, it is unclear whether adult Jews or Jewish children slander Jesus, but probably these are adults.⁷³⁰ In Sabaiticus, Vienna hist.91, Novaković, and Latin manuscript Dijon, an (adult) Jew slanders Jesus.⁷³¹ Also, in episode Annas’ Son (3.1), the son of Annas takes a branch and destroys Jesus’ pools in the Greek manuscripts Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91, as well as in the Slavonic manuscripts St Petersburg and Novaković. However, in Cambridge, a Pharisee destroys the pools, and in Athens 355, it is not the son  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Et ecce subito ex adverso puer quida[m] et ipse op[er]arius iniq[ui]tatis. currens inpulit se in humeru[m] Ih[es]u. volens eu[m]. elidere. aut nocere si potuisset.  Dijon, fol. 14v: [Con]tigit ut un[us] ex infantib[us] impell[er]et aliu[m] de solario in t[er]ram. Et mortu[us] [est].  Dijon, fol. 15r: et [con]tigit p[ost]q[uam] hausit aq[uam] et q[ui]da[m] ex infa[n]tib[us] i[m] pegerit illu[m] et [con]quassavit ydriam sua[m] et fregit illa[m].  Athens 355, fol. 62r: ἦν δὲ σάββατον ὅτε ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παίζων μετὰ τῶν παίδων τῶν Ἑβραίων. ἀπῆλθον δὲ πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ λέγοντες αὐτῷ; Cambridge, fol. 79r: Et abierunt pueri dicentes ad Ioseph p[a]ren[t]i eius.  Hludov, fol. 200v: Видѣвше же їюдеие и шдьше повѣдаше їѡсїфоу ѡцоу его; St Petersburg, fol. 177r: И видѣвше жидове еже творѣше играѫщи ше[д]ше и повѣдашѫ ѡцоу его Иѡсифоу.  Novaković, 48: Видѣвь же ѥдинь оть Юдеи ѥже твораше Ісоусь играѥ вь соуботоу; Sabaiticus, fol. 66v: Ἰδὼν δέ τίς Ἰουδαῖος τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων παιδίων ταῦτα ποιοῦντα; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: Ἰδὼν δὲ τις Ἰουδαῖος ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἐν τῷ σαββάτ[ῳ] ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλε τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ λέγων; Dijon, fol. 10r-v: Cu[m] [er]go vidiss[et] quida[m] ex iudeis cu[m] infantib[us] h[oc] faciente[m].

188

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

of Annas but Annas himself (an adult).⁷³² The Slavonic manuscript Hludov likewise states that an adult, not the child, does this to Jesus.⁷³³ The presence of adults and not children in these scenes toned down Jesus’ lousy behavior towards other children (because these scenes are fewer), making him more of an ordinary child. In these manuscripts, other children may have also been viewed as threats to Jesus’ divine power, but the encounters with Jesus, especially detrimental encounters, are fewer. Jesus’ aggression is diminished to produce the effect mentioned above. Elliott notes that sometimes the Pseudo-Matthew amplifies the material found in the the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or alters it, sometimes making Jesus less malevolent.⁷³⁴ This strategy of the various manuscripts is nevertheless inconsistently carried through. The episode Careless Boy (4.1), which depicts another encounter of Jesus with a boy in the street, is interesting because it is presented differently in the various manuscripts. The Byzantine manuscripts describe Jesus being torn in the shoulder or struck on the shoulder by another boy.⁷³⁵ However, in the Gb variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the boy intentionally throws a stone at Jesus and strikes his shoulder.⁷³⁶ Cambridge describes the same encounter as the Byzantine manuscripts, where the child strikes Jesus on the shoulder.⁷³⁷ The other traditions diverge; in the Arabic text, a child approaches Jesus from behind and hits him.⁷³⁸ In the Ethiopic version, the boy strikes Jesus on the chest.⁷³⁹ In the Irish version, the boy annoys Jesus.⁷⁴⁰ Stephen Davis discusses this episode in the Byzantine manuscript Sabaiticus and comments on the word ἐρράγη.⁷⁴¹ He argues that earlier scholars “chose  Cambridge, fol. 79r: Pharisaeus autem q[ui] erat cu[m] Ih[es]u. apprehendit ramum olive. et cepit derigare fontem que[m] fecit Ih[esu]s; Athens 355, fol. 62r: Ἄννας δὲ γραμματεὺς ἐκεῖ ἦν μετὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ λαβὼν κλάδον ἐτέας διέτρεψε τοὺς λάκκους καὶ ἐξέχεε τὸ ὕδωρ ἐξ αὐτων ὃ συνήγαγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.  Hludov, fol. 200v-201r: И се видѣвь, іже бѣ книжникь тоу стое сь Їѡсїфомь. И вьзьмь вѣхь врьбовь и оудари вь виркови, и истекоше води еже бѣше сьбраль І[соу]сь.  Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 85.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: καὶ τρέχων ἐκεῖνος ἐρράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: Εἶτα πάλ[ιν] ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς διὰ τῆς κώμης καὶ παιδίον τρέχοντα διερράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ; Athens 355, fol. 62v: καὶ δραμὸν ἓν παιδίον ἔδωκε τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ὦμον.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 477.  Cambridge, fol. 79r: cucurrit de infantib[us] un[us] et p[er]cussit Ih[esu]m in ulnas.  Noja, “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas,” 681– 690.  See Tony Burke, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Ethiopic.  Frilingos, “No Child Left Behind,” 41; for the text, see Martin McNamara, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, and Rita Beyers, Apocrypha Hiberniae I: Evangelia infantiae (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 443 – 483.  Davis, Child Christ, 73.

Jesus and teachers

189

more muted terms for this action” when translating this word, although it implies physical injury. Davis further argues: “The fact that the boy aimed his blow at Jesus’ shoulder probably reinforces the association with wrestling in the ancient context.” Davis describes some examples where boys’ encounters mimicked the athletes in the arena involved in wrestling and other similar activities in the context of the Greco-Roman world. In both the Greek East and the Latin West in the Roman Imperial era, agonistic events were organized for boys, where they could indulge in racing, wrestling, boxing, and pankration, thus imitating the roles of adults.⁷⁴² Consequently, Davis sees Jesus’ encounters with the other boys as social performances of agôn. ⁷⁴³ In the same episode in the Slavonic manuscripts, Novaković describes a child approaching from behind and jumping on Jesus’ shoulder.⁷⁴⁴ In Hludov and St Petersburg, a child jumps on Jesus’ shoulder; we are not told from which side he comes.⁷⁴⁵ This scene of a child attacking another child allowed for different scenes described in the various manuscripts. These descriptions require further attestation in other contemporary written sources and archeology if we wish to ascribe them to the specific environments in which the text was used. However, they allow the possibility to think further whether they reflect an everyday-life situation in this cultural area.

Jesus and teachers The subject of Jesus’ education takes up considerable space in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (five episodes). I focus here on some of its aspects. Jesus’ attempts to attend school usually abruptly end because he argues with teachers and eventually kills them. Before doing so, Jesus displays his divine wisdom. Particularly in the First Teacher (6 – 8), he explains at length his nature and place in the world to the teacher and the gathered crowd. He continues with the issues related to the letters, the nature of the first element, and what makes a good teacher. In this section, I focus mainly on Jesus’ relationship with the teachers and investigate whether anything in these depictions may resemble everyday-life situations in the past.

 Davis, Child Christ, 67.  Davis, Child Christ, 71.  Novaković, 48: и ино отроче текь сь зади скочи ѥмоу на рамо.  Hludov, fol. 201r: ино же ѡтроче текь вьскочи на рамо его; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: ѡтроче ино скочи на рамо его.

190

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

As I have emphasized, he commonly entered into conflicts with teachers in his attempts to attend school. In most instances, he was physically punished, and the teachers ended up being cursed and killed. Most of the punishments that the teachers impose recurred in the various manuscripts. In a few episodes, Jesus was hit on the head by his teachers. One of these is the episode First teacher (6.2 f), where Jesus refuses to do what the teacher expects; consequently, he is punished. In most of the manuscripts, Jesus is hit in the head (by hand).⁷⁴⁶ This sentence, invariably transmitted in the manuscripts, implies a shared cultural understanding of teachers’ usual punishment in the regions in case.⁷⁴⁷ For the audiences of the various medieval realms analyzed here, it was expected to read/hear of a child being punished by a teacher in this way. However, Novaković presents episode First Teacher (6.2 f) differently: the teacher pulls Jesus’ ears.⁷⁴⁸ We had previously seen the description of this kind of punishment when Joseph pulled Jesus’ ear in manuscripts other than Dijon. These two types of punishment, hitting the head and pulling the ear, obviously were the standard punishments of children in these areas and this period. As described in this text, a teacher’s punishment of a child does not come as a surprise. Scholars have agreed that the use of physical violence was an established practice in schools in the past. In his article on corporal punishment in schools in antiquity, Martin Bloomer argues that striking was a regular practice.⁷⁴⁹ There existed a cultural rationale for punishment – when words would not suffice, physical punishment ensued.⁷⁵⁰ Christian Laes confirms that child

 Cambridge, fol. 80r: Doctor autem ille p[er]cussit infante[m] in capite; Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: Πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸ εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν; Athens 355, fol. 64r: ὀργισθεὶς οὖν ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν; Hludov, fol. 202r: И прогнѣва се оучитель и оудари его по главѣ.  In the episode Second Teacher (14.2), we have another scene where Jesus is struck (on the head) by a teacher. In Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91, Jesus is struck in the head (krouô). Sabaiticus, fol. 70v: Πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸ; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 201r: πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ διδάσκαλ[ος] ἔκρουσεν αὐτ[ὸν] εἰς τὴν κεφαλ[ήν]; In Athens 355 he is hit (tuptô). Athens 355, fol. 66v: ὀργισθεὶς δὲ ὁ διδάσκαλος ἔτυψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν; In the three Slavonic manuscripts, the teacher gets upset and hits Jesus in the head. Novaković, 53: Тьгда прогнѣва се дидаскаль ть и оудари Ісоуса вь главоу; Hludov, fol. 203v: разгнѣва се оучитель. И оудари его по главѣ; St Petersburg, fol. 180r: и прогнѣвасѧ оучите[л] и оудари его по главѣ. In Cambridge, Jesus is hit in the head. Cambridge, fol. 81r: Tunc furore replet[us] magister ei[us] percussit eum in capite; even in Dijon, Jesus is struck. Dijon, fol. 17v: Et ad h[oc] irat[us] mag[iste]r percussit illu[m].  Novaković, 50: И прогнѣвавь се оучитель и заоуши ѥго.  Bloomer, “Corporal Punishment in the Ancient School,” 185.  Bloomer, “Corporal Punishment in the Ancient School,” 186.

Jesus and teachers

191

beating in the context of education has a long history in ancient literature.⁷⁵¹ Violence and discipline were an integral part of Roman education at school.⁷⁵² Ausonius refers to the rule (ferula), the rod (virgea), and the whip (scutica) as the teacher’s tools.⁷⁵³ Ville Vuolanto argues that the motif of violence in schooling in the church fathers’ writings was often linked to religious practices and life choices. ⁷⁵⁴ Adults in the Roman period would have had horrific recollections of their schoolmasters and the beatings they inflicted.⁷⁵⁵ In Dijon, Jesus is punished by his teachers but not by his parents. This difference is significant because the teachers are represented in Dijon as “the others,” who do not understand Jesus’ divine nature. Unlike the teachers, his family is not “the others;” they understand and support him. In this manuscript, the teacher’s punishment appears more brutal than in the other manuscripts. In the episode First Teacher (31), the teacher seizes his storax-tree rod (virga storatina) and strikes him on the head.⁷⁵⁶ Why is Jesus punished by rod in this text while (only) hit on the head by hand in the other versions? Dijon may have attempted to intensify the harm that others did to Jesus by mentioning the rod to display the brutality of “the others” towards Jesus. This kind of punishment with a rod is found in the Old Testament (Proverbs 13:24), where the rod appears as a disciplinary tool (“Whoever spares the rod, hates their children”), but it is also found in different other medieval cultural environments.⁷⁵⁷ This scene may be an attempt to depict a typically Jewish environment in which Jesus’ childhood took place, knowing that the storax tree (Styrax officinalis) mentioned in the Latin text (virga storatina)

 Christian Laes, “Child Beating in Roman Antiquity: Some Reconsiderations,” in Hoping for Continuity. Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2005): 75 – 90, 78.  Laes, “Child Beating in Roman Antiquity,” 80; see also Stanley Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (New York: Routledge, 2014), 143.  Laes, “Child Beating in Roman Antiquity,” 81.  Ville Vuolanto, “Family Relations and the Socialisation of Children in the Autobiographical Narratives of Late Antiquity,” in Approaches to the Byzantine Family, eds. Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013): 47– 74, 54.  Mary Harlow, and Ray Laurence, Growing up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome: A Life Course Approach (London: Routledge, 2002), 52.  Dijon, fol. 17v: Un[de] p[rae]ceptor levi irat[us] apprehendens v[ir]ga[m] storatina[m]. p[er] cussit eu[m] i[n] capite.  About rod as a disciplinary tool, see Avner Gil’adi, Children of Islam: Concepts of Childhood in Medieval Muslim Society (London: Macmillan, 1992), 61.

192

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

has been known since biblical times in Israel and is characteristic of dry areas of the Mediterranean, particularly Asia Minor. This hypothesis is, nevertheless, challenging to attest with certainty. If we now turn to the more favorable treatment of Jesus by teachers, we find in episode Third teacher (15) a scene where Jesus is encouraged by a teacher in much the same way as children are usually encouraged by teachers today. In the Latin manuscript Cambridge, in the Byzantine manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355, and Slavonic manuscript St Petersburg, this teacher is a friend of Joseph. He convinces Joseph in a friendly manner to send Jesus to his school. Joseph is concerned about Jesus’ behavior, but he is not skeptical about whether Jesus could learn something there. When he enters the school, Jesus finds a book lying on the floor. He takes the book and starts reading, but not really from the book; instead, led by the Holy Spirit, he expounds on the law to those who were present and listening. ⁷⁵⁸ Jesus is presented to possess divine knowledge. However, considering the general setting and the teacher’s behavior towards Jesus, he is also an average child. When Jesus starts speaking in Sabaiticus and Athens 355, the teacher sits near him and listens very carefully, encouraging him to say more.⁷⁵⁹ The teacher’s encouragement recurs in Cambridge.⁷⁶⁰ In this way, Jesus resembles an average child who is encouraged by a teacher. In Dijon, however, we encounter a different situation. The episode Third Teacher (39) is contextualized in a Jewish setting. The teacher is not a friend of Joseph but comes from the Jewish community. Joseph and Mary are asked for the third time to send Jesus to a teacher; they comply because of their fear of the community. When he enters the school, Jesus takes the book out of the master’s hand and starts reading, led by the Holy Spirit. When he hears him, the master himself falls to the ground and adores Jesus.⁷⁶¹ In this episode, he

 Athens 355, fol. 66v: εὗρε βίβλον κειμένην καὶ ἀνοίξας αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀνεγίνωσκεν τὰ ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ γεγραμμένα ἀλλὰ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὑτοῦ ἔλεγεν ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐδίδασκε τὸν νόμον αὑτοῦ τοὺς παρόντας καὶ ἀκούοντας.  Sabaiticus, fol. 71r: ὥστε τὸν καθηγητὴν ἄντικρυς καθιζόμενον ἡδέως πάντα ἠκούει αὐτῷ καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸ ἵνα πλείονα εἴπῃ τὸν δὲ παρεστῶτα ὄχλον ἐκπληττέσθαι ἐν τοῖς ὁσίοις ῥήμασιν αὐτοῦ; Athens 355, fol. 66v-67r: ὥστε καὶ ὁ καθηγητὴς πλησίον αὐτοῦ καθίσας πάνυ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουσεν παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν ἵνα πλείονα εἴπῃ ὄχλος δὲ πολὺς συνεισῆλθε καὶ ἠκροῶντο πάντες καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίᾳ.  Cambridge, fol. 81v: et magist[er] ille iuxta illu[m] sedebat et libent[ur] eum audiebat et deprecabat[ur] eu[m] ut ampli[us] doceret.  Dijon, fol. 18r: Cu[m] aut[em] Ih[esu]s int[ro]isset scolam duct[us] sp[irit]u s[anc]to accepit libru[m] de manu didascali docentis lege[m]. et cu[n]cto p[o]p[u]lo vide[n]te et audiente. cepit leg[er]e n[on] q[ui]d[em] que sc[ri]pta era[n]t i[n] libro illo. S[ed] in sp[irit]u d[e]i vivi loq[ue] batur tanq[uam] de fonte vivo torrens aque egred[er]etur. Et fons plen[us] sp[irit]u perman[er]

Jesus’ education

193

is presented as a divine being who converts people by his appearance and words. Interestingly, Jesus here converted a person coming from the Jewish community. The difference between Dijon and the other manuscripts analyzed here lies in the descriptions of Jesus. In Dijon, Jesus is divine, while he appears more human and child-like in the other manuscripts. He is an average child who is praised and encouraged by his teacher. Nevertheless, in all the manuscripts (Dijon included), the teachers are “the others” who do not recognize Jesus’ true nature.

Jesus’ education Education is a subject that takes up considerable space in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and provides us with a great deal of information about life at school. I investigate here whether any information we are given is related generally or specifically to everyday life in some of the historical contexts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In what follows, I will demonstrate that various scribes, copyists, translators, and rewriters constructed different historical settings in which they placed Jesus and his school activities, either to describe Jesus as more human and child-like or for other reasons. Scholars have already discussed the depiction of education in this text. Horn and Martens argue that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas “allows us to examine what second- and third-century Christians would deem reasonable to expect for boys in a Galilean village” in terms of education, despite the clear rhetorical function of the text and without making claims about its historicity.⁷⁶² They argue that “the village picture of the old teacher, the age of learning, learning the alphabet first, physical punishment in response to an unruly student, and the reality of village teachers who take disciples to their home all resonate with what we know of education during this period.”⁷⁶³ While Horn and Martens focus primarily on what the Infancy Gospel of Thomas reveals about the setting in Late Antiquity (second-third century CE), my interest is in the reflections of both the ancient and the medieval settings in which the text was used. More importantly, I will trace the differences in the descriptions of these features in the manuscripts. et. Et ita i[n] v[ir]tute docebat p[o]p[u]l[u]m magnalia dei vivi. Ut et ip[s]e mag[iste]r cad[er]et et adoraret eu[m]. Cor aut[em] p[o]p[u]li q[ui] sedebat et audiebat talia dici ab eo. V[er]sum e[st] c[ontra] illu[m].  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 130.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 131.

194

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

I focus here on the following set of questions, first: What does constitute the idea of “school” in the various manuscripts? Was there such a thing as “school”? What was “school”? How is it described in the diverse manuscripts? Next, I look into the appearance and outlook of classrooms. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also gives some information about the subjects studied in school. Were they different in the various manuscripts? Finally, what were the aims of education according to the different manuscripts which contain this text? What did constitute the idea of “school”? The manuscript Dijon commonly uses the noun scola (episodes 30, 38). Dijon consistently refers to communally organized schooling in which the community requires parents to send their children to school.⁷⁶⁴ The elders of the people of Israel are said to be in charge of schooling. The existence of the two teachers, Zachias and Levi, in Dijon implies that they worked in an organized institution involving many people.⁷⁶⁵ When Jesus was to start school for the second and the third time, Joseph and Mary were asked again by the elders of Israel to send him to school. The elders directed him to different teachers. However, the way modern scholars see Jewish education looks quite different from what is described in Dijon. Betsworth argues that home was the primary location for learning in the late Second Temple period (first century CE).⁷⁶⁶ Most of the education was oral, with little emphasis on reading and writing.⁷⁶⁷ The memorization of the Torah was necessary. In the first century BCE, Pharisees established schools.⁷⁶⁸ The curriculum was limited to studying the scriptures in Hebrew, with no opportunity to study Aramaic or koine Greek.⁷⁶⁹ Jewish schools did not become common until the third century CE.⁷⁷⁰ In his discussion of Josephus’ Contra Apionem, Paul Foster argues that this work gives insights into Jewish education of the first century.⁷⁷¹ Josephus insists

 Dijon, fol. 17r-v: maria et ioseph rogarent[ur] a p[o]p[u]lo ut Ih[esu]s doc[er]et[ur] litteris in scola. Q[uod] [et] face[re] non negaveru[n]t [et] s[e]c[un]d[u]m p[rae]ceptu[m] senior[um]. Dux[er]unt eu[m] ad scolas. Cu[m] aut[em] mag[iste]r i[m]p[er]iose d[oce]ret illi.  Dijon, fol. 13r: It[eru]m mag[iste]r zachias legis doctor dix[it] ad ioseph et maria[m]. Date m[ihi] pu[eru]m et e[g]o t[ra]dam eu[m] mag[ist]ro levi. Q[ui] doceat eu[m] litt[er]as et erudiat.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 31.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 31.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 32.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 32.  Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives, 32.  Paul Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4.1 (2006): 7– 33, 26.

Jesus’ education

195

on the “inclusivity of the education for Jewish children.”⁷⁷² In Foster’s view, Josephus exaggerates when he states that school was mandatory for all Jewish children.⁷⁷³ Nevertheless, I find this detail interesting and worth further attention because the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Dijon also insists on this inclusivity. Foster also writes that most Jews in the first century remained illiterate.⁷⁷⁴ The schooling described in Dijon, located in the Jewish setting, may have been imagined or constructed by this text’s authors, translators, or copyists. They have come up with what they imagined to be the school setting of Jesus while he was a child in Galilee and Jericho. This description may stand to further anti-Jewish sentiments by stressing that Jesus’ family felt constant pressures from the community concerning Jesus’ schooling (I will elaborate on this issue in the section on community). The community is “the others,” the foes. In this way, as in manuscript Dijon, the Lm variant fits nicely into a broader set of Marian writings in this manuscript, characterized by their devotion to Mary and their anti-Jewish sentiments. We know that Dijon was used in Cistercian education. The community that demands and directs schooling is not mentioned in the rest of the manuscripts. The Jewish context in which the school was set also disappears. In the other manuscripts, it is usually Joseph who decides to send Jesus to school. In some manuscripts of the Third teacher (15), the teacher is a friend of Joseph, who asks him to send Jesus to his school in a friendly manner. “School” is described in different ways in these manuscripts. Some depict organized education, while others depict education in private teachers’ houses. In First teacher (6.2 f), all the Byzantine manuscripts use the words παιδευτήριον and διδασκαλεῖον for school, implying that the education was institutionally organized.⁷⁷⁵ Davis argues that the Greek word παιδευτήριον in Late Antiquity had generic connotations as a place dedicated to instruction where students of different levels studied together.⁷⁷⁶ The word implies schools/classrooms offering education at the primary level, but it could also imply more advanced levels of education. The manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Sabaiticus use the same word, παιδευτήριον, for an educational institution (school) in Third teacher (15.1). Manuscript Athens 355 in this episode implies private teaching, but we have

    

Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 27 Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 27. Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 27– 28. Sabaiticus, fol. 68r; Athens 355, fol. 63v, 64r. Davis, Christ Child, 100.

196

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

seen that this manuscript uses the word for school earlier.⁷⁷⁷ The secondary literature attests that such primary education was organized at home and in elementary schools in Byzantium.⁷⁷⁸ Besides, education was organized in monasteries. It means that schooling as described in the Byzantine manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not much different from an accurate picture of Byzantine education. Novaković gives the name “school” to the institution of learning, оучилишти, in the episode First teacher (6.2 f).⁷⁷⁹ Manuscript Hludov calls it наказание, a word that is related to punishment, penalty, but also discipline and correction. In the same episode, Hludov implies that the child was taken to the teacher, indicating a private tutoring context.⁷⁸⁰ In Third teacher (15.1), Novaković and St Petersburg use a new word for schooling (казательство/наказателство), which has the same root as the word previously used in Hludov (наказание).⁷⁸¹ In Novaković, Jesus goes to the sorcery school in the continuation of this episode. In Third teacher (15.1), Hludov implies private tutoring (кь мнѣ).⁷⁸² However, Hludov uses the word оучилище somewhat later in 15.1. The inconsistency of using the words for organized and private tutoring in Hludov probably results from the transmission process. Thus, the Slavonic manuscripts transferred the idea of the organized schooling from the Byzantine tradition. Schooling in medieval Bulgaria was mostly organized in churches and monastery schools, but such “schools” were not many. The education was tied to a specific agenda of

 Athens 355, fol. 66v: Παράδος μοι αὐτόν ἀδελφὲ κἀγὼ μετὰ πολλῆς παρακλήσεως διδάξω αὐτὸν τὰ γράμματα.  Nikos Kalogeras, “The Role of Parents and Kin in the Education of Byzantine Children,” in Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae 33, 2005): 133 – 143; Timothy S. Miller, The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003); Niels Gaul, “Rising Elites and Institutionalization – Ēthos/Mores – ‘Debts’ and Drafts. Three Concluding Steps Towards Comparing Networks of Learning in Byzantium and the ‘Latin’ West, c. 1000 – 1200,” in Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000 – 1200, eds. Sita Steckel, Niels Gaul, and Michael Grünbart (Berlin: LIT, 2015): 235 – 280, 245 – 246.  Novaković, 50.  Hludov, fol. 202r: веде его кь оучителю.  Novaković, 53; St Petersburg, fol. 180v.  In the Slavonic manuscripts, different words for teacher appear, such as a transcribed Greek word in Novaković, didaskal (дидаскаль), and a Slavonic word in Hludov and St Petersburg, ouchitelj (оучитель).

Jesus’ education

197

a monastery, and readings were particularly adapted to a monastic or church setting.⁷⁸³ In general, primary education was haphazardly organized.⁷⁸⁴ Manuscript Cambridge consistently implies private tutoring. In First teacher (6.2 f), Jesus is taken to the teacher’s home, where other children were taught.⁷⁸⁵ In Third teacher (15), a teacher, Joseph’s friend, comes and asks Joseph to send Jesus to his private school.⁷⁸⁶ Cambridge implies private teaching in 15.2.⁷⁸⁷ This manuscript’s focus on private schooling may be due to scribes’ and rewriters’ ideas of what constituted ancient schooling. In reality, teaching was not restricted exclusively to private schooling in any area at any time. The insistence on private schooling in Cambridge is perplexing, mainly since the Byzantine manuscripts mostly name the organized schooling, thereby adjusting the wording in the text to the actual situation in their everyday life. The Lt variant of the Latin text (as in Cambridge) was, as we know, transmitted from a Greek version. The Slavonic manuscripts take over some of the terms from the Byzantine tradition, but their use of terms for private and organized schooling is inconsistent. As for the other traditions, the Syriac text emphasizes that Jesus was “coaxed and made to go to school.”⁷⁸⁸ Looking at how the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas describe the appearance of the classrooms, we find various pictures. Davis argues that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas provides only very sparse details about the imagined physical space of the classrooms where Jesus was taken for lessons.⁷⁸⁹ However, the different manuscripts containing this text allow us to have a view into several different settings. Manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Sabaiticus mention in Third teacher (15.2) that a book was lying “on the lectern” (ἀναλογείῳ) in the classroom (διδασκαλείον).⁷⁹⁰ Davis argues that διδασκαλείον was the most common term for a school or children’s classroom in antiquity.⁷⁹¹ He argues that a classroom (διδα-

 See Jean W. Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000 – 1500 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 458 – 475.  Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 459.  Cambridge, fol. 80r: Ioseph aute[m] app[re]hendit pueru[m] Ih[esu]m et addux[it] illum in domo sup[ra]dicti magist[ri]. U[bi] alii pueri doceba[n]t[ur].  Cambridge, fol. 81r: Post multos aute[m] dies venit alius doctor amicus Ioseph. et dix[it] ad eum. Trade eum m[ihi] et ego eu[m] cu[m] multa suavitate docebo eum lit[ter]as.  Cambridge, fol. 81r: Et cum veniss[et] ad domu[m] doctoris.  See Burke and Landau, New Testament Apocrypha, 64.  Davis, Christ Child, 99.  Sabaiticus, fol. 70v.  Davis, Christ Child, 100; see also Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

198

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

σκαλείον) is located within and accessed through a building or complex of rooms called παιδευτήριον. He presents some archeological examples that give information about ancient schools. In Dijon, we are told nothing about how the classrooms looked. In Third teacher (39), Jesus takes a book from the teacher’s hand.⁷⁹² In Cambridge, the school is private, and Jesus arrives at the teacher’s home, finding the book lying there. ⁷⁹³ In Slavonic Hludov, the book lies at the altar,⁷⁹⁴ while in St Petersburg, the book lies at the end of a (monastic) cell.⁷⁹⁵ The word “cell” implies a monastic setting; the instruction is in a private monastic space. This detail opens a window onto the schooling contexts, as imagined or known by a scribe of this Slavonic manuscript. As I argued above, manuscript St Petersburg was used in the Bulgarian royal context and the royal library, but this word most probably implies that the most widespread form of education in medieval Bulgaria was monastic education. Additional details about the classrooms appear in episode Third teacher (15.2). Manuscripts Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91 imply an open-air type of school when they say that a great crowd had gathered and stood listening (although the term παιδευτήριον was employed earlier).⁷⁹⁶ Alternatively, one could imagine a closed-type school where anybody could enter and join classes. The Slavonic manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg both describe a crowd that gathered and listened to Jesus.⁷⁹⁷ Cambridge describes open-air schools/places where a great crowd gathered to listen to Jesus.⁷⁹⁸ Only Athens 355 implied that the school was indoor when we read that the crowd entered and listened to everything. ⁷⁹⁹ Manuscript Athens 355 also used the word διδασκαλείον earlier.  Dijon, fol. 18r: Cu[m] aut[em] Ih[esu]s int[ro]isset scolam duct[us] sp[irit]u s[anc]to accepit libru[m] de manu didascali docentis lege[m].  Cambridge, fol. 81r: Et cum veniss[et] ad domu[m] doctoris. invenit librum in eode[m] loco iace[n]te[m].  Hludov, fol. 204r: И обрѣте книгы лежеще вь ѡлтари.  St Petersburg, fol. 180v: И ѡбрѣте книгы лежѧщѧ на конець келїа.  Sabaiticus, fol. 71r: τὸν δὲ παρεστῶτα ὄχλον ἐκπληττέσθαι ἐν τοῖς ὁσίοις ῥήμασιν αὐτοῦ; Vienna hist.91, fol. 203r: καὶ ἐδίδασκεν τὸν νόμον τοὺς παρόντας, καὶ ἀκούοντες αὐ[τοῦ] ἦν δὲ ὄχλο[ς] πολὺς ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῇ ὡραιό[τητι] τῆς διδασκαλί[ας] αὐτοῦ.  Hludov, fol. 204r: People listened and learned the law, many people stood in front (И оучаше люди прѣстоупниѥ законоу и слышаахоу его. Народь же мнѡгь прѣ[д]стоаше їс[оусо]ви); St Petersburg, fol. 180v: Many people came to listen to Jesus (Народ же многь прише[д] послоушаахѧ ї[соу]са).  Cambridge, fol. 81v: Om[ne]s v[er]o qui astabant i[bi] dilige[n]t[er] eu[m] audieba[n]t… Cu[m] collecta fuiss[et] turba multa.  Athens 355, fol. 67r: ὄχλος δὲ πολὺς συνεισῆλθε καὶ ἠκροῶντο πάντες καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίᾳ.

Jesus’ education

199

Previous scholarship reveals the existence of both open-air schools and schools in buildings in antiquity. Horn and Martens confirm that many class sessions were held in open areas. Some schools gathered their pupils inside buildings or in rooms inside a building.⁸⁰⁰ Davis lists various “classrooms” used in antiquity: open-air arcades, porticos, dimly-lit apartments, halls (exedrae), or auditoriums. These manuscripts offer a range of descriptions of classrooms, from typical Greco-Roman classrooms, open-air classrooms, private classrooms to the classrooms typical of some of the medieval settings in which this text was used, such as the classrooms in Bulgarian monasteries. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also gives some information about the subjects Jesus was to study in school. Unlike the other manuscripts, Dijon describes a “Jewish” syllabus. In First teacher (30), the Jewish schoolmaster Zachias asks Mary and Joseph to send him to school to be instructed in the science of human fear. ⁸⁰¹ Somewhat later, he says that Jesus should be instructed in Jewish doctrine. ⁸⁰² In First teacher (31), Jesus is given to Levi, who teaches him letters. ⁸⁰³ The Byzantine manuscripts state in First teacher (6.2) that Jesus should be taught letters and all the knowledge (epistêmê).⁸⁰⁴ Nothing is said about Jewish learning. In Second teacher (14.1) of manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355, the teacher asks Joseph about the syllabus for Jesus, and Joseph suggests that Jesus should study first the Greek letters and then Hebrew. ⁸⁰⁵ The same statement is repeated in the Slavonic manuscripts.⁸⁰⁶ This section is absent from Sabaiticus. Cambridge emphasizes that the child will become learned through studying literature. ⁸⁰⁷ Later, Joseph suggests that Jesus should be taught first

 Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 29.  Dijon, fol. 12r: Tu no[n] vis filium tuu[m] trade[re] ut doceat[ur] sci[enti]am hu[m]ani timoris.  Dijon, fol. 12r: Ut int[er] illos erudiat[ur] iudaica doct[ri]na.  Dijon, fol. 13r: Q[ui] doceat eu[m] litt[er]as et erudiat.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: ἵνα παιδευθῇ γράμματα. καὶ ἵνα γνώσιν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην καὶ μάθῃ στέργειν ἡλικιώτας; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r-v: καὶ ἐγὼ διδάξω αὐτ[ὸν] μετὰ τῶν γραμμάτων πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην; Athens 355, fol. 63r: παράδος μοι αὐτὸν ἵνα μάθῃ γράμματα. καὶ διδάξω αὐτὸν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην ἵνα μὴ ἀνυπότακτον.  Athens 355, fol. 66r: καὶ λέγει ὁ διδάσκαλος τῷ Ἰωσήφ ποῖα γράμματα θέλεις διδάξω αὐτὸν πρῶτον λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὰ ἑλληνικὰ εἶτα τὰ ἑβραϊκά; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202v: αὐτ[ὸν] εἶπε δὲ Ἰωσὴφ πρῶτον τὰ ἑλληνικὰ ἔπειτα ἑβραϊκά.  Novaković, 52: прѣжде елиньскымь, по томь еврѣискымь; Hludov, fol. 203v: прѣж[д]е грьчесыимь потомь иевреискои; St Petersburg, fol. 180r: прѣж[д]е елиньскы[м], пото[м] и еврѣискы[м].  Cambridge, fol. 79v: trade eum ad docendu[m] litteras. Cu[m] aut[em] doct[us] fuerit in studio litterarum.

200

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

the Gentile letters and then Hebrew letters. ⁸⁰⁸ Thus, what Byzantine manuscripts call “Greek letters,” Cambridge calls “Gentile letters.” The earlier work of scholars has shown that this syllabus is quite realistic in the Greek-speaking contexts in Late Antiquity. Tropper argues that Jewish children in the Greek-speaking diaspora studied Greek, and rabbinic sources indicate that some Jewish children in Palestine learned Greek at home.⁸⁰⁹ Foster notes that Jesus had to learn Greek first, rather than his native language, in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ⁸¹⁰ Interestingly, when he debates with the teacher in First Teacher (6.3), Jesus names all the letters from aleph to tau in the manuscript Cambridge, referencing the Jewish alphabet.⁸¹¹ Foster notes this inconsistency of the Lt variant, where “Jesus learns Hebrew letters with his first teacher, but on the second attempt he is asked to study the Greek letters.”⁸¹² Foster concludes: “The tension felt over the language in which Jesus was initially instructed raises wider historical questions concerning the context that IGT assumes in its narration of Jesus’ schooling, as well as the nature of elementary education in the Mediterranean world of the first century CE.”⁸¹³ In my view, it is plausible that the Lt variant, as in Cambridge, was translated from a Greek text, where the “Hebrew-elements” had been chiefly eliminated (as is typical in the Greek variants, particularly in some manuscripts, like Sabaiticus); some remnants of the “Hebrew-elements” nevertheless remained visible. In First teacher (6.2), Novaković emphasizes that the child is to be taught literary studies. The teacher intends to teach Jesus books and all literary rules. ⁸¹⁴ In episode Third teacher (15.1), Novaković suggests that the child will be taught the sorcery books. ⁸¹⁵ This line, which does not appear elsewhere, adds information about the specific knowledge that the Slavonic manuscripts insist on, related to sorcery, to which I shall return below. In St Petersburg, the teacher emphasizes the “crafty” aspect of education, suggesting that Jesus should get used to books and learn to be able to do everything. ⁸¹⁶ Hludov insists on books and all the

 Cambridge, fol. 81r: R[espondit] Ioseph et dix[it]. P[ri]mu[m] doce ei lit[ter]as gentilicas et postea hebrea[s].  Tropper, “The Economics of Jewish Childhood in Late Antiquity,” 217.  Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 25.  Cambridge, fol. 80r: Et i[n]cipie[n]s v[er]sic[u]l[u]m dixit p[er] lit[er]as ab a usq[ue] t.  Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 25.  Foster, “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,” 25.  Novaković, 49: книгамь и вьсемоу наставлѥнию кьнижьномоу.  Novaković, 53: наоучю ѥго книгамь и врачебьнымь боуквамь.  St Petersburg, fol. 178v: да навыкне[т] книгы и въсемоу наоучѧ еже оумѣти емоу.

Jesus’ education

201

rules. ⁸¹⁷ In this section, the Slavonic manuscripts hold on to the study of sorcery and practical matters. Accordingly, while Dijon describes a Jewish education, and the Byzantine manuscripts and Cambridge describe a general GrecoRoman education (and Cambridge has some remnants of Jewish education), the Slavonic manuscripts allow that studying sorcery and “crafty” skills are also introduced into Jesus’ education. Finally, let us look at why children were educated, according to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The aims of education are typically profoundly influenced by society’s core values and principles. In First teacher (30), Dijon notes that reverence is the aim of education. The text stresses that more regard should be given to the elders of the whole Church of Israel. ⁸¹⁸ The child should learn to have mutual affection with the children. ⁸¹⁹ These values are constructed according to the general Jewish context as described in this text. Manuscript Athens 355 is relatively brief in First teacher (6.2): Jesus should not be disobedient (ἀνυπότακτον).⁸²⁰ The community, as constructed in this manuscript, valued the obedience of children. In this episode, the Arabic version emphasizes only respect for the elders.⁸²¹ In Cambridge, Jesus’ education is for his benefit. The teacher says: I will teach him honorably so that he is not unwise. ⁸²² In Sabaiticus, the core values are: loving one’s peers, honoring the elders, having a desire for children, and teaching them.⁸²³ In Vienna hist.91, the values are: greeting the elders, honoring them as forefathers and fathers, loving one’s peers, fearing and respecting parents, and being loved by one’s children.⁸²⁴ The Slavonic manuscripts mostly resemble Vienna hist.91, emphasizing a

 Hludov, fol. 201v: книгамь и всемоу наставлению.  Dijon, fol. 12r: Oportebat enim nos pri[us] honorare p[res]b[yte]ros toti[us] eccl[es]ie isr[ae]l.  Dijon, fol. 12r: et ex infantib[us] mutua[m] h[ab]eat cari[ta]te[m].  Athens 355, fol. 63r: διδάξω αὐτὸν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην ἵνα μὴ ἀνυπότακτον.  The teacher said to Joseph: “Entrust him to me so that I may teach him to respect elders.” See Noja, “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas,” 681– 690.  Cambridge, fol. 79v: ego docebo eum honorifice ut non fiat insipie[n]s. Note that in the fourteenth-century Berne 271, the stress is on wisdom and honesty: I will teach him later honestly to be wise in his honesty. Berne, fol. 41v: ego postea docebo eum honorifice ut sit sapiens in honestate.  Sabaiticus, fol. 67v: Δεῦρο δὸς αὐτό ἀδελφέ. ἵνα παιδευθῇ γράμματα. καὶ ἵνα γνώσιν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην καὶ μάθῃ στέργειν ἡλικιώτας. καὶ τιμᾶν γῆρας. καὶ αἰδεῖσθαι πρεσβυτέρους. ἵνα καὶ εἰς τέκνα πόθον κτήσεται ἕξειν ὁμοίως αὐτὰ ἀνταπαιδεύσῃ.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r-v: καὶ ἐγὼ διδάξω αὐτ[ὸν] μετὰ τῶν γραμμάτων πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην καὶ προσαγορεύειν πάντες τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τιμᾶν αὐτοὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς συνιλικιώτας φοβεῖσθαι καὶ ἐντρεπέσθαι γονεῖς. ὅπως καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ ἰδίον τέκνον, ἀγαπηθήσεται.

202

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

range of values from honoring the elders to being loved by one’s children.⁸²⁵ These values were probably constructed according to the contexts described in the manuscripts. The Slavonic manuscripts most probably adopted the list of the values from the Byzantine manuscripts. These values may also have been enlisted as messages to the audience about essential matters to be borne in mind in children’s education. Altogether, the subject of education takes up a large portion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Authors, translators, scribes, and rewriters allowed themselves the freedom to construct imaginary settings in which Jesus’ education took place. While in Dijon, we see the construction of a Jewish school setting, the depictions in the Byzantine manuscripts mainly relate to ancient and late antique Greco-Roman contexts, which very often pertained also to the Byzantine contexts of education. We do not know when the text of the Lm variant, as we have it in Dijon, was written, besides the fact that it first appeared in the eleventh-century Paris 1772. Nevertheless, we see that this text fits nicely into the broader set of Marian texts, characterized by their anti-Jewish sentiments, knowing that the Jewish educators are described here as repressive towards Jesus’ family. Interestingly, the anti-Jewish texts also appear in the manuscript Cambridge, which contains the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in which the antiJewish sentiments were much reduced. I have already argued that the Lt variant was introduced in the Latin West from Byzantium after it was translated from a Greek version; thus, the texts in Cambridge and the Byzantine manuscripts describe similar ancient and late antique Greco-Roman education contexts, which also resemble Byzantine education. The Slavonic manuscripts either look to the Byzantine examples or construct their settings according to their knowledge and experience. Their scribes and rewriters were felt comfortable to expand these texts with familiar details.

 Novaković, 49: Jesus is to understand elders, forefathers and fathers, to love them and his peers, to be afraid and ashamed of his parents, and to be cherished by them (да разоумѣѥть вь старьцехь чьстьно, ѩко прадѣди и отьци, и любити ѥго имамь сь кротостию, ѩкоже и вьсе сьврьстьникы ѥго, и боѩти се и срамлѩ родитель своихь, ѩко да и тои вьзлюблѥнь боудеть оть родитель своихь); Hludov, fol. 201v: To listen to the elders, to honor everybody, to respect and be afraid of the parents, and to be ashamed of them, and to be respected by his own children (Еже послоушати емоу старце. И почести всакого и родителѥ боѩти се и почитати. И срамлѩти се ихь. Ѩко ктѡ ѡ[т] своихь чедь почтань боудеть); St Petersburg, fol. 178v: To respect all elders, and love his father with meekness, and all his peers, to be afraid and ashamed of parents, and to be loved by his own children (Въсѧ старцѧ чьсти и прѣ[д] ды. А ѡцѧ любити съ кротостїѫ. И въсѧ съвръстникы его. боатисѧ и срамѣтисѧ родителю, ѩко да ѡ[т] инѣ[х] и ѡ[т] свои[х]ь чьд възлюбень бѫде[ть]).

Jesus’ physical work

203

I have not explored all that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas can tell us about education. It must be a task for further research. It would be fascinating to explore the educational and instructional methods that the teachers employ in the various manuscripts, the age of Jesus when he starts school, and the criteria for entering school indicated in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus’ physical work The Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains descriptions of the physical work that Jesus undertakes as a child. This work consists of sowing wheat, carrying water from a well, helping in carpentry, and going to the forest to collect wood. In episode Water in Cloak (11), Jesus’ mother sends him to fetch water from a well in a jar. In Harvest (12), Jesus sows with his father. Episode Carpenter (13) describes Jesus helping his father in carpentry. Finally, in episode James’ snakebite (16), James and Jesus go to the forest to gather wood. If we look at the differences in the manuscripts, we see that sometimes Jesus is helped by other people, but at other times he works alone. In Dijon, in the episode Harvest (34), Jesus sows wheat alone. He is presented as a divine figure: it is why he performs this activity alone. Such a situation also occurs in the Syriac version.⁸²⁶ In the rest of the manuscripts, Jesus sows with his father. The difference vis-à-vis Dijon shows the tendency of the rest of the manuscripts to present Jesus as an average child, helped in this activity by his father. In the rest of the episodes, the manuscripts depict Jesus’ physical work in the same way. We may assume that there is a common cultural understanding of these children’s activities that are acknowledged if not practiced in the same way in the various environments in which this text was used. We also know from earlier scholarship that getting involved in work was a reality for most children in the Greco-Roman world.⁸²⁷ Lower-class children in Roman society were put to work as soon as they were considered capable of acquiring skills and becoming productive.⁸²⁸ In Late Antiquity, most children had to go to work, some even before seven.⁸²⁹ In the Middle Ages, children at the age of seven started ei-

 See Burke and Landau, New Testament Apocrypha, 66.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 166.  Keith R. Bradley, “Child Labor in the Roman World,” Historical Reflections/ Réflexions Historiques 12, No. 2 (1985): 311– 330, 326.  Horn and Martens, “Let the little children come to me,” 25.

204

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

ther school or work.⁸³⁰ Indeed, before the eighteenth century, most children in Western Europe worked; medieval children as young as seven were sent out to work as servants or apprentices.⁸³¹ The manuscripts additionally tell us Jesus’ age when he took up these various activities. How old was Jesus when he was expected to do household work or work together with his parents and siblings? How old was he when he was expected to do the work alone? Jesus is between six and eight in the episode Water in Cloak (11.1) when his mother sends him to fetch water from a well in a jar. This episode occurs in almost all the manuscripts. Episode Carpenter (13.1) appears in all the manuscripts, where Jesus helps his father in carpentry. Jesus is eight years old in the Byzantine manuscripts and Cambridge, while he is ten in the Slavonic manuscripts. Finally, in episode James’ snakebite (16.1), James and Jesus go to the woods to gather sticks. Jesus is between eight and ten years old, while James is possibly older. He is either sent to do the work by his father or goes by himself to the woods. The exact ages of a child who conducts the work: carrying out a small task at the age of six to eight, involving a child in work together with his parents from six to ten, and getting involved in work by himself above the age of eight to ten years need to find their specific attestation in other written and material evidence to be ascribed to the specific environments. The material generally agrees with what we already know about children involved in the work in the Roman world, Late Antiquity, and the Middle Ages.

Jesus’ anger and cursing The text about the childhood of Jesus contains much foul language. The child Jesus in this text curses, utters terrible words and has bad intentions. What could be the meaning of such language? Is it expected that Jesus curses as a child? Jesus’ anger and cursing have been the most significant stumbling stones in the study of this text and the most important reason why Jesus has been called an enfant terrible who does not behave in a Christian way since he carries out

 See Joe L. Frost, A History of Children’s Play and Play Environments: Towards a Contemporary Child-Saving Movement (New York: Routledge, 2009), 13.  See Jackie C. Horne, History and the Construction of the Child in Early British Children’s Literature (New York: Routledge, 2016), 8.

Jesus’ anger and cursing

205

misdeeds.⁸³² Scholars have found it hard to understand these features, and many have dismissed this text as unworthy of study.⁸³³ In more recent studies, scholars have attempted to find a justification for this behavior. In accord with his overall argument that Jesus is an adult in a child’s body, Burke argues that Jesus does whatever adults were expected to do. The young Jesus curses his opponents because the author believed that the adult Jesus did the same.⁸³⁴ According to Burke, “Christologically, the Jesus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had affinities with eschatological prophets in the style of Elijah who are as likely to curse as they are to bless.”⁸³⁵ Jesus also curses as an adult in Mark 11:14 (although he curses a fig tree in that passage). Kee and Gero suggest that Jesus’ curses need to be understood in the larger context of his miracles.⁸³⁶ In Aasgaard’s view, “Jesus emerges as an odd combination of divine and human elements, an enigmatic figure who behaves in ways seemingly improper both for a divine character and an honorable human being.”⁸³⁷ “The cursing should be seen as reflecting IGT’s strongly Christological focus: the gospel (IGT) aims at demonstrating Jesus’ superiority and power.”⁸³⁸ Davis argues that cursing was part of the agonistic language of children in the ancient world.⁸³⁹ It was expected, not surprising. Daniel Eastman connects Jesus’ cursing to the cursing stories of the ascetics of fourth-century Syria related by Theodoret of Cyrrhus in the Religious History. ⁸⁴⁰ In the view of Aidan Breen, “the propensity of the boy Jesus to curse those who even mildly offend him is common in other religious biographies, including Jewish accounts of the Old Testament prophets. It was certainly regarded in antiquity as a mark of divine power and an essential characteristic of sanctity.”⁸⁴¹ All these opinions were formed based on the textual versions on which the individual scholars worked. Therefore, no consensus has been reached regarding

 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 68; Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 6.  E. g., Cowper and Cullmann. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, IX, n. 7, 8.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 289.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 289.  Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 281, 286; Gero, “Infancy Gospel,” 61; see also Daniel Eastman, “Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 69, No. 2 (2015): 186 – 208, 191.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 86.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 161.  Davis, Christ Child, 64– 91.  Eastman, “Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 186 – 208.  Breen, “The Childhood of Jesus,” 1.

206

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Jesus’ cursing. I will not discuss the issue of cursing and bad words per se. Instead, I will try to resolve the issue of why Jesus curses and uses bad words in some manuscripts but not in others. How and in which contexts was such behavior of Jesus acceptable or not acceptable? What does this behavior mean? In manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon, Jesus curses a boy in the episode Pools (26). After the boy destroys his pools, Jesus says: You, indeed the son of death and the work of Satan! You destroy the works which I have wrought. ⁸⁴² In Annas’ Son (28), Jesus is upset at the son of Annas (or Annas), who destroys his pools. In Paris 1772 and Dijon, Jesus uses harsher words than in the other manuscripts: O most wicked seed of iniquity! O son of death! O works of Satan! Verily the son of the devil! The fruit of your seed shall be without strength, and your roots without moisture and your branches withered, bearing no fruit!⁸⁴³

Most of the other manuscripts have a more concise curse in Annas’ Son (3.2). In Vienna hist.91, Jesus says: (You) wicked, impious, and foolish! What harm did the waters and pools do to you? Look! Now you too shall dry up like a tree, and you shall never produce leaves nor roots nor fruit.⁸⁴⁴

In Athens 355, Jesus says: Sodomite, impious and foolish! What harm did my pools and my waters do to you? Look! Now you shall dry up like a tree, and you shall not have roots, nor top nor fruit.⁸⁴⁵

The curse is only slightly toned down in these Byzantine manuscripts in comparison to Dijon and Paris 1772. The three Slavonic manuscripts differ in section 3.2 by the random use of different words and expressions, but the meaning is not different from the Byzantine manuscripts.⁸⁴⁶ The sodomite, mentioned in all

 Paris 1772, fol. 89r: Vere filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane op[er]a que ego op[er]atus sum tu dissipas.  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: O semen iniquitatis pessimu[m]. filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane. vere filius diaboli. erit fructus seminis tui sine vigore. radices er[it] aridi rami tui qui non afferent fructu[m].  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: ἄδικε ἀσεβὴ καὶ ἀνόητε τί ἠδίκησάν σε τὰ ὕδατ[α] καὶ οἱ λάκκοι. Ἰδοὺ νῦν καὶ σύ, ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς ὅ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐνέγκῃς φύλλα οὔτε ῥίζαν οὔτε καρπ[όν].  Athens 355, fol. 62r: Σοδομίτα ἄσεβες καὶ ἀνόητε τί σε ἠδίκησαν οἱ λάκκοι οἱ ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ ὕδατα. Ἰδοὺ νῦν ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς καὶ μὴ ἔχῃς ῥίζαν μήτε κεφαλὴν μήτε καρπόν.  Novaković, 48: Содомлѩнине нечисты и неразоумьны, како те вьзненавидѣше мои вирьци и моѥ рѣчице? Нь да исьхиеши ѩко и дрѣво и да не имаши ни листиѩ, ни

Jesus’ anger and cursing

207

three Slavonic manuscripts, appears only in Athens 355. The wording in Cambridge is similar to the rest of the corpus.⁸⁴⁷ A significant shift occurs when we compare Sabaiticus with the manuscripts presented above. Jesus says in Sabaiticus: Your fruit (shall be) without root and your shoot dried up like a branch scorched by a strong wind. ⁸⁴⁸ While the curse is present, the anger and the bad words are absent. Sabaiticus addresses the son of Annas more calmly. In the episode Careless Boy (29/4.1), Jesus collides with another child in the street and curses him. Paris 1772 (Lm) gives the following curse: You shall not go back safe and sound from the way you went. ⁸⁴⁹ Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355 contain a similar curse: You shall not go your way. ⁸⁵⁰ Jesus is furious (Athens 355) and irritated (Vienna hist.91). In Novaković, Jesus curses the boy not to come home.⁸⁵¹ In Hludov, Jesus curses the boy not to come back from where he is going.⁸⁵² In St Petersburg, he curses the boy not to arrive anywhere along this road.⁸⁵³ The Slavonic manuscripts diverge, and St Petersburg mostly resembles the Byzantine manuscripts Vienna hist.91 and Athens 355. Manuscript Cambridge has similar lines: End your way like this! ⁸⁵⁴ However, in Sabaiticus, Jesus utters different words: Cursed be for you your leader. ⁸⁵⁵ This expression in Sabaiticus is wholly altered, possibly resulting from rewriting. The text then contains the sections where Jesus gets upset with his father, Joseph, his teachers, and occasional crowds. In Joseph’s Rebuke (5.3) in manuscript Athens 355, Jesus is furious and angry with his father because Joseph has punished him. In Vienna hist.91, he is angry. In Cambridge, Jesus is disturплода своѥго; Hludov, fol. 201r: Содомлѩнине, нечтиви и неразоумны. Что вьзобидоше виркови мои та ихь разкази и се да исьхиеши ѩко тои дрѣво. Да не принесеши плода ни корѣне. In St Petersburg, fol. 177v: Содомите нечьстиве неразоумне что тѧ ѡбидѣшѫ мои вирове и воды та и[х] раскази. Се да бѫдеши ѩко и дрѣво соу[х] да не принесеши ни листїа ни коренїа ни пльда.  Cambridge, fol. 79r: Sodomite impie et nesciens. Q[ui]d te dampnaver[un]t fontes aque facture me. Ecce sicut arida fies non h[abe]ns radices nec folia nec fructu[m].  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Ἄριζος ὁ καρπός σου καὶ ξηρὸς ὁ βλαστός σου ὡς κλάδος ἐκκομένος ἐν πνεύματι τιμίῳ.  Paris 1772, fol. 89v: non revertaris san[us] via tua q[uo] vadis.  Athens 355, fol. 62v: Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200r: Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου.  Novaković, 48: Да не доидеши до дома своѥго.  Hludov, fol. 201r: Да не вьзвратиши се поздравоу ѩмо же идѣши.  St Petersburg, fol. 178r: да не доидеши пѫте[м] тѣ[м].  Cambridge, fol. 79r: Sic p[er]ficias iter tuu[m].  Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Ἐπικατάρατός συ ὁ ἡγεμών σου.

208

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

bed (turbatus). In the Slavonic manuscripts, Jesus “complained” (вьзнегодовавь/негодова) about what happened. Sabaiticus significantly reduces Jesus’ negative emotions; Jesus expresses understanding for his father. He does not utter any threats. In the end, he even knuckles under his father.⁸⁵⁶ In First teacher (31/6.3) of Cambridge, Jesus offends the teacher by referring to laziness: You lazy (slothful)! (Pigritas!). The Slavonic manuscripts do not mention Jesus’ anger, but they contain the offense: Hypocrite! In all three Greek manuscripts, the child Jesus gets angry and offends the teacher with the word hypocrite. The Second teacher (28/14.2) describes the teacher getting upset and hitting Jesus on the head. In Dijon, Jesus does not curse the teacher, but the teacher nevertheless dies.⁸⁵⁷ In Sabaiticus, Jesus cursed him, and the teacher fell and died. ⁸⁵⁸ The Slavonic manuscripts describe other emotional reactions: Jesus complained (Novaković, St Petersburg)/got furious (Hludov), cursed the teacher, who became bedridden and fell. ⁸⁵⁹ Cambridge describes Jesus’ anger.⁸⁶⁰ Athens 355 presents Jesus’s anger similarly to the Slavonic manuscripts by adding the teacher’s medical condition: Jesus became angry and cursed him. And at once fainting, he fell. ⁸⁶¹ Vienna hist.91 describes the teacher’s medical condition in greater detail: The child Jesus became angry and cursed him. And at once, he swooned and fell upon his face. ⁸⁶² We see various actions through which he displays his divine power and a range of moods that he goes through, from being entirely neutral to being furious. Kristi Upson-Saia argued that Thomas’ Infancy Gospel was originally written by opponents of Christianity who wished to undermine Jesus’ character.⁸⁶³ She

 Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: ᾿Aρκείτω σοι τὸ ζητεῖν με καὶ εὑρίσκειν μὴ πρὸς τούτῳ ἔτι καὶ μωλωπίζειν φυσικὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐπιλαβόμενος καὶ οὐκ εἶδες με σαφῶς τί σοῦ εἰμι. Ἴδε οἶδας μὴ λυπεῖν με. Σὸς γὰρ ἡμῖν. καὶ πρὸς σε ἐχειρώθην.  Dijon, fol. 17v: et mox p[os]tq[uam] p[er]cussit illu[m] mortu[us] est.  Sabaiticus, fol. 70v: Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ καθηγητὴς καὶ ἀπέθανεν.  Novaković, 53: Ісоусь же негодовавь проклеть дидаскала того, и абиѥ изнемогь паде ниць. Hludov, fol. 203v: Ѡтроче же ї[соу]с прогнѣва се, и проклеть его. И падесе изнемоги; St Petersburg, fol. 180r: Ѡтрочѧ же негодоваи проклѧ[т] его. Тог[д]а тоу изнемогь паде ниць.  Cambridge, fol. 81r: Ih[esu]s aut[em] iratus maledix[it] eum. et subito cecidit et mortuus est.  Athens 355, fol. 66v: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀγανακτήσας ἐκατηράσατο αὐτὸν καὶ εὐθέως ἔπεσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος ὀλιγωρήσας.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203r: τὸ δὲ παιδίον ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἠγανάκτησε καὶ κατηράσατο αὐτὸν καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ἐλιποθύμησεν καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ στόματος.  Kristi Upson-Saia, “Holy Child or Holy Terror? Understanding Jesus’ Anger in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Church History 82, No. 1 (2013): 1– 39.

Jesus’ family and community

209

suggests that Christian redactors were later able to regain control of his image by correcting the embarrassing stories. It is an interesting hypothesis, and it may indeed be tenable since it accords with the examples presented above. The image of Jesus as a cursing child is much toned down in Sabaiticus, for example. Burke also argues that the transmission history of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas testifies to the efforts by scribes to bring the Jesus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas into conformity with the Jesus of the NT gospels.⁸⁶⁴ In my view, Jesus’ cursing and anger mainly depend on the image of Jesus constructed in the individual manuscripts. Where Jesus is presented as a divine being (as understood by others, at least his parents), cursing and anger are entirely allowable. Cursing and anger are not necessarily divine features per se, but they belong to a range of activities through which Jesus displays his power. Punitive miracles here illustrate God’s power and judgment.⁸⁶⁵ In the other manuscripts, which tend to give more space to Jesus as an average child, cursing and anger are used to a lesser extent, possibly because they tend to come closer in their descriptions of Jesus to canonical gospels, as Burke said. Therefore, Jesus’ cursing and anger are components of each text’s strategy to describe Jesus in a particular way.

Jesus’ family and community An original author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have intended to locate the text about Jesus’ childhood in a specific setting, where a particular community would surround him and his parents. If so, what kind of community did he have in mind? It is, unfortunately, impossible to answer this question. It is more important to ask how the depictions of the social community in which Jesus and his family lived differ in the various manuscripts we study here. Paris 1772 and Dijon describe a Jewish community. The episode Pools (26) depicts a gathering of Jews and the dead boy’s parents’ outcry because Jesus killed the child. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus stay firmly together, but they are nevertheless concerned about the community’s attitude.⁸⁶⁶ Further on, Jesus’ miracle in the

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 174.  Eastman, “Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 191.  Paris 1772, fol. 89r: Tunc aut[em] sediciosa voce clamabant parentes mortui. Cont[ra] ioseph et maria[m] dicentes eis filius v[este]r maledix[it] filiu[m] n[ost]r[u]m. et mortuus e[st]. Cu[m] aut[em] audissent ioseph et maria. statim vener[unt] ad Ih[esu]m p[ro]pt[er] sedicione[m] parentum pueri. Aut adclamationem iudeor[um].

210

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

episode Sparrows (27) is reported to the twelve tribes of Israel.⁸⁶⁷ Joseph faces another complaint by the dead child’s parents in Joseph’s Rebuke (29) when the parents expel them from the town.⁸⁶⁸ Joseph is afraid of the violence and uproar of the people of Israel. In First teacher (30), the Jewish schoolmaster Zachias speaks to Joseph rudely and without fear, intimating that Joseph and Mary have more regard for their son than for the elders of the people of Israel.⁸⁶⁹ In the Second teacher (38) and Third teacher (39), Mary and Joseph are asked again by the Jews to send Jesus to school.⁸⁷⁰ They do so, although unwillingly, because they fear the community and the threats of the elders and priests. The descriptions of the Jewish community in these manuscripts may reflect the milieu as imagined or constructed by authors, translators, or rewriters, who built up the environment where Jesus grew up. The text describes particularly hostile tensions between Jesus and his family and their fellow Jews and bears solid anti-Jewish sentiments. It also reflects a society where the community is closely involved in the upbringing of a child. As noted earlier, the manuscript Paris 1772 originated from the German Benedictine Abbey, Reichenau, and Dijon originated from the Abbey of Cîteaux, located in Saint-Nicolas-lès-Cîteaux, south of Dijon, France. One need not forget that other manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Lm variant) appear in more significant numbers, particularly from the thirteenth century. The tensions towards Jews as reflected in this text may be mirroring the medieval French and German contexts in which the text was used.⁸⁷¹ We can think of

 Paris 1772, fol. 89v: Cu[m] aut[em] om[ne]s qui aderant ei. vidissent talia signa. et virtutes ab eo factas fuisse. pharisei repleti sunt stupore magno. Alii laudabant eu[m]. et mirabantur. Alii vituperabant eu[m]. Et habies ad principes sacerdotum et adprimates phariseor[um]. et nuntiaver[unt] eis quod Ih[esu]s filius d[i]i. in conspectu totius p[o]p[u]li isr[ae]litici. hec talia signa et virtutes fecisset et adnunciatu[m] e[st] hoc ad xii trib[us] isr[ae]l[is].  Dijon, fol. 11v: Et accesseru[n]t p[ar]entes mortui ad ioseph: et dixerunt ei. Tolle Ih[esu]m illu[m] de loco illo. no[n] eni[m] potest hic h[ab]itare nob[is]cum eo municipio. Aut c[er]te doce illu[m] b[e]n[e]d[ice]re et n[on] maledicere.  Dijon, fol. 12r: sed video te et maria[m] plus velle dilige[re] filiu[m] v[est]r[u]m. Q[ua]m tradito[r]es senior[um] p[o]p[u]li. Oportebat enim nos pri[us] honorare p[res]b[yte]ros toti[us] eccl[es]ie isr[ae]l.  Dijon, fol. 17v: It[eru]m t[er]tio rogaveru[n]t iudei mariam et ioseph ut aliu[m] magist[ru]m blandim[en]tis suis ad Ih[esu]m adduce[re]nt ad discendu[m].  Many scholarly works describe the tensions between Christians and Jews in the medieval West. M. Cohen describes relations between Christians and Jews in the medieval West as confrontational and violent. K. Stow writes about royal expulsions of the Jews that began at the end of the thirteenth century in the medieval West. See Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998); Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-

Jesus’ family and community

211

the Jews described in the text as subjects targeted at the time when these manuscripts were copied (eleventh to thirteenth centuries), all the more so if we look at the historical circumstances of medieval Western Europe (England, France, Germany), where Jews were under frequent threats. Thus far, many scholarly studies have pointed to the increased tensions between Christians and Jews in the medieval West. Some medieval scholars, such as Odo of Cambrai and Guibert of Nogent, wrote treatises against Jews in the twelfth century.⁸⁷² The presence of anti-Jewish sentiments in these manuscripts, therefore, should not surprise us. Another link to the anti-Jewish sentiments is the special attachment of the texts in these two manuscripts to the Virgin Mary.⁸⁷³ I have already pointed out the cycles of Marian texts appearing in them. On the other hand, the rise of the Christian cult of Mary was perceived as a threat by Jews.⁸⁷⁴ In Franco-German Jewish circles in the Middle Ages, especially from the late twelfth century, there is an increased awareness of the growing prominence of the figure of the

sity Press, 1994); Anna Sapir–Abulafia, Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000 – 1150) (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998).  Anna Sapir–Abulafia, “Christian Imagery of Jews in the Twelfth Century: A Look at Odo of Cambrai and Guibert of Nogent,” in Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000 – 1150), ed. Anna Sapir–Abulafia (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998): 383 – 391.  Ephraim Shoham–Steiner mentions in his article the anti-Jewish polemics of the late eleventh-century English churchman Gilbert Crispin, based on his actual debate with a Jew in 1092, where the Virgin Mary, Immaculate Conception, and Virgin Birth appear as the main subjects of the discussion. Also, Anna Sapir–Abulafia demonstrated through the letters of Odo of Tournai, bishop of Cambrai (1050 – 1113), that the figure of the Virgin Mary was often cited in anti-Jewish polemics in the twelfth century. In his early twelfth-century autobiography, Abbot Guibert of Nogent (c.1055 – 1124) writes that when he was a monk at the Abbey of St. Germer at Fly, he had given his Tractatus de incarnatione contra iudaeos to a fellow monk who was a recent convert from Judaism. Israel Yuval pointed out the appearance of the Miracula Sanctae Virginis Mariae in northern France as an essential piece in what would in a later period develop into a fullblown attack on Jews and Judaism. Miri Rubin writes that in the Virgin Mary miracula collections that circulated in Europe from the twelfth century and in writings of members of the Mendicant orders from the thirteenth century, the Virgin often appears as helping Jews and other former “infidels” who have just converted to Christianity. See Ephraim Effie Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions to Marian Devotion in the High Middle Ages,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 37, No. 1 (2013): 75 – 91, 78; Sapir–Abulafia, “Christian Imagery of Jews,” 383 – 391; Jay Rubenstein, Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind (London: Routledge, 2002), 39 – 44; Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 195, n. 129.  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 77.

212

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Virgin Mary.⁸⁷⁵ The Jews had their responses to the rise of the Christian cult of Mary.⁸⁷⁶ Mary was continually connected with anti-Jewish sentiments from the twelfth century and throughout the high and late Middle Ages. By the late thirteenth century, she was no longer seen only as a possible link or conduit between the Jews and Christianity, but her image became more commonly depicted as the protector of those offended and allegedly victimized by Jews.⁸⁷⁷ By this time, Mary had become a gatekeeper who prevented the unwanted infiltration of Jews into Christianity.⁸⁷⁸ Shoham-Steiner argues that the role of the Virgin Mary as a formidable enemy of the Jews could be seen in theatrical performances that were staged all over Western Christendom.⁸⁷⁹ The mention of the community of Jews resonates to a greater or lesser degree in the other manuscripts. They also lack a coherent social community; Jesus’ audience is a sporadic group of people rather than a compact group. In some manuscripts, Jews mostly disappear, and the other characters replace their presence. What Jesus did in Sparrows (27) in the sight of all (in Dijon and Paris 1772), that is, in front of the Jewish community, was limited in the other manuscripts either to a small group of Jews or to single Jews (or no Jews at all). In Sparrows (2.5), manuscripts Cambridge, Vienna hist. 91, Novaković and Hludov mention Jews.⁸⁸⁰ Manuscript St Petersburg does not name the Jews but says “all.”⁸⁸¹ Athens 355 refers to the previous “they,” which must be the Jewish children who initially played with Jesus.⁸⁸² Sabaiticus describes a Pharisee who saw the miracle.⁸⁸³  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 75 – 91; see also Rubin, Mother of God, 161– 168.  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 77.  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 89.  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 89, n. 35.  Shoham-Steiner, “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions,” 90; Merrall Llewelyn Price, “Remembering the Jews: Theatrical Violence in the N-Town Marian Plays,” Comparative Drama 41, No. 4 (2007– 8): 439 – 463.  Cambridge, fol. 79r: Videntes aute[m] Iudei; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 199v: Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι; Novaković, 48: И видѣвьше же Июдеиѥ; Hludov, fol. 200v: И видѣвше Їюдеиє.  St Petersburg, fol. 177r: И видѣвше въси и оужасошѫс.  Athens 355, fol. 62r: Καὶ ἀπελθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ. ἵνα τί οὕτως ἐποίησας ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῷ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κρωτήσας τὰς χεῖρας λέγει τοῖς στρουθίοις. Ὑπάγετε πετάσατε καὶ μιμνήσκεσθέ μου οἱ ζῴντες. καὶ πετάσαντα τὰ στρουθία ἀπῆλθον κράζοντα. ἀπήγγειλαν πᾶσι τὸ σημεῖον ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.  Sabaiticus, fol. 66v: Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ἐθαύμασεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν πᾶσιν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ.

Jesus’ family and community

213

In Careless Boy (4), when Jesus cursed the boy who fell and died, we see in Dijon, the people of Israel, and only people in Sabaiticus and Vienna hist.91.⁸⁸⁴ In Athens 355, Jews are mentioned as witnesses.⁸⁸⁵ However, in the Slavonic manuscripts and Cambridge, it is Jesus’ friends who were the witnesses of the event.⁸⁸⁶ The Jewish schoolmaster Zachias who talked to Joseph and Mary in Dijon is no longer “a Jewish schoolmaster” in the other manuscripts of First teacher (6). In the continuation of First Teacher (6.2e), Jews listen to Jesus in manuscripts Cambridge, Vienna hist. 91, Athens 355, and Slavonic manuscripts.⁸⁸⁷ Sabaiticus, however, describes the audience as all the people. ⁸⁸⁸ Jews are thus absent from Sabaiticus in this episode.⁸⁸⁹ In Third teacher (39) of Dijon, we see a massive tension between Joseph and Mary on the one hand and the Jewish community on the other.⁸⁹⁰ In the other manuscripts, Joseph sends Jesus to school to be educated by his friend because his friend asked him, not because Joseph fears the community. The same applies to the episode Second teacher (38/14), where, in Dijon, Joseph and Mary were asked by the people that Jesus should be taught the letters in school according to the commandment of the elders, while in the rest of the manuscripts, Joseph thought that Jesus should go to school because he was intelligent.⁸⁹¹  Dijon, fol. 11v: Et acc[us]abant eum adv[er]sus ioseph. Ut h[oc] vidit ioseph p[er]t[er]rit[us] est nimiu[m]. Timens vim p[o]p[u]li sui Isr[ae]l; Sabaiticus, fol. 67r: Καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ λαὸς ἐβόησαν ἰδόντες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.  Athens 355, fol. 62v: οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἰδόντες τὸ θαῦμα ἀνεβόησαν λέγοντες πόθεν ἦν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο.  Novaković, 49: И видѣвьше то ини отроци, вьзоупише глаголюште; Hludov, fol. 201r: Тог[д]а видѣвше дроузи с нимь бывше чюдише се; St Petersburg, fol. 178r: видѣвше же дроуѯи и рекошѫ; Cambridge, fol. 79r: Et post paucos dies deambulante Ih[es]u cu[m] Ioseph p[er] villam cucurrit de infantib[us] un[us] et p[er]cussit Ih[esu]m in ulnas. Ih[esu]s aut[em] dixit ad eum: Sic p[er]ficias iter tuu[m]. Et statim cecidit in t[er]ram et mortuus e[st]. Illi aute[m] vidente[s] mirabilia. Clamaveru[n]t dice[n]te[s]. Unde e[st] puer iste.  Cambridge, fol. 79v: Cum audissent Iudei; Athens 355, fol. 63v: ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι; Vienna hist. 91, fol. 200v: ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖ[οι]; Novaković, 50: Слышавьше же Июдеиѥ како бесѣдоуѥть и ничесоже не вьзьмогоу отвѣштати и; Hludov, fol. 202r: Слышавше же їюдеие такови гл[агол]ы и оубоаше се.  Sabaiticus, fol. 68r: ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐφιμώθησαν λαλῆσαι μηκέτι δυνηθέντες πρὸς αὐτόν.  Jews are not wholly absent from Sabaiticus; they appear a few times.  Dijon, fol. 17v: It[eru]m t[er]tio rogaveru[n]t iudei mariam et ioseph ut aliu[m] magist[ru]m blandim[en]tis suis ad Ih[esu]m adduce[re]nt ad discendu[m]. Timentes aut[em] vim p[o]p[u]li m[aria] et io[seph] et insolentias p[ri]ncipu[m] et sac[er]dotu[m] minas. Dux[er]unt Ih[esu]m ad scolas.  Dijon, fol. 17r-v: maria et ioseph rogarent[ur] a p[o]p[u]lo ut Ih[esu]s doc[er]et[ur] litteris in scola. Q[uod] [et] face[re] non negaveru[n]t [et] s[e]c[un]d[u]m p[rae]ceptu[m] senior[um].

214

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Some of the reworkers of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts explicitly describe Jesus’ childhood in the milieu of his fellow Jews. Other reworkers try to muffle (to a larger or lesser extent) these Jewish contexts. Stephen Davis argues that the tensions towards Jews, such as those we see in the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles, “are more muted” in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ⁸⁹² However, he sees these “conflict-laden encounters” in a number of episodes. He marks the way Jesus called the first teacher a “hypocrite” as a common trope in Christian anti-Jewish polemics.⁸⁹³ Davis mainly analyzed the Greek text in manuscript Sabaiticus. In my view, the tensions towards Jews are much more accentuated in other manuscripts, such as Dijon and Paris 1772, compared to Sabaiticus, which mentions Jews to the smallest extent among the manuscripts analyzed here. The conclusions similar to Davis’ were heard by some other scholars in connection with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Slavonic manuscripts. According to them, the Slavonic text of the Infancy reveals a special attachment to the “anti-Jewish” propaganda of the environments where it was used.⁸⁹⁴ In my view, the Slavonic manuscripts mention Jews, but their presence reflects a faithful transmission of these texts from Greek. They do not by any means add to the Jewish presence in the texts. The Slavonic manuscripts of the Infancy may have served as tools in “anti-Jewish” propaganda in their environments.⁸⁹⁵ However, they were not the most “anti-Jewish” texts in the whole corpus. This conclusion may redirect the scholarly allegations about the “anti-Jewish” sentiments of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Slavonic context. Jews and the “Jewish aspect” are almost absent from Sabaiticus. The reasons are to be sought in the context of either this manuscript or the Gs variant. Sabaiticus was copied in Cyprus in the eleventh century. At least during the Byzantine rule, which covered part of the history of medieval Cyprus, the Jews were probably in an unfavorable position since Byzantine emperors often promulgated laws and edicts against tolerance that targeted Jews and other minorities.⁸⁹⁶ The position of the Jews in Byzantium was not the most favorable one, and

 Davis, Christ Child, 131.  Davis, Christ Child, 135.  Krstev, “Мястото на детство Исусово.”  Krstev, “Мястото на детство Исусово.”  On the position of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire, see Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy Stroumsa, and Rina Talgam, eds., Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Averil Cameron, “Jews and Heretics – A Category Error?” In The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, eds. Adam Becker, and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 345 – 360.

Housing

215

they were exposed to negative sentiments and forcible conversions.⁸⁹⁷ Possibly, reworkers of this text wished to stay away from the delicate Jewish issue and therefore avoided mentioning Jews.⁸⁹⁸ The absence of Jews and the mitigation of Jesus’ curses in Sabaiticus shows the reworkers’ intention to change this text following its new aims. While the “anti-Jewish” sentiments are clearly expounded in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas of Dijon and Paris 1772, in the rest of the manuscripts, translators, copyists, and rewriters lessened the importance of the audience portrayed in the texts but also of the community, whether Jews or other people. The tensions and hostility of the community, as “the others,” towards Jesus’ family are to some extent muted in these manuscripts, possibly to avoid the sensitive Jews-related issues and diminish the general hostilities in the text.

Housing The Infancy Gospel of Thomas offers some details related to housing as it looked in the past. It appears that these details are linked to everyday life, but they have been so far very little studied in connection with the specific periods and territories.⁸⁹⁹ These details may reflect earlier stages of the text and transfer the state of the affairs of the period when the text was closer to its original production. In that case, they are related to the modes of housing in antiquity, and they would not reveal much about the environments of their later transmission. Alternatively, the housing described in these texts may have been adjusted to the contemporary contexts, potentially giving an insight into the state of affairs in the medieval periods in various regions. I shall now demonstrate that both these options were present in the various manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In the Second teacher (38/14.3), Jesus goes back home after killing the second teacher. Dijon briefly mentions the word home (domus). Joseph orders Jesus’ mother not to let him out of the house after cursing the second teacher in the

 Bonfil, Irshai, Stroumsa, and Talgam, Jews in Byzantium, 877– 880.  In Byzantine chronicles, Jews appear as crucifiers of Christ and enemies of Orthodox Christianity. Jews also emerge as perpetrators of violent attacks against Christians, who express themselves against the Christian religion. Also, there is a link in Byzantine literature between the Jews and various groups of heretical Christians. Jews are ascribed a role in encouraging some Byzantine emperors to adopt Iconoclasm. Those who opposed images in Byzantium were often called “Judaizers.” See Bonfil, Irshai, Stroumsa, and Talgam, Jews in Byzantium, 786, 888.  See Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus.

216

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

rest of the manuscripts. The word house in these manuscripts gives some limited insight into the different milieus of everyday life. In Cambridge, the words domus and atrium domi follow ancient and late antique housing. Domus in the ancient tradition refers to the physical housing and the family that lived in it.⁹⁰⁰ Roman houses commonly had a peristyle behind the house, which would lead into a garden space.⁹⁰¹ However, Ellis and Wickham argue that peristyle houses had largely disappeared by the seventh century, at least in the West.⁹⁰² This type of house continued to exist in Byzantium.⁹⁰³ Rewriters and adaptors of the Lt variant, as in Cambridge, had in mind ancient houses, preferably of the Roman type. Manuscripts Sabaiticus and Athens 355 use the word οἶκος/οἰκία in the same episode (14.3). As in Latin, these words mean a physical house and the family, a household as a socio-economic and biological unit.⁹⁰⁴ In Vienna hist. 91, Joseph says: Do not let him out of the door. ⁹⁰⁵ Hludov and St Petersburg contain the same formulation as the other manuscripts: Do not let him out/outside of the house,⁹⁰⁶ where the word дом implies physical house, but also a family within. Novaković, however, says: Do not let him out to the courtyard from the house. ⁹⁰⁷ The expression на дворь in Novaković implies that the house had a courtyard. Does the phrase in Novaković reflect Slavic medieval housing or Byzantine housing? It is asserted that medieval Slavic housing was generally basic. Florin Curta discusses medieval housing in southeastern Europe, arguing that the “typ-

 See Harlow and Laurence, Growing up and growing old, 20.  Harlow and Laurence, Growing up and growing old, 25.  Simon Ellis, “Late Antique Housing and the Uses of Residential Buildings: An Overview,” in Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Shops, eds. Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Sarantis, Simon Ellis, and Yuri A. Marano (Leiden: Brill, 2007): 1– 22, 13; Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400 – 800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 648 – 650.  Lefteris Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” International Journal of Historical Archeology 7, No. 3 (2003): 195 – 221, 199.  Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” 195 – 221. Leonora Neville also confirms that the oikos was the basic unit of society. See Leonora Neville, Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950 – 1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Simon Ellis, “The Middle Byzantine House and Family: A Reappraisal,” in Approaches to the Byzantine Family, eds. Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher (Burlington: Ashgate 2013): 247– 272.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 203r: Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐλυπήθη καὶ παρήγγειλεν τῇ μ[ητ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ ὅπ[ως] ἔξω τῆς θύρ[ας] μὴ ἀπολύσῃ αὐτὸν.  Hludov, fol. 203v: Не испоущаи его изь домоу; St Petersburg, fol. 180v: И ре[че] не испоущаи его вънь из дом[оу].  Novaković, 53: не поуштаи ѥго, жено, на дворь изь домоу.

Housing

217

ical village in southeastern Europe consisted of sunken-floored huts of standard structure and size with one or two heating facilities. Such buildings are common throughout the region in the entire medieval period.”⁹⁰⁸ Did Byzantine houses have a courtyard? In his article on houses in medieval Greece, Sigalos argues that the typical middle Byzantine housing had two forms.⁹⁰⁹ One form had a courtyard organization, with an enclosed court surrounded by a series of rooms or a high wall, secluding it from the outside world and resembling an ancient domus with an atrium. The other type consisted of a linear arrangement of the rooms or a single-space structure, with an open yard or no yard at all.⁹¹⁰ These structures were more characteristic of an urban settlement. Sigalos summarizes the argument of Angeliki Laiou about the importance of a yard within a Byzantine house: “Presence or absence of the yard and the degree of protection it provides to the family may indicate the social and symbolic role that is attributed to the organization of the domestic structure.”⁹¹¹ Ellis confirms the existence of courtyards in the Byzantine houses of Corinth in the ninthtenth century.⁹¹² To what would the courtyard in Novaković relate? This Byzantine (rather than authentically Slavic) house feature still appears in the Slavonic text rather than the Greek. It could be a remnant of a Greek text from which Novaković was translated. It is also possible that a scribe had an idea of what the house of Jesus’ parents should look like (with a courtyard). It implies a particular knowledge of the cultural context, even if it is not related to the specific cultural setting in which it appears. This detail reveals that during the transmission from earlier to later textual forms, the details in this text, such as housing, were easily modified according to their copyists, translators, and rewriters’ wishes, knowledge, and experience. It enables us to get at least a glimpse of their attitudes and views on this matter. The episode Zeno (9.1) gives another example related to housing. It describes children playing in a house (sometimes on top of it) together with Jesus. Manuscript Cambridge uses the words domus/posticus, which present a backdoor,

 Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500 – 1250 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 424.  Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” 199.  Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” 199.  Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” 200; see also Angeliki Laiou, Peasant Society in the Later Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).  Ellis, “The Middle Byzantine House and Family,” 247– 272.

218

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

backhouse.⁹¹³ It describes the housing with the back porch, which resembles ancient housing. In the same episode Zeno (32) of the Lm, Dijon uses solarium, which indicates a premise with ample light. Did medieval housing in Western Europe look like ancient Roman housing? It is unlikely. Some scholars have argued that the traditional Roman lifestyle started to decay from the sixth century, together with rich and decorative housing.⁹¹⁴ The seventh century was particularly characterized by poor housing; this is known, for example, from Gaul, southern France, Sicily, and Carthage. Chris Wickham suggests that a cultural change led to the abandonment of villas by the end of the sixth century.⁹¹⁵ It means that the descriptions in Cambridge probably refer to the image of ancient housing. In the same episode, Sabaiticus describes a roof of an upstairs room (δώματι ὑπερῲῳ) where the children played.⁹¹⁶ The phrase recurs later in Sabaiticus and Vienna hist. 91.⁹¹⁷ Vienna hist. 91 mentions another phrase for the upper room (διστέγου κάτω),⁹¹⁸ and Athens 355 mentions the third word for the upper floor (ἀνώγαιον).⁹¹⁹ Davis connects the upstairs room with an architectural layout of Greco-Roman schools that can be seen in Potitius’ place in Pompei.⁹²⁰ What is the upper room that appears in the Byzantine manuscripts? In his article about houses in Byzantium, Charalambos Bouras argues that the villa of the late Roman and early Byzantine periods was replaced in the Middle Ages by buildings usually of two storeys, where the living space was confined to the upper storey.⁹²¹ Bouras discusses the middle Byzantine house in Corinth, which had an upper floor, retained nearly all its walls, formerly parts of earlier buildings, and an intervening triple arcade, a tribelon, that invested a large liv The thirteenth-fourteenth-century manuscripts Paris 3014 and Berne 271 use the words domus/porticus (Paris 3014) and domus/postum (Berne 271). These differences may imply that the different preferences of scribes, copyists, and translators of this text played the role in reformulation in the different manuscripts. Posticus and porticus differ in their position in the house; porticus is a porch, a walk covered by a roof supported by columns, a colonnade, usually at the entrance of a house. Posticus is usually located behind or at the end of the main structure. However, it could be that scribes or rewriters confused one letter for the other in words porticus and posticus, or this difference could be intentional.  Ellis, “The Middle Byzantine House and Family,” 247– 272.  Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages, 475.  Sabaiticus, fol. 69v: πάλιν δὲ μετὰ ἡμέρας πολλὰς ἔπαιζεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ καὶ ἑτὲρων παιδίων ἔν τινι δώματι ὑπερῲῳ.  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202r: δοματίῳ ἐν ὑπερό[ῳ].  Vienna hist. 91, fol. 202r: διστέγου κάτω.  Athens 355, fol. 65r: ἀπέμεινε δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μόνος εἰς τὸ ἀνώγαιον.  Davis, Christ Child, 103.  Charalambos Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” Deltion 11 (1982– 1983): 1– 26, 5.

Housing

219

ing-room with a certain grandeur. A twelfth-century house has an arch springing from columns that supported the upper storey wall in the same town. Houses often contained a courtyard with a well and baking oven, surrounded by small rooms. Sigalos confirms that the houses in medieval Greece were either one-storey or two-storey constructions.⁹²² Another site, in Elis, Peloponnesus, reveals a house that “consisted of three small rooms and a lean-to that must have been of wooden construction,” presenting the single-storied timber-roofed house.⁹²³ A house in Samos, a two-storied rectangular building from the ninth–tenth century, was thought to have been owned by a prominent person.⁹²⁴ The houses in Mistra have a ground floor and one, or only rarely two, upper floors.⁹²⁵ “The upper floor, invariably covered with a timber-framed roof, comprises one large room for daytime use, the triclinium. This room was probably subdivided into smaller rooms by thin walls of reeds daubed with plaster.”⁹²⁶ The houses in Mistra come from the last centuries of Byzantium. In conclusion, Bouras estimates that the commonest type of house comprised a series of rooms arranged around a small courtyard, without a peristyle but perhaps with an open-fronted roofed space; at least part of the house was of two storeys. Living rooms were normally on the upper floor, many of the ground-level spaces being storerooms used for agricultural produce and equipped with earthenware and constructed storage vessels. Stairways seem to have been internal and built of timber.⁹²⁷

Earlier scholarship indicates that the upper floor was a common feature of medieval Byzantine houses. The upper room seems to have been related to the shared living space, such as living rooms. It means that its depiction as a place where children played in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not surprising. Unlike in Byzantium, the houses in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other places in Italy have no evidence of upper floors, although it has been shown that these existed in antiquity.⁹²⁸ The same episode in the Slavonic manuscripts describes similar but not equally detailed structures. In Novaković, it is a high building, a high palace,

      

Sigalos, “Housing People in Medieval Greece,” 213. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” 13. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” 13 – 14. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” 17. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” 17. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” 22. Harlow and Laurence, Growing up and growing old, 25.

220

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

and covered premises, while in Hludov, it is a high building, a rooftop.⁹²⁹ In any case, we have learned from Curta that typically Slavonic sunken-floored huts did not have upper floors. The idea of a house with an upper floor was probably transferred from Byzantine tradition. In the Irish version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus played with boys not on the roof but on a cliff: One of the boys fell over a cliff. He died forthwith. ⁹³⁰ Cliffs are undoubtedly characteristic of the Irish landscape. This part of the text doubtless allowed for changes in the different manuscripts, thereby opening a window onto the ideas about the different communities’ housing and everyday life details. There are a few other episodes of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in single manuscripts that mention housing. Dijon contains the episode James’ snakebite (41), which describes the house of Joseph and Mary as a household with a vegetable garden attached to it.⁹³¹ James goes into the garden to gather vegetables to make broth. The word broth (pulmentum) certainly indicates that everyday life details entered this text, as this meal was known in medieval times in the different areas of medieval Europe.⁹³² Further, it seems that both Greek and ancient Roman houses had gardens. Hortus or ortus is attested in Pompei as an orna-

 Novaković, 51: По дьнехь же инѣхь вьзигра Ісоусь на здани высоцѣ, и ѥдинь оть дѣтеи еврѣискыхь вьзигра сь Ісоусомь на полатѣ высоцѣ и спаде оть закрылиѩ; Hludov, fol. 203r: И потомь играаше ѡтро[че] ї[соу]с на единомь здани висоце. И едино ѡт отрочеть с нимь играаше. Испаде се ѡ[т] двое кровника.  McNamara et al, Apocrypha Hiberniae I, 443 – 483.  Dijon, fol. 19r: Post h[aec] abieru[n]t de carpharnaum maria et ioseph in civitate[m] q[uae] vocat[ur] bethlehem. Et erunt i[n] domo sua. et Ih[esu]s cu[m] ill[is]. Et die q[ua]dam vocavit ad se ioseph. Filiu[m] suu[m] p[ri]mogenitu[m] jacobu[m] et misit eu[m] in ortu[m] ut collig[er]et olera ad pulm[en]tariu[m] faciendu[m]. et s[u]bseq[ui]t[us] e[st] Ih[esu]s jacobu[m] fr[atr]em suu[m] i[n] ortu[m]. et hoc ioseph et maria nescieru[n]t. et du[m] collig[er]et jacob[us] olera: s[u]bito exivit de foramine vip[er]a et p[er]cussit dext[er]am manu[m] jacobi.  Simon Varey reports that in medieval and Renaissance Italy, pulmentum could mean almost anything eaten with bread – in other words, relish. In the eighth-century Metz, pulmentum meant two things: either the portion of meat or cheese, to which fish or vegetables could be added sometimes. In late medieval England, pulmentum was a dish made of cereals, vegetables, or pulses. In medieval Poland, pulmentum was made of ground millet, resembling modern polenta. See Simon Varey, “Medieval and Renaissance Italy A. The Peninsula,” in Regional Cuisines of Medieval Europe: A Book of Essays, ed. Melitta Weiss Adamson (New York: Routledge, 2002): 85 – 112, 89; Massimo Montanari, Medieval Tastes: Food, Cooking, and the Table (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), 34; Christopher Michael Woolgar, The Senses in Late Medieval England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 191; Maria Dembinska, Food and Drink in Medieval Poland: Rediscovering a Cuisine of the Past (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 106.

Housing

221

mented area where people grew fruits and vegetables. It seems that such a tradition was maintained in Byzantium and Western Europe (where the text was used).⁹³³ Finally, Novaković contains the episode Children Made Swine (012), in which Jesus turns children into swine. This episode exists only in this Slavonic text and the Arabic translation. The Arabic version has a more complicated storyline: Jesus turns children not only into pigs but monkeys and wolves too.⁹³⁴ In the opening of the episode in Novaković, children hide themselves in a hut (хыжи, cottage). This word reflects Slavonic housing with unique features, a wooden house on a mountain, possibly also serving as a barn. Interestingly, the word has an additional meaning in the Slavic context. The followers of the medieval Bosnian Church called their local gathering places (monasteries) hiže (хыжи).⁹³⁵ Theologically, the Bosnian Church has been connected by scholars to various dualist heresies, such as the Bogomils and the Cathars, although this has been a much-debated question.⁹³⁶ This word in Novaković may have been directed against the Bosnian Church because Jesus punished the children who hid themselves in хыжи. If we look at the manuscript in which this text was contained, the fourteenth-century Codex 637 from Belgrade, which may have been copied in medieval Serbia, during the reign of Tzar Dušan, who was a prominent champion of orthodoxy and who rigorously persecuted heretics, the links are not challenging to make.⁹³⁷

 Tom Turner, Garden History: Philosophy and Design 2000 BC–2000 AD (New York: Spon Press, 2005), 106; Anthony Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 1300 – 1500 III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).  See Noja, “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas,” 681– 690.  Ante Škegro, “Bilino Polje primjer jedne historiografske kontroverze” (Bilino Polje: An Example of A Historical Controversy), in Fenomen “Krstjani” u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni i Humu, ed. Ante Škegro (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2005): 351– 370; Ismet Bušatlić, “Semiotika Bogumilstva i semiotika Islama” (Semiotics of Bogomilism and Semiotics of Islam), Znakovi vremena – Časopis za filozofiju, religiju, znanost i društvenu praksu 26 – 27 (2005): 176 – 189; Ivana Jurčević, “Srednjovjekovni odnosi crkve prema plemstvu u Bosni, poseban osvrt na obitelj Pavlović,” (Medieval Church-Nobility Relations in Bosnia, Special Reference to the Family Pavlović) Hum 11, No. 15 (2016): 106 – 130.  See Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002); Noel Malkolm, Bosnia: A Short History (New York: New York University Press, 1994); John V. A. Fine, “The Medieval and Ottoman Roots of Modern Bosnian Society,” in The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina: Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, ed. Mark Pinson (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994): 1– 21.  See Janet Hamilton, Bernard Hamilton, and Yuri Stoyanov, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, c. 650–c. 1450 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 53.

222

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

While this example reveals a detail mainly related to the Slavic world, the other Slavic terms related to housing were usually transferred from the Greek texts. The Byzantine manuscripts utilize terms related to their Byzantine housing at the time. On the other hand, the housing in Cambridge as a representative of the Lt variant appears to be depicted as a typical Greco-Roman ancient dwelling. Earlier, we have seen that the examples related to education were also drawn from the Greco-Roman world in Cambridge. This transfer of knowledge was facilitated by introducing the Lt variant in Western Europe, the variant previously translated from a Greek version and inserted into Latin manuscripts. We may assume that rewriters of the Greek version in the case had some knowledge of Greco-Roman ancient dwelling (to some extent, resembling their own, Byzantine dwelling). The examples from the Greco-Roman world seem to have been incorporated into the descriptions of the subjects that were not of primary theological concern in this text but were more general, such as education and housing; in this way, they did not disturb the text’s theology.

Healing and sorcery In addition to several other healing episodes commonly present in the rest of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Slavonic manuscripts all contain the episode Blind Man (013), which describes Jesus’ experience in the sorcery school. This episode does not appear elsewhere in the corpus analyzed here. In manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg, the Blind Man (013.1) opens with the explanation of why Joseph sent Jesus to such “teachers.” Joseph realized that the teachers could not teach Jesus anything, and he decided to send him to the sorcerers instead.⁹³⁸ These sentences may reflect the attitudes of the society about what would be helpful for children to study. Alternatively, rewriters and translators may have needed to add this explanation to make the narrative flow smooth and logical. In episode 013.1 of Novaković, the introduction reveals how “teaching” was conducted: The sorcerer started teaching him (Jesus) and showed him sorcery herbs. ⁹³⁹ A man who was blind in one eye comes to the sorcerer. The description

 Hludov, fol. 204r-v: Ѩко видѣ їѡсїфь ѡ[т] ни единого оучителѩ не наоучи се нь па оучителѥ оучаше и потомь прѣда его врачеви; St Petersburg, fol. 181r: Прѣдаваеть его їѡсїфа ини единомоу ненавыченѧ ѡнь паче оучаше. И посе[м] врачеви его прѣдаде.  Novaković, 53: Врачь же начеть оучити ѥго, и показа ѥмоу былиѩ врачебнаѩ.

Healing and sorcery

223

of the disease and its treatment could be a window to the ideas about illness and the ways medicine was practiced in medieval Bulgaria. Manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg stated that ointments healed this disease. From the ninth to the fifteenth centuries in medieval Bulgaria, medicine was characterized by the low availability of medical services and widespread disappointment in learned physicians.⁹⁴⁰ As a consequence, people sought alternative healing practices, such as treatment by self-proclaimed healers. Amudzhieva and Tsvetkov argue that “the healing practices of mediums, medicine-men, and magicians, as opposed to officially sanctioned medicine, are a common theme in Old Bulgarian literature.”⁹⁴¹ Many medieval Bulgarian manuscripts advise on healing.⁹⁴² Svetlana Tsonkova argues that “these books reflect both the lack of normative religious sanctions and the attempts of the local Christian priests to cope with the daily life needs and problems of their congregation.”⁹⁴³ All these manuscripts come from monastic contexts. The famous Bogomil book “Zeleinik,” dated to the tenth-eleventh century, “contains a medicinal collection of numerous recipes predominantly to treat diseases of the eye and the skin, nose-bleeding, poisoning, and inflamed wounds. It widely prescribes the use of bee honey, various medicinal plants, and animal products.”⁹⁴⁴ The medieval Bulgarian books of prescriptions – Lekovnitsi – contained, among other things, names of ailments, herbs, and foods that served as a cure.⁹⁴⁵ In light of this information, the description of the disease and its treatment in the Slavonic Infancy Gospel of Thomas could be understood to depict a medical situation common in the everyday life of medieval Slavs. The detail related to the healing of eyes with herbal ointment may contribute to the history of medicine in medieval Bulgaria. Regarding the present book, it may add to our knowledge of everyday life in the past.

 Nadezhda Amudzhieva, and Pavel Tsvetkov, “The Cult of Saints-healers – an Alternative and Opposition to the Official Medicine in Medieval Bulgaria,” JAHR: Europski časopis za bioetiku 4, No. 1 (2013): 357– 366.  Amudzhieva and Tsvetkov, “The Cult of Saints-healers,” 362.  See Svetlana Tsonkova, “Practical Texts in Difficult Situations: Bulgarian Medieval Charms as Apocrypha and Fachliteratur,” Incantatio 1 (2011): 25 – 35.  Tsonkova, “Bulgarian Medieval Charms,” 32.  Jeny Antonova, “Pharmacy in Medieval Bulgaria,” Die Pharmazie – An International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 62, No. 6 (2007): 467– 469.  Amudzhieva and Tsvetkov, “The Cult of Saints-healers,” 363.

224

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Theology, non-contested matters, and the humanization of the child Jesus In this chapter, I have searched for words and phrases that refer to children, family, and everyday life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in various manuscripts. I categorized the examples in subsections according to what they appear to describe. As a text about Jesus’ childhood, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas devotes some space to describing Jesus’ family: his father Joseph, his mother Mary, and even his brother James. The question of Jesus’ family was one of the contested issues in early Christianity. Extensive debates and even councils were organized to answer the issues related to Jesus’ mother, while the existence of his brothers and sisters was the subject of some apologetic writings. On the other hand, his father Joseph got little attention throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. Some of these debates are visible in the different texts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In most versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Mary played a minor role, while the father, Joseph, was the more dominant parent. Some manuscripts, such as Paris 1772 and Dijon, depict Mary and Joseph together in several scenes, where otherwise Joseph appears alone. In Dijon, and to a lesser degree in Paris 1772 (because it is unfinished), Jesus’ family is commonly present in his activities, and it is precisely defined: his mother and father usually appear together, while his half-brother James, according to these manuscripts a son from Joseph’s previous marriage, also appears in the text. We additionally learn about all of Joseph’s children from the previous marriage. In Dijon, the family provides safety and understanding: Jesus’ parents take attentive care of him. They are perfectly aware of his divine nature. Compared to Dijon, which contains the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in all the other manuscripts analyzed here – Cambridge (Lt), Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts – the family’s place becomes blurred. The mother no longer appears so much, and it is no longer clear how James relates to Jesus. Moreover, Jesus’ relationship with his father worsens. Joseph no longer understands Jesus; he also becomes “the other,” like the other characters who do not understand Jesus’ divinity. Joseph even physically punishes Jesus. In Cambridge (Lt), Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts, Jesus is “more human” and more of an average child. It happens because “the others,” including the father Joseph, do not understand Jesus’ divine nature and often treat him as a child. I link this notion of the “humanization of Jesus” in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the broader set of ideas that appeared after Iconoclasm in Byzantium and were consequently transferred to the West in the high Middle Ages. These ideas emphasize Jesus’ humanity in connection with the increased vener-

Theology, non-contested matters, and the humanization of the child Jesus

225

ation of Mary. The Cistercians were the main propagators of the interest in Jesus’ humanity and Mary’s veneration. Concurrently, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that we find in the West belongs to manuscripts often produced and used in Cistercian monasteries. In this process, Joseph became “the other,” who misunderstood his son. However, the clash between the father and the son also amplifies Jesus’ human and child-like side. Eastman argues that there is much in Thomas’ Infancy Gospel that points to a very human Jesus.⁹⁴⁶ I agree that the opening up of Jesus’ human side indeed occurs in some manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus appears as a child with many typical children’s features. They are reflected in how Joseph treats his son, punishes him, and works with him, for example, in the field. For this reason, Jesus performs physical work with his father in these manuscripts. In the attempts to make Jesus more child-like, his encounters with other children, particularly those that put him “in a bad light,” were also reduced or muted. His mother, Mary, remains, as always, only positive towards Jesus. In manuscripts Paris 1772 and particularly Dijon, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas develops distinguishing anti-Jewish sentiments. Jesus grows up in a Jewish community and studies with Jewish teachers, and his family feels constant pressure. The Jewish community may be either imagined or constructed by the authors and mediators of this text, who may have had in mind the community in which Jesus grew up. The text also describes communally organized schooling where the community obliges parents to send their children to school. The elders of the people of Israel were in charge of schooling, which was mandatory for all children. In manuscript Dijon (and possibly the Lm variant in general), the authors or mediators of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas portrayed a repressive Jewish milieu. The Jewish community fades in the rest of the manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Jews are mentioned only sporadically as a group of people. In some manuscripts, such as Sabaiticus, Jews are almost absent. This eleventh-century manuscript from Cyprus may have avoided Jews in the text because its authors and mediators wished to stay away from sensitive Jewish issues. If we look at the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this manuscript as the sole witness of the Gs text, we may relate its unique features to the particular historical moment and place (Cyprus, eleventh century). Nevertheless, even if the sole survivor of this text type, this manuscript may have once been part of a larger group. If this is the case, we must see this feature (absence of Jews) as a transmission component

 Eastman, “Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” 195.

226

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

in a larger area. I have already noted that Burke assumes another Gs witness in manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Philos. gr. 162.⁹⁴⁷ Some Bulgarian scholars argued for the anti-Jewishness of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Slavonic context; such a view may be reconsidered because these Slavonic texts bear no evidence of any particular and excessive anti-Jewishness.⁹⁴⁸ They only faithfully transmit the contents from the other versions. Some scholars also argued that these Slavonic manuscripts served as Bogomil readings since they were, in their view, particularly anti-Jewish.⁹⁴⁹ In my view, the Slavonic Novaković may have been directed against the followers of the Bosnian Church, who were a heretical dualist group in the Balkans, sometimes linked to Bogomils. The word hiže appearing in this text may have pinpointed this, as hiže were the gathering places (monasteries) of the adherents of the medieval Bosnian church. In this text, Jesus curses children who hide in hiže. Apart from the examples above, which reflect different theological views about Jesus, his family, and their everyday life, some other details in these manuscripts give evidence of a transfer of cultural capital to the different milieus of the medieval world. Some standard cultural features recur in the different forms of this text. These features have been transferred from the earlier textual forms to the later ones, usually in an unchanged form, by which they were at least acknowledged if not adopted and culturally understood in the same way by people of different realms regardless of period and geographical region. By seeing them being reiterated, we learn that the readers and listeners of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the different medieval cultural realms had information about them even if we do not know whether they practiced these things in such ways. Among these features in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, we see that both parents and teachers punished children by pulling their ears and hitting them on the head. Restriction of movement is also imposed on children. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas confirms our knowledge about children doing physical work in the past. The different Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts document that children were sent by parents to carry out small tasks at the age of six to eight and were involved in work together with their parents from the age of six to ten. Children went alone to do work above the age of eight to ten, even if not sent by parents. Some manuscripts describe details related to everyday life, not of their environment, but some other cultural realm. Here, different translators and rewriters

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 129 – 130.  Krstev, “Мястото на детство Исусово.”  E. g., Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди.

Theology, non-contested matters, and the humanization of the child Jesus

227

imagined or constructed different environments of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. For example, housing described in the manuscript Cambridge reflects ancient and late antique housing, preferably of the Roman type. The housing has a back porch, which resembles ancient housing. The examples in Cambridge related to education also arise from the Greco-Roman world, describing private tutoring, how schools looked, and the syllabus studied in school. Translators here played a distinct role in transferring the Greco-Roman environment to the text as in manuscript Cambridge. I have already argued that the Lt text was translated from Greek and inserted in the Latin manuscripts. The knowledge transfer was made possible because its rewriters had some knowledge of Greco-Roman housing and education, which continued in the Byzantine context as well. It could be a plausible explanation of why the Lt manuscript Cambridge focuses mainly on the Greco-Roman examples in its depiction of housing and education, especially given that such houses had vanished long ago in its western medieval reality.⁹⁵⁰ Although the differences between Lm and Lt texts are significant, in the West, these two variants were used interchangeably for several centuries, in very similar contexts, and surrounded by the similar texts of the Pseudo-Matthew. The manuscript context of the Lt variant in Cambridge points to the continued practice to copy Marian and anti-Jewish writings next to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; simultaneously, the text itself glorified a more human and child-like image of Jesus. These two Western trends of the high Middle Ages – copying Marian and anti-Jewish writings and glorifying Jesus’ human side – have merged in the manuscripts containing the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; they were not necessarily part of a well-coordinated strategy. Where (if anywhere) do we see real children, family, and everyday life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? The windows onto the ideas and perceptions of everyday life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are only small side windows. It is probably as far as we can get to the medieval child when examining sources of this kind. When treating subjects that were not so contested, translators and rewriters inserted their perceptions and attitudes into real-life details. We see these in the way peers encounter each other in the street, in what children’s classrooms looked like, in healing methods, and possibly in a few other details. Many of the depictions of education and housing in the Byzantine manuscripts refer to contemporary Byzantine realities.

 We find similar descriptions in the thirteenth-fourteenth-century manuscripts Paris 3014 and Berne 271. It is also interesting to note here that both in Cambridge and Paris 3014, the son of Annas destroys Jesus’ pools not with a willow branch but with an olive branch – the tree typical of the Mediterranean.

228

Chapter 4 Childhood, Family and Everyday Life in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

In the Slavonic manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas reflects a growing need of the Bulgarian medieval society to spread the healing practices. In manuscript St Petersburg, the teacher emphasizes the “crafty” aspect of education, and Novaković suggests that children should be taught sorcery books. Among the details about healing revealed in the manuscripts, we read that eyes were healed with sorcerer’s herbs and ointments. These details concur with what we find in other contemporary sources from the Slavic realm and the secondary literature. Also, in St Petersburg, it is emphasized that schooling was conducted in a monastic setting (a monastic cell). We know that this manuscript was held at the medieval Bulgarian court. This detail most probably mirrors the fact that most typical schools in fourteenth-century Bulgaria were in monasteries. The subject of peer violence allowed various translators and reworkers of this text to insert differing descriptions according to their preferences, knowledge, and experience. Further research and attestation of these practices in other contemporary written sources and archeology are needed to connect what this text revealed with real-life practices in this particular realm. To my knowledge, such research has not been conducted thus far. Considering peer violence in the Slavonic manuscripts, we read that children jumped on each other’s shoulders during their encounters and everyday interactions. This scene is described slightly differently in the Slavonic manuscripts compared to the rest of the corpus, which may suggest that such behavior was particularly familiar to the Bulgarian scribes. This scene describes Jesus being torn in the shoulder in the other manuscripts, being hit from behind, being hit in the chest, having a stone thrown at him, and being annoyed. Finally, the Slavonic manuscript Hludov, copied in a Serbian medieval monastic setting, describes the father punishing the child Jesus by pulling his hair so hard that his hair tears. This is another detail that needs further attestation in other sources to understand whether this very harsh treatment in Hludov may reflect common everyday ways of punishing children in this particular realm. After summarizing my observations in the present chapter, I will now proceed to my concluding remarks.

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West Ancient texts can be studied in numerous ways. I have proposed to study the anonymous second-century apocryphal narrative about the childhood of Jesus through an array of methodological tools and interpret it by a set of theoretical approaches. The overarching framework of this work is New Philology, where texts are studied in the context and form they were utilized within specific communities. A framework of this kind has proved particularly useful in studying anonymous texts, where the origin and the original text are unknown and disregarded; the focus is on the text’s differences in different environments. I inquired into manuscripts, texts, and environments of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Besides New Philology, I built on the research of medieval “miscellany” manuscripts, which relies on the premise that the presence of some texts may alter the meaning of other texts in manuscripts. Consequently, the genre of an individual text in a manuscript depends on the other texts too. I used narratology to study the structure and the textual transformations of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the manuscripts. Finally, I attempted to discern whether authors, scribes and copyists, translators, rewriters, or the audiences influenced the transformations of the particular words and phrases in the text that refer to children, family, and everyday life. It is well known that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is attested in manuscripts originating from medieval England to Syria and Jerusalem and from medieval Georgia to the Balkan lands. In depicting the manuscript landscape of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I have not attempted to conduct the entire survey because many parts of the puzzle are missing; such an endeavor would be impossible. Instead, I aimed to point to at least some of its features based on the material we have at hand. This puzzle can certainly be filled in with more information in future research. Until the late Middle Ages, the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas were exclusively copied and used in monastic settings. The audience of this text, its availability, and its influence are mostly related to medieval monasteries. This feature, however, involves variety: the manuscripts may have served as private devotional readings in monasteries, daily communal readings at meals, and tools in either individual or organized monastic education. We know that the thirteenth-century manuscript Dijon was used in Cistercian monastic education. Also, the fifteenth-century manuscript Vienna hist. 91 may have been employed in Byzantine education in a secular context. In the Slavonic https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-006

230

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

context, the manuscripts with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been used at the Bulgarian royal court and monastic liturgy. Most of the manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are “primary miscellanies,” which means that this text was planned as part of their contents along with other texts. In several cases, however, this text was part of “secondary miscellanies,” which usually consist of several libelli bound together at a later date. The erasure of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, its physical damage, and notes warning about its apocryphal character are attested in only a few examples. It shows that the inclusion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was, for the most part, a deliberate choice of scribes who copied it in the manuscripts. In the Byzantine manuscripts, which appear from the eleventh century onwards, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was placed together in the manuscripts with other texts that were regarded as prominent for faith and religious instruction, usually with a distinct title, but not always. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas had its place among other texts written by renowned authors in the Byzantine, Slavonic, and Georgian manuscripts. Nevertheless, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas cannot be found in an extensive number of Byzantine manuscripts; it is found in an even smaller number of Slavonic medieval manuscripts and only one Georgian manuscript. Although fewer manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of Thomas have been preserved in these languages than in the medieval Latin manuscripts, this may tell us something about the text’s popularity. The manuscript evidence shows that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not an excessively popular and widely copied text in Byzantium. Moreover, the evidence from Byzantium shows that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas did not corroborate Mary’s widespread saintly cult. In the West, however, the situation was very different. Scribes were possibly wary of this text. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Latin manuscripts was usually copied in combination with other apocryphal texts, either constituting or being attached to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas often appears as part of the Pseudo-Matthew without any title and as continuous text. It may mean that either it was not perceived as a separate text, or it was necessary to keep it “hidden” within the contents of the Pseudo-Matthew. Moreover, the Pseudo-Matthew, which otherwise consists of various texts about Mary, her childhood, and sometimes her parents, has introductory letters allegedly written by Jerome to justify this group of texts in the manuscripts and give it proper credentials. A guarantee is also provided for the Pseudo-Matthew by ascribing it to another prominent author, the apostle Matthew. It was precisely the kind of justification that this group of texts, including the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, needed to obtain vast popularity in the medieval West. The Pseudo-Matthew is preserved in over 200 manuscripts. The destiny of the Infancy Gospel of Tho-

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

231

mas in it was similar; it is preserved in approximately 80 manuscripts only in the Lm variant. In the medieval West, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been considered apocryphal, “hidden,” almost transgressive literature, but with the appropriate credentials, it became immensely available, read, and popular. Moreover, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas widely influenced the popular piety and visual representations of Jesus in the late Middle Ages in the West.⁹⁵¹ Based on the manuscript contents, I will now summarize my conclusions about the transmission history in the various languages. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was first attested in the fifth- to seventh-century Latin palimpsest, where its several episodes were copied and combined with two other texts which had Jesus as their subject. In the two sixth-century Syriac manuscripts, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was copied together with other texts about Mary. The contexts in which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was placed changed significantly from Late Antiquity to the eleventh century. In the eleventh-century Latin tradition, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is copied along with texts about Mary, resembling the late antique Syriac tradition more than its own late antique Latin tradition. By the eleventh century in the Latin West, Apocrypha, initially written in Greek, were translated and further reworked, appropriated, and provided with guarantees to be copied in manuscripts and bolster the veneration of Mary. In this way, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas changed its function from the fifth to the eleventh century in the West, from glorifying Jesus to glorifying Mary. Only in the late Middle Ages, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appeared as an independent text in Latin manuscripts. The Infancy Gospel experienced a genre shift during the medieval period. Initially, the text was bound together with other Jesus-related excerpts in the Latin palimpsest, and within the “Book of Mary” in the Syriac tradition, compilations related to their subjects of Jesus and Mary. It later occurs among homiletic and hagiographical texts in Byzantium, Georgia, and the Slavic lands. In the West in the high Middle Ages, it mainly appeared with other texts about Mary, resembling the late antique Syriac tradition. By the late Middle Ages in the West, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears aligned with historiographical accounts and panegyric biographies.

 See Dzon, The Quest for the Christ Child; Leah Sinanoglou, “The Christ Child as Sacrifice: A Medieval Tradition and the Corpus Christi Plays,” Speculum 48, No. 3 (1973): 491– 509; Mary Dzon, and Theresa M. Kenney, eds., The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha es et O! (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012); Ragusa, “Il manoscritto ambrosiano L. 58,” 5 – 19; Reed, “The Afterlives,” 422; David R. Cartlidge, and J. Keith Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha (London: Routledge, 2001), xv; Smith, Art, Identity, and Devotion, 269 – 277.

232

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

My textual analysis of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Latin, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts has shown clear links between the Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts and the Latin manuscript Cambridge, which contains the Lt variant. The Lm variant of the Latin text in the manuscripts Dijon and Paris 1772 contains many differences. Much like the surrounding texts that have Mary as their subject, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in Dijon places emphasis on Jews as the audience, the harm that “the others” do to Jesus, the trust and understanding within Jesus’ family, his parents’ acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity, and the mention of other family members, including Joseph’s children from the previous marriage and Mary’s sister. The rest of the analyzed manuscripts insert a varying number of Jesus’ miracle episodes in the text that are not present in manuscripts Paris 1772 and Dijon. Cambridge, Byzantine, and Slavonic manuscripts, however, all have their specificities. Manuscript Cambridge tones down Jesus’ behavior “in a bad light” and the harm he does to “the others.” It focuses on the emotions of “the others” and increases the misunderstanding between Joseph and Jesus. These features are generally attested in the Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts, which also have additional special features. In Sabaiticus, the anger of “the others” towards Jesus is diminished, as are Jesus’ cursing and anger. The scenes of emotional tension, fear, and pain, the references to Jews and Jesus’ healing miracles (in episodes Dead Baby and Dead Laborer) are almost absent from this text. The whole sentences of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are replaced by other sentences. Vienna hist. 91 is among the manuscripts with the nineteen-episode form, including some new miracle episodes. The text in Vienna hist. 91 extends the narrative by introducing more detailed descriptions and features that aid the understanding of the narrative. The Byzantine manuscript Athens 355 focuses on the characters’ emotional reactions and gives more detailed descriptions of medical conditions. The Slavonic manuscripts generally emphasize healing and other miracle episodes. They contain some miracle episodes that are not present in the rest of the analyzed corpus but are attested, for example, in the Arabic tradition. The Byzantine Sabaiticus and Slavonic manuscript Hludov have some features in common with Dijon (Lm). A significant break occurs in the Latin tradition, where the differences between the manuscripts containing the two variants, Lm and Lt, seem to be the biggest. The Lt variant appears in the West from the twelfth century. When we look into the manuscripts, such as Cambridge, we see that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is part of a larger narrative, appearing without a title and following the chronology of Mary’s life. In this example, the context of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has not changed with the textual revisions. The Infancy Gospel of Tho-

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

233

mas in both Lt and Lm variants usually appears in the manuscripts within a broader sequence of narratives, which have Mary as their subject, and sometimes expand to Mary and Jesus. This feature did not change with the emergence of the Lt variant. The Lt variant was translated from Greek and later inserted in the manuscripts, continuing to serve the old purposes, although with a significantly revised text. The last section of my book has pointed out that during the transmission, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas served both to transfer old and introduce new theological, cultural, and social ideas into various environments. This text had a voice in the larger transfers of ideas and mentalities that shaped medieval minds in the East and the West. With the translation of the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from Greek, important ideas about Jesus as “more human” and “more of a normal child” were transferred from Byzantium to the West. These ideas emerged initially in Byzantium after the Iconoclastic crisis. They were developed in the West from the end of the eleventh century when the Cistercians and other monastic orders embraced the new mode of piety that cherished Jesus’ humanity with an increased veneration of Mary. At the same time in the West, the Lm variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas continued its life in the manuscripts in the same context of the Pseudo-Matthew with other Marian Apocrypha. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas of Dijon, containing the Lm variant, highlights the importance of the family, even the extended family and Jesus’ brothers and sisters from Joseph’ previous marriage, the equality of Jesus’ parents, the parents’ acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity, and transparent anti-Jewish sentiments. These features – especially the increased presence of Mary and the anti-Jewish sentiments – make it more understandable that this variant should have been incorporated into the Pseudo-Matthew when we bear in mind that the surrounding texts likewise had Mary as a subject and Mary had strong links with anti-Jewish sentiments in the West. The incorporation of the Lt variant in the Pseudo-Matthew, where Mary almost disappears, Joseph becomes less aware of Jesus’ divinity, Jesus becomes more human and a child, and Jews are left with only a marginal role, would not have made much sense, had it not been introduced from Byzantium and then only pasted into the context of the Pseudo-Matthew. In the manuscript Cambridge, some anti-Jewish treatises are aligned with the Lt variant of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which, in comparison to Lm, had significantly reduced anti-Jewish sentiments. Why would the Jewish presence be toned down in the Byzantine manuscripts (particularly Sabaiticus), Cambridge (Lt), and the Slavonic manuscripts? This remains a subject for future research. In Chapter 4, I have marked in a footnote that Jews were ascribed a role in the iconoclastic crisis by encouraging some Byzantine emperors to adopt Iconoclasm. Consequently, those who opposed im-

234

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

ages in Byzantium were often called “Judaizers.”⁹⁵² The avoidance of Jews in the text may have indicated a need to stay away from these sensitive issues. The Jewish presence diminished in the Byzantine manuscripts, particularly in some, such as Sabaiticus. Further, Joseph is more marginalized by not understanding Jesus’ divine nature and punishing the child Jesus more severely. Jesus also moderates his language of cursing while Mary almost disappears. The presentation of Jesus as a more exemplary character may be explained by the contexts in which the text was used by being aligned in the manuscripts with other prominent homiletic and hagiographical texts. The Jews were almost absent, but the same could be said for Mary. This text was not brought into connection with the Marian Apocrypha in Byzantium. In the Byzantine tradition, Mary’s cult developed extensively and through various media, but the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not one of them. The Jewish presence is noticeable in the Slavonic manuscripts, but it is not extensive, although some scholars argue that this text served anti-Jewish propaganda in medieval Bulgaria. In my view, the focus of these manuscripts was different. St Petersburg was a helpful reader for both members of the royal family and the elites, containing a diversity of materials and constituting a “body and soul” program. The texts focusing on the “soul” were the introductory Sayings of the Fathers, while the “body” section contained the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the two other prognostic books. The focus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was on the healing miracles of Jesus, thus constituting the “medical (body) section.” During the transmission, the sections of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that describe theologically important and possibly contested questions, such as his family, mother, father, brothers, and sisters, were transmitted in various ways that responded to some of these debates. In the sections that were not so theologically contested, such as Jesus’ relationship with his peers, his education, or the housing as described in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, scribes, translators, and rewriters allowed themselves more freedom either to fabricate such details or to describe them in a way they knew from real life. These are the details in the text where we can distill attitudes and ideas related to actual children, family, and everyday life. As I argued, we can observe such details in the descriptions of peer violence, children’s punishments, classrooms’ outlook, healing methods, and the descriptions of housing. Although these are only small windows onto the perceptions and attitudes towards realities of everyday life, such details provide a point of departure for further research.

 See Bonfil, Irshai, Stroumsa, Talgam, Jews in Byzantium, 786, 888.

Chapter 5 Jesus’ Childhood in East and West

235

Let me conclude. In earlier studies of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, scholars have investigated various aspects of the child Jesus, his divinity, child-like features, theology, and other text details. In my view, their conclusions largely depend on the specific textual form of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that they had in front of them. I hope that my study has contributed to providing new perspectives on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas when looking into a variety of manuscripts. If this is the case, I will consider my pursuit accomplished.

Appendix The Edition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Latin, Greek, and Church Slavonic manuscripts used in this book The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has been edited numerous times in different languages. Its long trajectory is almost continual; new editions frequently appear. After the initial discovery as an object of research in the seventeenth century and before scholars estimated it negatively in the nineteenth century, the text was edited from several manuscripts.⁹⁵³ The initial publication of a section of the Greek Infancy Gospel of Thomas (from the manuscript Vienna, Phil. gr. 162) was in Peter Lambeck’s catalog of manuscripts from Vienna in 1675.⁹⁵⁴ The editors naturally first focused on Greek manuscripts at hand. During the seventeenth and the eighteenth century, several other Greek manuscripts were edited in different publications.⁹⁵⁵ By discovering their more significant numbers, scholars gradually realized that the textual forms in these manuscripts differ. In 1853, Constantin von Tischendorf edited the Greek text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from several manuscripts.⁹⁵⁶ His edition became prominent among the publications of the Christian Apocrypha.⁹⁵⁷ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the second edition of the Evangelia apocrypha became the standard edition, used even into the twenty-first century.⁹⁵⁸ Tischendorf used some manuscripts belonging to the Ga variant, combining it with a manuscript belonging to the Gb variant, some earlier editions, and Latin translations.⁹⁵⁹ In the same publication, he edited the Latin text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which I will discuss later. These editions reigned supreme in scholarship on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; some scholars have used them even in recent publications. Tischendorf did not use any of the manuscripts edited in this book. Of those manuscripts edited here, Armand Delatte published the Greek manuscript Ath-

      

Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 3; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 46 – 48. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 46. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 46 – 52. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 53. Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 53. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 53 – 54. Burke, De infantia Iesu, 53 – 54.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-007

Appendix

237

ens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. gr. 355 in 1927.⁹⁶⁰ It was a newly discovered manuscript containing an unfamiliar version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Gd). As this manuscript turned out to be the earliest representative of the Gd variant, it is edited and analyzed in this book. I turned to Delatte’s edition when recovering the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from the manuscript in Athens (credits to Reidar Aasgaard and the National Library in Athens for lending the CD copy). Also, among those manuscripts edited here, the eleventh-century manuscript Sabaiticus 259 was still not known to a broader audience by the mid-twentieth century. In 1967, when Aurelio de Santos Otero produced his retroversion of the Greek text, which I will explain later, he did not know of this eleventh-century manuscript.⁹⁶¹ Fortunately, it attracted broader attention in recent scholarship. Some of the manuscripts edited here, for example, Vienna, ÖNB, hist. gr. 91, belonging to the Ga variant, became known only in the second half of the twentieth century. Jacques Noret mentioned it for the first time in 1972.⁹⁶² I included this manuscript in the edition and analysis because it contains the Ga variant’s earliest complete (19-episode) form. After 2000, the most comprehensive contribution to the textual editing is by Tony Chartrand-Burke, who published an extensive volume in 2010, dedicated entirely to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with the editions of four Greek variants, Ga, Gs, Gd, and Gb.⁹⁶³ This volume stays the most exhaustive study of the Greek Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I consulted the volume to prepare the editions for this book, mainly focusing on the Ga, Gd, and Gs variants. The last variant has its (possibly sole) representative in the manuscript Sabaiticus 259. Although discovered late, the manuscript Sabaiticus 259 has gotten much attention in current scholarship. Before Burke, in 2009, Reidar Aasgaard contributed a new edition of this Greek manuscript.⁹⁶⁴ In Burke’s edition of the Gs variant, the manuscript Sabaiticus 259 is prominent, as it is the only complete manuscript of this type, besides being an early-dated witness. Burke juxtaposed several other versions for this specific edition, mainly from languages, such as Syriac, Georgian, Ethiopian, Irish, and two Latin variants Lv and Lm.⁹⁶⁵ The text of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from the same manuscript is re-edited in this book (credits to Reidar Aasgaard for borrowing the manuscript copy). It re-

 Delatte, “Évangile de l’enfance de Jacques,” 264– 271; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 5; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 81.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 93.  Noret, “Pour une édition de l’Évangile de l’enfance,” 412.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 293 – 539.  Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 219 – 242.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 297.

238

Appendix

mains one of the earliest manuscripts that preserves a version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is also, according to scholars, an important representative of the intermediary stage between the early versions and the later Greek manuscripts.⁹⁶⁶ Burke used all known Ga manuscripts for his edition of the Ga variant. Where the episodes correspond in the manuscripts, he edits them with the apparatus criticus. Where they do not match (as in episode First Teacher (6)), he prefers the readings that agree with the Gs variant, the Slavonic version, and the Gd variant.⁹⁶⁷ He approaches the text with the presupposition that some forms are more ancient than others. Burke also, among other texts, uses the manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, hist. gr. 91, edited here. In his edition of the Gd variant, Burke uses three Greek manuscripts, among which Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. gr. 355 (as a base text). He also uses several editions of the Greek and Lt texts and manuscripts of the Latin Lt variant.⁹⁶⁸ My approach in this book differs from Burke’s, as I recover three texts, the representatives of different versions, from three manuscripts. The Slavonic version was studied by a group of scholars from the end of the nineteenth century. Andrej Popov edited the manuscript Hludov as early as 1872.⁹⁶⁹ This manuscript is again edited here because it is one of the earliest dated Slavonic manuscripts that contain this text. Also, Stojan Novaković, fortunately, edited the text from manuscript Cod. 637, formerly in the National Library, Belgrade, Serbia, Collection of P. S. Srećković, before the manuscript vanished in the Second World War Bombing of Belgrade.⁹⁷⁰ The Novaković’s edition is the only textual edition we have preserved based on this manuscript’s Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Michail Speranskij later published another Slavonic edition by combining other manuscripts and editions, namely, the Hludov manuscript, Novaković’s edition, and a few sixteenth- and eighteenth-century Slavonic manuscripts from Russia and Ukraine.⁹⁷¹ Jacimirskij also published the manuscript St Petersburg in 1898.⁹⁷² The manuscripts Hludov and St Petersburg are re-edited in this book, while the Novaković edition is re-typed from the original publication.

 Burke, De infantia Iesu, 110 – 111.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 294.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 295 – 299.  Popov, Описание рукописей, 320 – 325.  Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika,” 36 – 92.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 74– 75; Speranskij, “Славянские апокрифические евангелиа,” 73 – 92; 137– 143; Speranskij, Южнорусские тексты, 186 – 190.  Jacimirskij, Из славянских рукописей, 93 – 143.

Appendix

239

In their search for the Greek original Vorlage and its connections to the Slavonic translations, scholars endeavored to produce the editions with different organizing principles. In 1967, Aurelio de Santos Otero attempted to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage behind the Slavonic version.⁹⁷³ He used the manuscript St Petersburg and compared its text with the other known sources – Greek, Latin, Georgian, Syriac, creating a retroversion in Greek to reconstruct an original version from which the Slavonic translation had been made.⁹⁷⁴ Thomas Rosén’s dissertation, published in 1997, is dedicated entirely to the Slavonic version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ⁹⁷⁵ He published the Slavonic material in two separate textual editions: one based on medieval manuscripts and the other on early modern manuscripts.⁹⁷⁶ For his medieval edition, he used the manuscript St Petersburg, relying on the results of earlier investigators. However, where this manuscript had several episodes absent, Rosén replaced the missing episodes with the corresponding text from the manuscript Hludov, known to him only through quotations by earlier scholars.⁹⁷⁷ In this book, I edit the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from Hludov and St Petersburg manuscripts because they are among the earliest manuscripts of the Slavonic tradition. Besides, I use the Novaković edition, which preserves the textual version from manuscript Cod. 637.⁹⁷⁸ Although attested in the highest number of manuscripts, the Latin tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has been generally overlooked in scholarly overviews and editions. It can be ascribed to two facts. First, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in this tradition was combined with a group of other texts in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Scholars define the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew to contain the Latin Protevangelium of James, the Prologue in Egypt, and sometimes the pars altera, which refers to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. ⁹⁷⁹ However, a glance at the manuscripts shows that the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew was quite an unstable group of texts.⁹⁸⁰ Also, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not the original segment of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, as some scholars initially believed.⁹⁸¹ Gij Santos Otero, Das kirchenslawische Evangelium.  Other scholars, such as Lunt, Schütz, Grabar, Aitzetmüller, van Esbroeck, Ménard, Gero, heavily criticized his work. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 92, n. 1, 95; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 6.  Rosén, The Slavonic Translation.  Rosén, The Slavonic Translation, 48 – 77; 78 – 97; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 109.  Rosén, The Slavonic Translation, 46; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 109.  Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika,” 36 – 92.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146; Beyers, “Introduction générale,” 13.  See Gijsel and Beyers, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146 – 147.

240

Appendix

sel demonstrated it by describing the entire body of the manuscripts containing the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Studying the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas would have to include the intricacies around the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and other texts with which the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was bound, which was one of the reasons for little interest in the text. Second, the number of manuscripts in which the Latin Infancy Gospel of Thomas appears is vast and, more importantly, very little studied thus far, which makes research arduous. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew appeared in a vast number of manuscripts known today.⁹⁸² It has not been clear how many manuscripts from this number containing the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew have a version of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. When it comes to the Latin editions: as early as 1760, Johann Rudolf Sinner edited the Latin manuscript Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 271 (Lt).⁹⁸³ This manuscript is occasionally used in this book. Tischendorf published the palimpsest Vienna, ÖNB, lat. 563 (Lv) along with the Greek text mentioned above.⁹⁸⁴ When it comes to the same palimpsest Vienna 563, the earliest preserved (palimpsest) witness of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Guy Philippart published the article about this early Latin witness in 1972.⁹⁸⁵ Going back to Tischendorf’s edition, he also edited the early Latin variant, Lm, and the later Latin variant, Lt, from the manuscripts Vat. lat. 4578, Florence, Laurenziana, Gaddi 208, and Paris, BnF, lat. 1652.⁹⁸⁶ In the edition of this book, I used two earliest dated representatives of the Lm variant, Paris 1772 and Dijon, and the earliest representative of the Lt variant, Cambridge, listed below, which are here edited for the first time. Jan Gijsel and Rita Beyers did not include the edition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas in their collation of the Gospel of PseudoMatthew. ⁹⁸⁷ As for the editorial strategy, I recover all the texts precisely as they appear in the manuscripts. This approach complies with New Philology, and it generates my interest in investigating the manuscripts in connection to the settings in which they were used. I have thus not paid attention to any possible grammatical or stylistic mistakes made by scribes. I have left gaps enclosed by square

 See Dzon, “Cecily Neville,” 262; Jenkins, The Many Faces of Christ, 105; Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” 60; Burke, De infantia Iesu, 146.  Sinner, Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, 246– 258.  Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, xliv–xlvi; see also Burke, De infantia Iesu, 53 – 54, 96, 145.  Philippart, “Fragments palimpsestes,” 391– 411.  Burke, De infantia Iesu, 147.  Gijsel and Beyers, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium.

Appendix

241

brackets where the text was complicated to read or where the lacunae emerge. The abbreviations appearing in the manuscripts are added in the edition. I use square brackets to mark my inserted decoding of the abbreviations. The Appendix section contains the following manuscripts: Latin manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 1772 Latin manuscript Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale 38 (20) Latin manuscript Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 288 Greek manuscript Jerusalem, Library of the Patriarchate, Codex Sabaiticus 259 Greek manuscript Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355 Greek manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91 Slavonic manuscript Cod. 637, National Library, Belgrade, Serbia, Collection of P.S. Srećković (edition by Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika,” 36 – 92) Slavonic manuscript Moscow, Russian State Historical Museum, Collection of A. I. Hludov, Cod. 162 Slavonic manuscript St Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 13.3.17

Latin manuscript Paris, BnF lat. 1772, fol. 88v-90r De infantia d[omi]ni n[ost]ri I[hes]u Chr[ist]i; Incipit infancia d[omi]ni n[ost]ri I[hes]u Chr[ist]i. Post qua[m] reversus est in Galilea de Egipto. Cum aut[em] esset Ih[esu]s in galilea post regressionem sua[m] de egypto. factum est aut[em] cu[m] eu[m] Ih[esu]s ia[m] inchoante quinto anno etatis sue. Una aut[em] die sabbati. ipse Ih[esu]s cu[m] infantib[us] ludebat ad torrentem iordanis alueu[m]. Cu[m] [er]go sederet Ih[esu]s. fecitq[ue]; ipse sibi de luto septe[m] lacos. in quib[us] singulis eor[um] fecit arati unculas ducati. P[er] quas de torrente ad suu[m] imperiu[m] in eas ducebat aquas in lacos. et iterum reducebat. Tunc aut[em] unus ex eis iuvenis filius diaboli animo invido. clausit eor[um] que aditus op[er]a eiusq[ue] qui ministrabant in lacos. clausit eos atq[ue] evertit quod op[er]atus fuerat d[omi]n[u]s n[oste]r Ih[esu]s Chr[istu]s. Tunc dix[it] ei Ih[esu]s. Vere filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane op[er]a que ego op[er]atus sum tu dissipas. et statim q[ui] hoc fecerat. mortuus est. Tunc aut[em] sediciosa voce clamabant parentes mortui. Cont[ra] ioseph et maria[m] dicentes eis filius v[este]r maledix[it] filiu[m] n[ost]r[u]m. et mortuus e[st]. Cu[m] aut[em] audissent ioseph et maria. statim vener[unt] ad Ih[esu]m p[ro] pt[er] sedicione[m] parentum pueri. Aut adclamationem iudeor[um]. Cepit eni[m] ioseph marie dicere. quod ille non audebat illi dicere. Mone eni[m] tu

242

Appendix

eu[m]. et dic ei. Quare excitasti nobis hodium populi. et sustinent[ur] molestias homin[ib]us cu[m] venisset ad eu[m] maria mat[er] sua. rogabat eu[m] dicens ei. D[omi]ne n[oste]r. quid faciendo iste fecit. ut moreretur at ille dix[it] ei. Dign[us] eni[m] erat mortis. qui dissipavit op[er]a que ego op[er]or. Rogabat aut[em] eu[m] mat[er] sua. dicens ad eu[m]. Noli d[omi]ne n[oste]r quia homines insurgunt in nos. At ille nolens matre[m] sua[m] contristari pede[m] suu[m] dextru[m] p[er]cuciens innates ei[us]. Dix[it] ad eu[m]. Exurge filius pestilentie iniquitatis. non eni[m] tu dignus es ut intres in requie[m] patris mei. qui dissipas op[er]a que ego op[er]or. Tunc aut[em] qui erat mortuus. Resurrex[it]. Et habu[n]t[ur]. De aqua et de passerib[us]. Ih[esu]s v[er]o iteru[m] ad suu[m] imperiu[m] p[er] aqueductus. Aqua[m] ducebat in lacos. Tunc Ih[esu]s videntib[us] cunctis lutu[m] sumens de lacis quos fecerat ipse Ih[esu]s. exiens fecit passeres Xii. erat aut[em] quando hec fecit Ih[esu]s sabatu[m]. et infantes cu[m] eo erant plurimi. Cu[m] aut[em] vidissent eu[m] quidam de iudeis cu[m] infantib[us] hoc faciente[m]. dix[it] videns ad ioseph. Non eni[m] vides ioseph infante[m] Ih[esu]m qui in sabato hec talia de luto facit. Passeres quos ei n[on] licet facere. hoc audito ioseph. arguebat Ih[esu]m infantem. et dix[it] ei. Quare hec talia in sabbato facis. que nobis non licet facere. Ih[esu]s aut[em] audiens hec a ioseph. percussit manu[m] in manu sua. et passeribus suis voce magna dix[it]. Volate. et ad vocem imperii sui fec[it] eas volare. Tunc stantib[us] om[n]ib[us]. Illis. et videntib[us] et audientib[us]; dix[it] avib[us]; Ite volate p[er] universum mundu[m] et locu[m]. Cantate et gaudete et exultate. et vivite et memores mi estote. Cu[m] aut[em] om[ne]s qui aderant ei. vidissent talia signa. et virtutes ab eo factas fuisse. pharisei repleti sunt stupore magno. Alii laudabant eu[m]. et mirabantur. Alii vituperabant eu[m]. Et habies ad principes sacerdotum et adprimates phariseor[um]. et nuntiaver[unt] eis quod Ih[esu]s filius d[i]i. in conspectu totius p[o]p[u]li isr[ae]litici. hec talia signa et virtutes fecisset et adnunciatu[m] e[st] hoc ad xii trib[us] isr[ae]l[is]. Caput vii. De lacis Nam iteru[m] filius anne sacerdotis te[m]pli qui cu[m] ioseph advenerat tene[n]s virga[m] in manu sua de populo. et cunctis videntib[us]. Cu[m] furore nimio exclusit lacos quos Ih[esu]s fecerat manib[us]. suis. et effudit ex eis aquam qua[m] congregaverat Ih[esu]s de torrente in lacos. Nam et ipsum aque ductu[m] unde introiebat aqua clausit atq[ue] iteru[m] evertit. Cu[m] aut[em] hoc vidisset Ih[esu]s d[omi]n[u]s n[oste]r fieri. Dix[it] ad pueru[m] illu[m] qui dissipavit lacos suos. O semen iniquitatis pessimu[m]. filius mortis. Op[er]a sathane. vere filius diaboli. erit fructus seminis tui sine vigore. radices er[it] aridi rami tui qui non afferent fructu[m]. Hoc dicto a Ih[esu]m. cunctis videntib[us] et audientib[us] subito arefactus est puer qui hoc fecerat. et mortuus e[st]. Et mox tenuit Ih[esu]m ioseph. et ibat cu[m] eo ad domu[m] sua[m] et matre[m]

Appendix

243

cu[m] eo. Et ecce subito ex adverso puer quida[m] et ipse op[er]arius iniq[ui]tatis. currens inpulit se in humeru[m] Ih[es]u. volens eu[m]. elidere. aut nocere si potuisset. Dix[it] aut[em] ei Ih[esu]s. non revertaris san[us] via tua q[uo] vadis. Et statim corruit. et mortuus e[st]. et exclamaverunt parentes pueri qui mortuus fuit. qui et viderant q[uod] factu[m] fuisset dicentes. Unde natus e[st] iste infans. ut omne verbum quod dixerit manifestum e[st]. Ut antequa[m] dicat ad impletu[m] e[st]. Et accesser[unt] parentes pueri qui mortuus erat ad ioseph. et dixer[unt] ei. Tolite istu[m] Ih[esu]m de loco isto. non eni[m] potest hic habitare nobiscu[m] in municipio hoc. aut certe docere

Latin manuscript Dijon, Bibl. Mun. 38 (20), fol. 9v-20r Et f[ac]t[u]m [est] p[os]t regressu[m] ih[es]u de egypto [cum] e[ss]et i[n] galilea ia[m] inchoante q[ui]nto anno etatis ei[us] una die sabb[at]i cu[m] infantib[us] ludebat ad iordanis alueum. Cu[m] [er]go sedet Ih[esu]s fecit sibi de luto. Vii. lacos. quib[us] sing[u]lis fecit aratiunculas ducari p[er] q[ua]s de torre[n]te ad suu[m] i[m]p[er]ium aq[ua]s ducebat ad lacos et it[eru]m reducebat. Tu[n]c un[us] ex ill[is] infantib[us] fili[us] dyaboli a[n]i[m]o i[n]vidie clausit adit[us] qui ministrabant aquas ad lacos. Atq[ue] av[er]tit q[uod] op[er]at[us] fu[er]at Ih[esu]s. Tu[n]c dix[it] illi Ih[esu]s. Fili mortis. fili sathane. ve tibi q[uia] op[er] a que ego op[er]at[us] su[m] tu dissipas. Et stati[m] qui hoc fec[er]at mortu[us] [est]. Q[uan]do audientes p[ar]entes illi[us] mortui: sedit[i]osa morte clamaba[n]t contra ioseph et maria[m] dice[n]tes eis. Fili[us] v[este]r maledix[it] filio n[ost]ro: Et mortu[us] [est]. Cu[m] aut[em] hoc audisse[n]t ioseph et m[ari]a: vener[un]t ad Ih[esu]m p[ro]p[ter] sedit[i]onem pueri et p[ar]entu[m] ei[us] et adclamat[i]one[m] iud[ae]or[um]. Dix[it] a ioseph m[ari]e sec[re]to. Ego n[on] audeo illi d[ice]re. Tu v[er]o mone eu[m] et dic. Q[ua]re excitasti nob[is] odiu[m] p[o]p[u]li et sustinem[us] molestias amicor[um] p[ro]p[ter] te. Et cu[m] veniss[et] mater ei[us] ad Ih[esu]m. rogabat eu[m] dice[n]s D[omi]ne mi quid faciendo m[et]uit puer iste ut moreret[ur]. At ille dixit dingu[s] erat morte. quia dissipavit op[er]a que op[er]at[us] fueram. Rogabat [er]go eu[m] ma[ter] dice[n]s. Noli d[omi]ne mi quia insurgu[n]t o[mne]s i[n] nos. At ille nolle[n]s m[at]rem sua[m] c[on]t[ri]stari pede suo dext[r]o p[er]cuciens nates […] mortui dix[it] ad illu[m]. Ex[ur]ge fili i[n]iq[ui]tatis n[on] eni[m] ding[us] es ut intres i[n] req[ui] em p[at]ris mei q[uia] dissipasti op[er]a que ego fuera[m] op[er]at[us]. Stati[m] q[ui] erat mortu[us] surrexit et abiit. Ih[esu]s v[er]o ad suu[m] i[m]p[er]iu[m] p[er] aq[ae] ductu[m] aq[uae] ducebat ad lacos. T[u]m aut[em] videntibus cu[n]ctis su[m]psit Ih[esu]s lutu[m] de lacis quos fec[er]at: et ex eo fecit passeres. xii. Erat aut[em] sabb[atu]m q[ua]n[do] h[aec]

244

Appendix

fecit Ih[esu]s. Et infantes pl[ur]imi cu[m] illo era[n]t. Cu[m] [er]go vidiss[et] quida[m] ex iudeis cu[m] infantib[us] h[oc] faciente[m]. Dix[it] ad ioseph non e[nim] vides infante[m] tuu[m] Ih[esu]m in sabb[at]o op[er]ari q[ue] illi face[re] n[on] licet. Hoc audito ioseph arguebat eu[m] dice[n]s. Q[ua]re in sabb[at]o talia factus quod nob[is] n[on] lic[et]. Ih[esu]s aut[em] audiens a ioseph p[er]cussit manu[m] ad manu[m]. Et passerib[us] dix[it]. Volate et ad voce[m] i[m]p[er]ii ei[us] cep[er]unt volare. Et stantib[us] o[mn]ib[us] illis et vide[n]tib[us] et audientib[us] dix[it] avib[us]. Ite. volate p[er] omne[m] mu[n]du[m]. Et vivite. Videntes v[er]o q[ui] adera[n]t talia signa repleti su[n]t stupore magno. Et alii laudabant et admirabant[ur] eu[m]. Alii vitup[er]abant. Et abieru[n]t quidam ad p[ri] ncipes sac[er]dotu[m] et phariseor[um] et anu[n]tiaveru[n]t eis q[uod] Ih[esu]s fili[us] ioseph i[n] c[on]sp[e]ctu toti[us] pop[u]li isr[ae]l[ici] signa magna et v[ir]tutes fecisset. Et anu[n]ciatu[m] e[st] hoc ad. Xii. Trib[us] isr[ae]l[icis]. Nam it[eru]m fili[us] sac[er]dotis te[m]pli qui cu[m] ioseph advenit. Tenens virga[m] in manu cu[n]ctis q[ui] aderant videntib[us]; cu[m] furore nimio c[on] clusit lacos quos fecit Ih[esu]s manib[us] suis. Et effudit aquas ex eis q[ua]s agregav[er]at de torre[n]te in eis. Nam et ip[su]m aque ductu[m] p[er] q[uem] retroibat aq[ua] clausit. Et p[os]tea ev[er]tit. Cumq[ue] hoc vidisset Ih[esu]s dix[it] ad illu[m] q[ui] dissipav[er]it lacos. O semen iniq[ui]tatis pessimu[m]. O fili mortis op[er]a sathane. Vere erit fruct[us] semi[ni]s tui s[i]n[e] vigore. Et radices ei[us] v[e]l tui s[i]n[e] humore. Et rami tui aridi n[on] afferentes fructu[m]. Mox vide[n] tib[us] cu[n]ctis arefact[us] e[st] puer et mortu[us] [est]. Deinde tenuit io[seph] Ih[esu]m. et ibat cu[m] eo ad domu[m] sua[m] et m[at]r[em] ei[us] cu[m] illo. Et ecce s[u]bito q[ui]dam puer ex adv[er]so. Et ip[s]e puer iniq[ui]tatis c[ur] rens impulit se s[upe]r humeru[m] Ih[es]u. Volens illu[m] illide[re] aut noce[re] si posse. Dix[it] aut[em] illi Ih[esu]s. No[n] rev[er]taris san[us] de via tua q[ua] vadis. Et stati[m] corruit et mortu[us] [est]. Et exclamav[er]unt p[ar]entes mortui qui audiera[n]t et viderant. Q[uo]d f[ac]t[u]m fu[er]at d[ice]ntes. Un[de] nat[us] est hic infans manifestu[m] [est]. Q[uo]d om[n]e v[er]bu[m] q[uo]d dic[it] v[er] um est. Et freq[ue]nter an[te]q[uam] dicat adi[m]plet[ur]. Et accesseru[n]t p[ar] entes mortui ad ioseph: et dixerunt ei. Tolle Ih[esu]m illu[m] de loco illo. no[n] eni[m] potest hic h[ab]itare nob[is]cum eo municipio. Aut c[er]te doce illu[m] b[e]n[e]d[ice]re et n[on] maledicere. Accedens aut[em] ioseph ad Ih[esu]m: monebat eu[m] dice[n]s. Ut q[ui]d talia facis? Iam m[u]lti dolentes contra te su[n]t. Et p[ro]p[ter] te h[abe]nt nos odio: et p[ro]p[ter] te molestias sustinem[us]. Respondens Ih[esu]s dixit ad ioseph. Nullus fili[us] sapiens est nisi que[m] p[ate]r suus s[e]c[un]d[u]m sci[enti]am hui[us] t[em]p[or]is erudierit. Et p[at]ris sui sapi[enti]a nemini nocet. N[ec] male agentib[us]. Tu[n]c cong[re]gati su[n]t om[ne]s adv[er] sus Ih[esu]m. Et acc[us]abant eum adv[er]sus ioseph. Ut h[oc] vidit ioseph p[er]t[er]rit[us] est nimiu[m]. Timens vim p[o]p[u]li sui Isr[ae]l. Eade[m] hora

Appendix

245

Ih[esu]s app[re]hendit mortuu[m] infante[m] ab aure et suspendit eu[m] a t[er] ram in co[n]sp[ec]tu omn[ium] ut vid[er]ent Ih[esu]m loq[ue]nte[m] cu[m] eo tanq[uam] p[at]rem cu[m] filio suo. Et rev[er]sus [est]. Sp[iritu]s ei[us] in ip[su] m. Et revixit et amirati su[n]t univ[er]si. Magister aut[em] quidam videns no[m]i[n]e zachias audivit Ih[esu]m talia v[er]ba loq[ue]nte[m] cum eo. Et eo q[ui]d erat insup[er]abilis sapi[enti]e v[ir] tutis. F[ac]tus est dolens. Et cepit indisciplinate et stulte et s[i]n[e] timore loq[ui] contra ioseph. Dicebat enim adv[er]sus ioseph. Tu no[n] vis filium tuu[m] trade[re] ut doceat[ur] sci[enti]am hu[m]ani timoris. sed video te et maria[m] plus velle dilige[re] filiu[m] v[est]r[u]m. Q[ua]m tradito[r]es senior[um] p[o]p[u]li. Oportebat enim nos pri[us] honorare p[res]b[yte]ros toti[us] eccl[es]ie isr[ae]l: ut et ex infantib[us] mutua[m] h[ab]eat cari[ta]te[m]. Ut int[er] illos erudiat[ur] iudaica doct[ri]na. Cui e contra ioseph dix[it]: q[ui]s est q[ui] possit ho[c] i[n]fante[m] tene[re] et doce[re]. Et si potes tene[re] et doce[re] eum. nos mi[ni]me p[ro]hibem[us] doc[er]i eu[m] a te que ab ho[min]ibus dicu[n]t[ur]. Audiens aut[em] Ih[esu]s que zachias dix[er]at r[espon]d[i]t ei et dix[it]: Preceptor legis q[ui]d parvulu[m] an[te] dixisti: et o[mn]ia que no[m]i[n]asti op[or]tet observare ho[m]i[n]em tui filem. Hominu[m] institutor[um] ex[tra]neus ego sum a filus v[est]ris. Pa[ren]t[e]m carnale[m] no[n] h[ab]eo. Tu quide[m] legem legis. Et instruct[us] in lege p[er]manes. Ego au[tem] lege[m] tua[m] sum. Sed cu[m] putes me no[n] h[ab]ere doct[ri]nam tu doct[ri]na erudit[us] es a me. Qu[oqu]e nemo ali[us] doce[re] pot[est] n[ec] hic qu[oqu]e tu no[m]i[n]asti. Ip[s]e enim pot[est] qui dign[us] est. Ego aut[em] cu[m] exaltatus fuero a t[er]ra. cessare facia[m] omne[m] genealogia[m] et […] v[est]ri me[n]t[i]one[m]. Tu q[ua]n[do] natus es ignoras. Ego aut[em] scio solus q[ua]n[do] nati estis. Et q[ua]nto t[em] p[ore] vita v[est]ra erit in terra. Tu[n]c om[ne]s q[ui] audier[un]t v[er]ba h[aec] panefacti obstupueru[n]t et clamaveru[n]t d[ice]ntes. a. a. a. Hoc mire magnu[m] et admirabile[m] sacram[en]tu[m]. Nu[m]q[uam] audivim[us] hui[us] v[er]ba n[um]q[uam] ab aliq[uo] alio auditu[m] e[st]. N[ec] a sac[er]dotib[us] n[ec] a ph[ar]iseis. N[ec] a g[ra]maticis d[i]c[tu]m e[st] tale v[e]l auditu[m] aliq[ua] n[do]. Nos scim[us] hu[n]c unde nat[us] [est]. Et vix [est] adhuc annor[um] sex. Un[de] h[aec] v[er]ba loq[ui]t[ur]. R[espo]nderu[n]t ph[ar]isei. Nos nu[m] q[uam] audivim[us] talia v[er]ba in tali infantia. R[espo]ndens Ih[esu]s dix[it] eis in h[oc] vos admirami[ni]. Q[uia] talia v[er]ba ab infante d[icu]n[tu]r q[ua]re [er]go n[on] c[re]ditis m[ihi] in hiis q[uae] loquut[us] sum vobis: Et dixi vobis. Scio q[ua]n[do] nati estis. Quo om[ne]s mirami[ni]. Ampliora audietis et dicam vob[is] ut magi[s] miremi[ni]. Abraham que[m] vos dicitis pat[re]m v[est]r[u]m ego vidi et me vidit. Et cu[m] eo loquut[us] fui. Et audientes hoc obmutueru[n] t. N[ec] q[ui]sq[uam] eor[um] audebat loq[ui]. Q[ui] dix[it] eis Ih[esu]s. Fui int[er] vos ex infantib[us] a n[on] cognovistis me. Loquut[us] su[m] vob[is]

246

Appendix

q[uas]i cu[m] p[ru]dentib[us] et n[on] intellexistis me. Q[uia] mi[n]ores me estis et modice fidei. It[eru]m mag[iste]r zachias legis doctor dix[it] ad ioseph et maria[m]. Date m[ihi] pu[eru]m et e[g]o t[ra]dam eu[m] mag[ist]ro levi. Q[ui] doceat eu[m] litt[er]as et erudiat. Tu[n]c ioseph et m[ari]a blandientes Ih[esu]m dux[er]unt eu[m] in scolam. Ut doce[re]t[ur] litt[er]as a sene levi. Quo cu[m] int[ro]isset tacebat. et mag[iste]r levi una[m] l[itte]ram dicebat ad Ih[esu]m. Et incipiens a p[rim]a l[itte]ra alpha. Dicebat ei. R[espo]nde. Ih[esu]s v[er]o tacebat et n[on] r[espo]ndebat. Un[de] p[rae]ceptor levi irat[us] apprehendens v[ir]ga[m] storatina[m]. p[er]cussit eu[m] i[n] capite. Ih[esu]s au[tem] dix[it] ad didascalu[m] levi. Ut q[ui]d me p[er]cutis. In v[er]itate scias q[uia] ip[s]e q[ui] p[er]cutit[ur] mag[is] docet p[er]cutiente[m] se. Q[ua]m ab eo doceat[ur]. Sed hi om[ne]s ceci su[n]t qui dicu[n]t et audiunt q[uas]i es sonans aut ci[m]balum ti[n]niens. In quib[us] no[n] est sensus aut int[e]ll[e]ctus ip[s]or[um] que int[e] lligunt[ur] p[er] sonu[m] eor[um]. Et s[u]biu[n]gens Ih[esu]s dix[it] zachie. Om[n]is l[itte]ra ab alpha usq[ue] ad thau: dispo[s]it[i]one disc[er]nit[ur]. Dic [er]go p[ri]mu[m] q[uid] sit thau: Et eo dica[m] t[ibi] q[uid] sit alpha. Et it[eru] m dix[it] Ih[esu]s ad eos qui no[n] noveru[n]t alpha: quo[modo] d[ice]re possunt thau. Ypoc[ri]te. Dicite m[ihi] p[ri]mu[m] q[uid] sit alpha: et tu[n]c e[g]o vobis credam cu[m] dicetis betha. Et cepit Ih[esu]s sing[u]laru[m] litt[er]ar[um] no[m]i[n]a int[er]rogare: et dicebat. Dic m[ihi] mag[iste]r legis p[ri]ma l[itte]ra t[ri]angulos multos q[ua]re h[ab]eat gradratos. subacutos. mediatos obductos. p[ro]ductos. Er[ec]tos. Stractos. curvifactos. Cu[m] aut[em] hoc audisset stupefactus est ad tanta[m] dispo[s]it[i]one[m] nominu[m] l[itte]rar[um]. Tu[n]c cepit cu[n]ctis audientib[us] clamare et d[ice]re. N[on] d[ebet] iste s[upe]r t[er]ram viv[er]e: imo in magna cruce d[ebet] appendi. Na[m] pot[est] igne[m] extinguere: et alia delude[re] torm[en]ta. Ego puto q[uod] an[te] cathaclismu[m] hic fu[er]it nat[us]. Quis eni[m] vent[us] illu[m] portavit. Aut que m[ate]r illu[m] genuit. Aut que ub[er]a illum lactav[er]unt. Fugiam an[te] illu[m] non enim valeo sustine[re] v[er]bu[m] ex ore ei[us]. Sed cor meu[m] stupescit v[er]ba audire talia. Nullu[m] enim hominu[m] puto ei[us] consequi v[er]bu[m] n[isi] fu[er]it d[eu]s cu[m] illo. Nam e[g]o ip[s]e infelix t[ra]didi me huic in derisum. Cu[m] e[rg]o ip[s]e putare[m] me habe[re] discip[u]l[u]m. Ignorans eu[m] meu[m] i[n] veni mag[ist]r[u]m. Q[ui]d dicam. No[n] valeo sustine[re] v[er]ba pu[er]i hui[us]. De hoc iam municipio fugiam: q[uia] illu[m] inte[n]d[er]e n[on] valeo. Ab infante senex vict[us] su[m]. Q[uia] neq[ue] initiu[m] de quib[us] ip[s]e affirmat invenire possu[m] neq[ue] fine[m]. Difficile eni[m] [est]. I[n]itiu[m] cause ip[s]i[us] rep[er]ire. Certe dico vobis n[ec] me[n]tior. Q[uia] an[te] oc[u]los quod meos op[er]at[i]o hui[us] pu[er]i et senia sermonis ei[us] et i[n]tent[i]o[n]is exit[us] nich[il] ex ho[min]ib[us] commune videt[ur] h[abe]re. Hic ego nescio aut videns aut d[eu]s sit aut c[er]te a[n]g[e]l[u]s di sit: qui loq[ui] cu[m] eo.

Appendix

247

Un[de] sit. Un[de] ven[er]it aut q[ui]d futur[us] sit nescio. Tu[n]c Ih[esu]s leto vultu s[u]bridens de eo dix[it] cu[m] imp[er]io cu[n]ctis filiis astantib[us] et audientib[us]. Fructificent[ur] infructuosi et videa[n]t ceci. Et claudi recte ambule[n]t. et paup[er]es fruant[ur] bonis. Et revivisca[n]t mortui ut re integ[rat]o statu uniquiq[ue] reutant[ur] et p[er]manea[n]t i[n] eo qui est. radix vite et dulcedinis p[er]petue. Et cu[m] h[oc] infans Ih[esu]s dixisset. [Con]tinuo restituti s[un]t om[ne]s qui s[u]b malis decid[er]ant i[n]firmitatib[us]. Et ampli[us] n[on] aussi enim d[ice]re aliq[uid] v[e]l audire ab eo. Post hec abieru[n]t inde ioseph and maria cu[m] Ih[es]u in civitate Nazareth. Erat i[bi] Ih[esu]s cu[m] p[ar]entibus suisq[ue]. Cu[m] e[ss]ent ibi una sabb[at]i du[m] Ih[esu]s cu[m] infantib[us] lude[re]t i[n] solario cui[us]da[m] domus. [Con]tigit ut un[us] ex infantib[us] impell[er]et aliu[m] de solario in t[er]ram. Et mortu[us] [est]. Et cu[m] hoc vidisse[n]t p[ar]entes mortui clamav[er]unt contra maria[m] et ioseph d[ice]ntes fili[us] v[este]r filium n[ost]r[u]m misit de solario in t[er]ra[m]. Et mortu[us] [est]. Ih[esu]s v[er]o tacebat: et nich[il] r[espo]ndebat. Veneru[n]t aut[em] ioseph et maria ad Ih[esu]m. Rogabat eu[m] m[ate]r sua dicens. D[omi]ne mi dic m[ihi] si tu misisti istu[m] in t[er]ram. Et stati[m] Ih[esu] s desce[n]dit de solario: et vocavit p[er] nom[en] suu[m] Zeno. Et r[espo]ndit ei bene. Et ait illi Ih[esu]s. Nu[m] ego p[rae]cipitavi te in t[er]ram de solario. At ille dix[it]. No[n] d[omi]ne. Et mirati su[n]t p[ar]entes pu[er]i qui fu[er]at mortuus: et honoraba[n]t Ih[esu]m s[upe]r signo illo facto. Abieru[n]t inde maria et io[seph] cu[m] Ih[es]u. i[n] iherico: et erat annor[um] sex. et misit illu[m] m[ate]r sua cu[m] ydria ad fonte[m] haurire aqu[am]. et [con]tigit p[ost]q[uam] hausit aq[uam] et q[ui]da[m] ex infa[n] tib[us] i[m]pegerit illu[m] et [con]quassavit ydriam sua[m] et fregit illa[m]. At ille expandit pallium suu[m] q[uo] i[n]duebat[ur] et suscepit i[n] pallio t[antu] m aq[uae] q[ua]ntu[m] erat i[n] yd[ri]a et portavit ea[m] m[at]ri sue. At illa videns mirabat[ur]. Et cogitabat int[ra] se et condebat o[mn]ia h[aec] in corde suo. De tri[ti]co q[uo]d æseminavit. It[er]um q[ua]dam die exivit Ih[esu]s i[n] agrum et tulit paru[m] tritici de horreo m[at]ris sue et semi[n]avit illud ip[s]e. et natu[m] crevit et m[u]ltiplicatu[m] e[st] nimis. et f[ac]t[u]m [est]. dein[de] ut illud ip[s]e met[er]et et collig[er]et fruct[us] ex eo centu[m] choros t[ri]tici donavit q[ui] inimicis suis. […] Est via quae te[n]dit de iherico et exit ad Jordane[m] fluviu[m] ubi transieru[n]t filii isr[ae]l ubi archa testam[en]ti d[icitu]r resedisse. Et erat Ih[esu]s annor[um] [oc]to et exivit de iherico et ibat ad iordane[m]. Et erat secus via[m] cripta p[ro]pe iordanis rippa[m] u[bi] leena q[ua]dam catulos suos nutriebat. Et n[u]ll[u]s audebat p[er] via[m] illa[m] secur[us] ambulare. Veniens a[c] Ih[esu]s de iherico et cognoscens q[uod] i[n] cripta illa leena filios gn[er] asset. Cu[n]ctis videntib[us] in illa[m] int[ro]ivit. At u[bi] videru[n]t leones Ih[esu] m. accurreru[n]t ei obviam et adorav[er]unt illu[m]. Sedebat q[ui] Ih[esu]s in

248

Appendix

cav[er]na. Catuli aut[em] leonu[m] dicurrebant an[te] et circa pedes ei[us] blandientes et ludentes cu[m] eo. Leones v[er]o demisso capite a longe stabant et adorabant eu[m]. Et caudis suis blandiebant[ur] an[te] illu[m]. Popul[u]s aute[m] de longe stabat [et] n[on] vide[n]tes Ih[esu]m diceba[n]t hic n[isi] g[ra] via fecisset p[e]cc[at]a aut p[ar]entes ei[us]. No[n] se ultro leonib[us] obtulisset. [Et] cu[m] p[o]p[u]l[u]s intra se h[aec] cogitaret et merori nimio p[ro[p[e] Ih[esu]m s[u]biac[er]et. Ecce s[u]bito i[n] [con]sp[ec]tu p[o]p[u]li exivit Ih[esu]s de cripta. Et leones an[te]cedebant illu1[m]. Et catuli leonu[m] an[te] pedes ei[us] ludeba[n]t int[er] se. Parentes a[c] ei[us] staba[n]t de lo[n]ge demisso capite et observaba[n]t parit[er]. Et p[o]p[u]l[u]s p[rop]e leones longi[us] stabat. No[n] eni[m] [con]iung[er]e eis se audebat. Tu[n]c Ih[esu]s cepit se [con]iung[er]e ad p[o]p[u]l[u]m: et ait illis. Qu[an]to meliores nobis su[n]t bestie que suu[m] agnoscu[n]t d[omi]n[u]m et gl[or]ificant. Et vos ho[m]i[n]es q[ui] ad yma[gi] ne[m] dei et si[mi]litudine[m] f[ac]ti estis: ignoratis eu[m]. Bestie agnoscu[n]t me. Et mansuescu[n]t. Ho[m]i[n]es vident me. Et n[on] cognoscu[n]t. Post h[ae] c Ih[esu]s t[ra]nsivit jordane[m] cu[m] leonib[us] cu[n]ctis vide[n]tibus. et aq[ua] jordanis an[te] eos divisa [est]. Ad dext[r]am et ad sinistra[m] et dix[it] leonib[us] ita ut om[ne]s audire[n]t. Ite i[n] pace ut nemine[m] ledatis. S[ed] n[ec] ho[m]i[n]es vob[is] nocea[n]t don[ec] rev[er]tami[ni] ad locu[m] v[est]r[u] m un[de] existis. At illi vale facie[n]tes n[on] voce s[ed] corp[or]e: Abieru[n]t ad loca sua. Ih[esu]s a[c] rev[er]sus [est] ad m[at]rem sua[m]. De ligno q[uod] elongavit. Cum aut[em] e[ss]et ioseph faber lignari[us]. Nich[il] q[uod] ex ligno op[er]aret[ur] n[isi] iuga boum et aratra t[er]re v[er]soria et culture apta ligneosque lectos. [con]tigit ut q[ui]da[m] iuvenis ad faciend[um] q[ua]da[m] lectu[m] cubitor[um] sex illi admi[ni]straret. Et iussit illi puero incid[er]e lignu[m] ferra ferrea s[e]c[un]d[u]m m[en]sura[m] q[uam] pro mi[ser]at. Qui n[on] servavit t[er]minatu[m] sibi modu[m]. S[ed] fecit unu[m] lignu[m] brevi[us] q[uam] alt[er]um. Et cepit ioseph estuando cogitare q[uid] face[re]t s[upe]r h[oc]. Et ut vidit Ih[esu]s illu[m] sic estuante[m] cogitare. Cui gestus rei i[m]possibilis erat. [Con]solatoria voce alloqui[tur] eu[m] dicens. Veni teneam[us] capita sing[u] lor[um] lignor[um] et [con]iu[n]gam[us] ea caput ad caput. et coeq[ue]m[us] ea ad se. Et traham[us] ad paritate[m]. Pot[er]im[us] enim ea eq[ua]lia face[re]. Tu[n]c ioseph obte[m]p[er]avit iubenti sciebat eni[m] q[uod] poss[et] face[re] q[ui]d vellet. Et app[re]hendente ioseph capita lignor[um] iu[n]xit illa ad p[ar] ietem iux[ta] se. [et] tenuit Ih[esu]s capita lignor[um] et traxit ad se brevi[us] lignu[m] et coeq[ua]vit ill[u]d ligno lo[n]giori. Et dix[it] ad ioseph. vade op[er] are et fac q[uo]d faciebas. Et fecit ioseph q[uo]d p[ro]miserat. De illo qui percussit eum et mortuus est. F[ac]t[u]m [est] s[e]c[un]d]o ut maria et ioseph rogarent[ur] a p[o]p[u]lo ut Ih[esu]s doc[er]et[ur] litteris in scola. Q[uod] [et] face[re] non negaveru[n]t [et] s[e]c[un]d[u]m p[rae]ceptu[m] senior[um]. Dux[er]

Appendix

249

unt eu[m] ad scolas. Cu[m] aut[em] mag[iste]r i[m]p[er]iose d[oce]ret illi. Dic alpha. Ih[esu]s dix[it] ei. Dic m[ihi] tu p[ri]us q[ui]d sit alpha. Et e[g]o dica[m] t[ibi] q[ui]d sit betha. Et ad h[oc] irat[us] mag[iste]r percussit illu[m]. et mox p[os]tq[uam] p[er]cussit illu[m] mortu[us] est. Et Ih[esu]s rev[er]sus [est] ad m[at]rem sua[m] i[n] domo. Timens aut[em] ioseph vocavit ad se maria[m] et dix[it] ei. Ve[re] tristis [sum]. A[n]i[m]a m[e]a usq[ue] ad morte[m] p[ro]p[ter] pu[er]um istu[m]. Pot[est] fi[eri] ut aliq[ua]n[do] aliq[ui]s duct[us] malitia p[er] cutiat illu[m]. Et moriat[ur]. Maria aut[em] dix[it] illi. Vir dei noli time[re] n[ec] crede[re] q[uo]d h[oc] fi[eri] possit. immo sec[ur]e crede q[uo]d q[ui] eu[m] missit int[er] ho[m]i[n]es nasci: ip[s]e eu[m] ab ho[min]ib[us] malignantib[us] [con]servabit. et in suo no[m]i[n]e custodiet illu[m] a malo. It[eru]m t[er]tio rogaveru[n]t iudei mariam et ioseph ut aliu[m] magist[ru]m blandim[en]tis suis ad Ih[esu]m adduce[re]nt ad discendu[m]. Timentes aut[em] vim p[o]p[u]li m[aria] et io[seph] et insolentias p[ri]ncipu[m] et sac[er]dotu[m] minas. Dux[er]unt Ih[esu]m ad scolas. Scientes n[ihil] ab ho[m]i[n]e illu[m] disc[er]e posse. Qui ex solo d[e]o p[er] f[ec]tam h[abe]ret s[cien]tiam. Cu[m] aut[em] Ih[esu]s int[ro]isset scolam duct[us] sp[irit]u s[anc]to accepit libru[m] de manu didascali docentis lege[m]. et cu[n]cto p[o]p[u]lo vide[n]te et audiente. cepit leg[er]e n[on] q[ui]d[em] que sc[ri]pta era[n]t i[n] libro illo. S[ed] in sp[irit]u d[e]i vivi loq[ue]batur tanq[uam] de fonte vivo torrens aque egred[er]etur. Et fons plen[us] sp[irit]u perman[er]et. Et ita i[n] v[ir]tute docebat p[o]p[u]l[u]m magnalia dei vivi. Ut et ip[s]e mag[iste]r cad[er]et et adoraret eu[m]. Cor aut[em] p[o]p[u]li q[ui] sedebat et audiebat talia dici ab eo. V[er]sum e[st] c[ontra] illu[m]. Q[uo]d cu[m] audiret ioseph c[ur]rendo venit ad Ih[esu]m. timens ne et ip[s]e didascalus moreret[ur]. Quo viso mag[iste]r dix[it] illi. Tu m[ihi] n[on] dedisti discip[u]l[u]m s[ed] mag[ist] r[u]m. et q[ui]s pot[est] v[er]ba ei[us] sustin[er]e. Tu[n]c adi[m]pletu[m] est q[uo]d d[i]c[tu]m e[st] p[er] psalmista[m]. flum[en] d[e]i repletu[m] [est] aq[ui]s p[ar]asti ci[bum] il[lorum] q[uem] i[ta] [est] p[raeparatio] ei[us] et p[os]t h[aec] inde migravit m[aria] et io[seph] cu[m] Ih[es]u. et veneru[n]t i[n] capharnaum maritimam p[ro]p[ter] malicia[m] ho[m]i[nu]m sibi adv[er]santiu[m]. et cum h[ab]itaret Ih[esu]s capharnaum: erat in civitate q[ui]da[m] dives homo no[m] i[n]e ioseph: qui infirmitate sua deficiens mortu[us] e[st]. Et mortu[us] in grabato iacebat. [Cu[m] aut[em] Ih[esu]s audisset i[n] civitate plorantes et ululantes s[upe]r mortuu[m]. dixit ad ioseph. Q[ua]re huic qui tuo no[m]i[n]e vocat[ur] n[on] p[rae]stas b[e]n[e]ficiu[m] gr[atia]e. Cui ioseph r[espo]ndit. Q[ua]e [est] potestas m[ihi] aut facultas p[rae]sta[n]di ei b[e]n[e]ficiu[m]. Cui Ih[esu]s dix[it]. Tolle sudariu[m] q[uo]d est s[upe]r caput tuu[m] et vade et pone illud s[upe]r faciem mortui. et dices. Saluet te Ih[esu]s. et mox saluat[us] erit et resurget defunctus de grabato suo. Quo audito ioseph statim ad i[m]p[er]ium Ih[es]u c[ur]rens int[ra]vit domu[m] defu[n]cti et sudariu[m] q[uod] h[ab]ebat sup[er] caput

250

Appendix

suu[m] posuit s[upe]r faciem ei[us] q[ui] iacebat in grabato. Et stati[m] surrexit mortuus de lectulo suo. Et q[uae]rebat q[ui]s e[ss]et Ih[esu]s q[ui] dix[er]at. Saluet te Ih[esu]s. De mor[te]m serpe[n]tis. Post h[aec] abieru[n]t de carpharnaum maria et ioseph in civitate[m] q[uae] vocat[ur] bethlehem. Et erunt i[n] domo sua. et Ih[esu]s cu[m] ill[is]. Et die q[ua]dam vocavit ad se ioseph. Filiu[m] suu[m] p[ri]mogenitu[m] jacobu[m] et misit eu[m] in ortu[m] ut collig[er]et olera ad pulm[en]tariu[m] faciendu[m]. et s[u]bseq[ui]t[us] e[st] Ih[esu]s jacobu[m] fr[atr]em suu[m] i[n] ortu[m]. et hoc ioseph et maria nescieru[n]t. et du[m] collig[er]et jacob[us] olera: s[u]bito exivit de foramine vip[er]a et p[er]cussit dext[er]am manu[m] jacobi. Et ip[s]e p[rae] dolore nimio cepit clamare. Et iam deficiens dicebat cu[m] vocis amaritudine. Heu heu: vip[er]a pessima percussit manu[m] mea[m]. Ih[esu]s v[er]o ex adv[er]so stans a vocis amaritudine cuc[ur]rit ad iacobu[m]. Et tenuit manu[m] ei[us] et n[ihil] aliud fecit s[ed] t[antu]m sufflavit i[n] manu[m] illi[us] et refrig[er]avit ea[m] et stati[m] sanat[us] [est] iacob[us]. Ioseph aut[em] et m[aria] ignoraba[n]t q[uod] f[a]c[tu]m fu[er]at. S[ed] ad clamore[m] iacobi et ad i[m]p[er]ium Ih[es]u cuc[ur]reru[n]t i[n] ortu[m] et inveneru[n]t serpente[m] iam mortuu[m]. et iacobum sanatu[m]. Cu[m] aut[em] veniret ioseph ad co[n]viviu[m] cu[m] filiis suis iacobo et ioseph et juda et sym[e] o[n]e et duab[us] filiis suis [con]ve[n]iebant et b[eat]a maria cu[m] Ih[es]u. Et sorore sua maria cleophe q[uam] do[minus] d[eu]s donavit ioachim pat[ri] ei[us] et anne mat[ri] ei[us]. Et q[uo]d obtullissent maria[m] m[at]rem Ih[es]u d[omi]no. Et h[aec] maria cleophe vocata est si[mi]li no[m]i[n]e maria. Ad concolat[i]o[n]em p[ar]entu[m]. Et du[m] [con]ve[n]iret Ih[esu]s s[anc]tificabat et b[e]n[e]dicebat illos. Et ip[s]e p[ri]or manducare et bib[er]e incipiebat. Nemo eni[m] illor[um] ma[n]ducare vel bibe[re] audebat. Nec sede[re] ad mensa[m] aut panem frange[re]. Don[ec] ip[s]e s[anc]tificans illos pri[us] hoc fecisset. Et si forte absens fuisset. Exp[ec]tabatur donec hoc fac[er]et. Et q[ua]n[do] ip[s]e nolebat ad refectione[m] acced[er]e. Accedebant ioseph et maria et fr[atr]es ei[us] filii ioseph. Hii siquid[em] tres an[te] oc[u]los suos tanq[uam] lumi[n]aria vita[m] illi[us] h[abe]ntes observabant et timebant eu[m]. et q[ua]n[do] Ih[esu]s dormiebat sive in die sive in nocte. Claritas dei magna resplendebat sup[er] illum. Ad q[uos] nos p[er] duce[m] dignet[ur] am[en]. Explicit de infantia salvatoris.

Latin manuscript Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 288, fol. 79r-82r Gloriosum est enarrare Thoma[m] Ismaelitam et ap[osto]los d[omi]ni. Intelligite [er]go omnes f[rat]res carissimi sig[n]a que fecit Ih[esu]s. q[ua]ndo fuit i[n] civitate nazareth quod est primo capitulo. Cum autem e[ss]et Ih[esu]s .v. annor[um]

Appendix

251

f[ac]ta est pluvia erat terribilis. quem congregavit in piscinam. et precepit verbo suo ut fieret clara. Et statim f[ac]ta est. Iterum tollebat de luto q[uo]d erat de ip[s]a piscina et fecit ex eo ad mensura[m] .xii. passerum. Erat aute[m] sabbatu[m]. q[ua]n[do] hoc fecit Ih[esu]s inter pueros Iudeoru[m]. Et abierunt pueri dicentes ad Ioseph p[a] ren[t]i eius. ecce filius tuus ludebat simul nobiscum. Tulitq[ue] lutum et fecit passeres q[uo]d non fuit dignum facere in sabbato. et fregit illud et abiit ioseph ad puerum Ih[esu]m et dixit illi. Quare h[oc] fecisti q[uod] n[on] dignu[m] erat facere in sabbato. Ih[esu]s aute[m] ap[er]tis manib[us] precepit passeris dicens. Recedite in altum et volate. Et a nemine mortem invenietis. Et volantes ceperunt clamando laudare d[eu]m omnipote[n]te[m]. Videntes aute[m] Iudei que f[ac]ta sunt. admirati s[un]t. et abierunt nuntiantes signa que fecit Ih[esu]s. Pharisaeus autem q[ui] erat cu[m] Ih[es]u. apprehendit ramum olive. et cepit derigare fontem que[m] fecit Ih[esu]s. Cumq[ue] hoc vidiss[et] Ih[esu]s turbat[us] dixit ad eum. Sodomite impie et nesciens. Q[ui]d te dampnaver[un]t fontes aque facture me. Ecce sicut arida fies non h[abe]ns radices nec folia nec fructu[m]. Et statim arefact[us] cecidit i[n] t[er]ra[m] et mortuus e[st]. parentes eius detuleru[nt] eum mortuu[m]. et increpabant Ioseph dicentes ecce quid fecit filius tuus doce eum orare et non fecit blasphemare. Et post paucos dies deambulante Ih[es]u cu[m] Ioseph p[er] villam cucurrit de infantib[us] un[us] et p[er]cussit Ih[esu]m in ulnas. Ih[esu]s aut[em] dixit ad eum: Sic p[er]ficias iter tuu[m]. Et statim cecidit in t[er]ram et mortuus e[st]. Illi aute[m] vidente[s] mirabilia. Clamaveru[n]t dice[n]te[s]. Unde e[st] puer iste: et dixerunt ad Ioseph. N[on] op[or]tet e[ss]e nobiscum talem pueru[m]. Ille aute[m] abiit et tulit eum. Et dixerunt ei. Recede de loco isto. et si op[or]tet te nobiscum doce eum orare et no[n] blasphemare. filii aute[m] n[ost]ri insensati sunt. Vocavit Ioseph Ih[esu]m et p[er]cepit eum docere. Ut q[ui]d blasphemas. Habitatores isti odium h[abe]nt s[upe]r nos de loco isto. Ih[esu]s aute[m] dixit. Ego aute[m] scio quia isti sermones no[n] sunt mei. S[ed] tui sunt. ego aute[m] tacebo pro te. Ip[s]i aute[m] videant in sapientia[m] suam. Et hii statim q[ui] loquebant[ur] adversus Ih[esu]m. ceci f[ac]ti s[un]t. Et deambulantes dicebat. Omnes sermones qui p[ro]cedunt de ore eius exercitiu[m] h[abe]nt. Et cu[m] vidisset Ioseph que fecit Ih[esu]s: cum furore app[re]hendit eum p[er] auriculam. Ih[esu]s aute[m] turbat[us] dixit ad Ioseph. Sufficit tibi vide[re] me et non me tangere. Tu aut[em] nescis qui ego sum. Q[uod] si scires n[on] me co[n]t[ri]stares. Et q[uam]vi[s] ego modo tecu[m] sum ante te fact[us] sum. Igitur q[ui]da[m] homo nomi[n]e Zache[us] ascultabat om[n]ia que loq[ue]bat[ur] Ih[esu]s ad Ioseph et a[d]miratus in semet ip[su]m dicebat. Talem puerum ita loque[n]te[m] nu[m] q[ua]m vidi. Et appropinquas ad Ioseph dixit ei. Sapiente[m] pueru[m] habe[s] trade eum ad docendu[m] litteras. Cu[m] aut[em] doct[us] fuerit in studio littera-

252

Appendix

rum. ego docebo eum honorifice ut non fiat insipie[n]s. R[espondit] Io[seph] dixit ad eum. Nemo p[otest] docere eu[m] n[isi] solus d[eu]s. Nu[m]q[ui]d paru[m] creditis. erit parvulus iste. Ih[esu]s aute[m] cu[m] audiss[et] talia dicente[m] Io[seph] dixit ad Zacheu[m]. Vere mag[iste]r. q[u]i[a] q[ua]nta de ore meo p[ro] cedu[n]t vera sunt. Et ego an[te] om[ne]s sum d[omi]n[u]s. Vos aute[m] alieni gene estis. Q[uonia]m m[ihi] data gl[ori]a eor[um]. Vobis datum est nichil. Q[uia] ante secula ego sum. Ego aute[m] scio q[uo]d anni erunt vite tue. et q[ua]ndo tuleris in exilium. Q[uo]d dixit p[ate]r m[eu]s ut intelligas quia om[n] ia que procedunt de ore meo vera sunt. Iudei aute[m] qui astaba[n]t et audieba[n]t. sermones quos loquebatur Ih[esu]s mirati sunt et dicebant quia talia mirabilia vidim[us] et audivimus et tales sermones ab isto puero. Q[ua]lia nu[m]q[ua]m audivim[us] n[ec] audituri sumus ab alio aliquo ho[m]i[n]e. neq[ue] a pontificib[us] neq[ue] a magistris neq[ue] a Pharisaeis. Respondit Ih[esu]s et dix[it] eis. Ut quid miramini. Incredibilia habetis quia locut[us] sum v[er]itate[m]. Scio q[ua]ndo nati estis etiam p[at]res v[est]ri. et si plus dixero vobis. Q[ua]ndo mu[n]dus fact[us] est ego scio et qui me misit ad vos. Cum audissent Iudei sermone[m] quem dixerat infans. nati sunt p[ro]pt[er] hoc q[uo]d non poterant responde[re]. Et [con]v[er]sus in se ip[su]m infans exultavit et dixit. P[ro]v[er]biu[m] dixi vobi[s]. ego aute[m] scio quia debiles estis et nescientes. Dix[it] aute[m] mag[iste]r ille ad Ioseph. Affer eum m[ihi]. ego aut[em] docebo eum lit[ter]as. Ioseph aute[m] app[re]hendit pueru[m] Ih[esu]m et addux[it] illum in domo sup[ra]dicti magist[ri]. U[bi] alii pueri doceba[n]t[ur]. Mag[iste]r v[er]o dulci s[er]mone cepit eum docere litteras et sc[ri]psit illi p[ri]mu[m] v[er] sic[u]l[u]m q[uo]d [est] a usq[ue] t et cepit eu[m] palpare et doce[re]. Doctor autem ille p[er]cussit infante[m] in capite. puer v[er]o cu[m] accepisset dixit ad eum. Me aute[m] oportet te docere et te n[on] docere me. Ego scio literas q[ua] s tu vis doce[re] m[ihi] et scio q[uia] vos estis m[ihi] tamq[ua]m vasa de q[ui] b[us] n[on] exeunt n[ec] voces et no[n] sapientia neq[ue] anime salvat[i]o. Et i[n]cipie[n]s v[er]sic[u]l[u]m dixit p[er] lit[er]as ab a usq[ue] t plenit[er] cu[m] multa festinatione. re respex[it] ad magistru[m] et dixit ei. Tu autem nescis interp[re]tare q[uo]d est a et b. quom[odo] vis doce[re] alios. O pigritas si scis et dixeris m[ihi] quid est a vere creda[m] quia pot[er]is enna[ra]re m[ihi] de b. Ut aute[m] cepit enerrare doctor ille de p[ri]ma lit[ter]a non potuit ei illu[m] dare responsum. Ih[esu]s aute[m] dixit ad Zacheu[m] Audi me doctor et intellige p[ri]ma[m] lit[ter]am. Attende m[ihi] quo modo h[abe]t duos v[er]sic[u]los. In medio graphedi p[er]mane[n]do [con]dona[n]do disp[er]gendo variando commina[n]do triplex diploide comiscendo simul ingenio pariter omnia co[m] munia h[aben]t[i]a. Cu[m] vidiss[et] Zacheus q[uo]d tant[us] divid[er]et p[ri]mas lit[ter]am stupefactus est de p[ri]ma lit[ter]a et de tali homine et de doctrina et exclamavit et

Appendix

253

dix[it]. Heu me miser. Quid stupefact[us] sum ego. Conduxi m[ihi] turpitudine[m] p[er] istu[m] infantem. Et dixit ad Ioseph. P[re]cor te valde frater tolle eum a me. Q[uia] non possu[m] intuere in facie[m] ei[us] neq[ue] audire graves sermones eius. Quia iste infans ignem domitare et mare refrenare p[otest]. nam iste ante s[e]c[u]la natus est. Que vulva eum pep[er]it aut q[ua] mater eum nutrivit ignoro. O amici mei dimissus sum i[n] mente[m] mea[m] illusus su[m] ego miser. Ego aute[m] diceba[m] me h[abe]re discipulum ip[s]e aute[m] inventus est mag[iste] r. Et turpitudine[m] mea[m] n[on] possu[m] prevalere quia senex su[m]. et q[ui]d ei loquar n[on] possum invenire. Unde habeo irruere in valiam infirmitate[m] et de isto s[e]c[u]lo transmigrare. aut de ista civitate egrede[re]. quia videru[n]t turpitudine[m] mea[m]. i[n]fans decepit me. Quid habeo ad ad alios responde[re] aut q[ua]les sermones recitare. eo q[uo]d vicit me in p[ri]ma lit[ter]a. Stupesco ego cu[m] amici mei et noti mei. Neq[ue] p[ri]mordiu[m] neq[ue] finem possum invenire q[ui]d vi[m] respondea[m]. Et nu[n]c precor te f[rate]r Ioseph tollere eum a me et duc illu[m] in domu[m] tuam quia iste magnus est aut d[omi]n[u]s aut angel[u]s. Quid dica[m] nescio. Et nunc co[n]v[er]sus ad Iudeos qui cu[m] Zacheo erant dixit illis. Omnes nunc n[on] videntes videa[n]t et n[on] intelligentes intelligant et surdi audiant et qui pro me mortui sunt resurgant. et hiis qui sunt simile altiores in voce sicut p[re]cepit m[ihi] qui me misit ad vos. Cum autem siluisset puer Ih[esu]s salvi facti sunt om[ne]s infirmi qui p[ro]pt[er] sermones eius infirmabant[ur]. Et non erant ausi loq[ui] aliq[ui]d ad eum. Una aute[m] die cum ascenderet in domo quada[m] cum i[n]fantibus. cepit ludere eis Ih[esu]s. Unus ex ip[s]is pueris irruit p[er] posticu[m] qui statim mortuus est. Cum audisse[n]t hoc infantes om[ne]s fugerunt. Ih[esu]s autem remansit in domo illa. Et cum venissent parentes pueri qui defunctus fuerat. Diceba[n]t adv[er]sum Ih[esu]m. Vere tu eum irruere fecisti. Et insidiaba[n]t[ur] ei. Ih[esu] s aute[m] descendens de domo illa stetit sup[er] infantem mortuu[m] et clamavit clara voce nomen infantis: Syno o Syno surge et dic si ego te irruere feci. Et subito surrexit dix[it]. Non d[omi]ne. Cu[m] vidissent autem parentes eius tam magnu[m] miraculu[m]. quod fecit Ih[esu]s glorificaverunt d[eu]m et adoraveru[n]t Ih[esu]m. Post paucos v[er]o dies puer q[ui]da[m] i[n] ip[s]o vico findebat ligna percussitq[ue] pedem suum. Et cum venisset turba ad eum multa venit et Ih[esu]s cum ipsis. Et tetigit pede[m] qui lesus fuerat. et subito sanus factus est. dixit aute[m] ei Ih[esu]s. Surge et finde ligna et memoria mei. Cu[m] vidisset turba signa quae f[a]c[t]a s[un]t. adoraverunt Ih[esu]m et dixerunt. Vere certissime credim[us] quia d[eu]s es. Et cum e[ss]et Ih[esu]s annor[um] sex direxit eum mater ei[us] ad hauriendam aquam. Cumq[ue] venisset Ih[esu]s ad fonte[m] v[e]l ad puteu[m] erant

254

Appendix

ibi plurime turbe et fregerunt ydriam eius. Ip[s]e vero accepit pallium suu[m] quo i[n]duebat[ur] et i[m]plevit eum aqua. et attulit Marie matri eius. Cumq[ue] vidis[set] m[ate]r miraculum quod fecit Ih[esu]s osculat[a] e[st] eu[m] et dixit. D[omi]ne exaudi me et salva filium meu[m]. Cum aute[m] e[ss]et tempus seminandi egressus est Ioseph ad seminandu[m] triticum. et secutus est eum Ih[esu]s. Dum aute[m] cepit seminare Ioseph. extendit manu[m] Ih[esu]s et tulit de t[ri]tico q[ua]ntu[m] pugillo tenere potuit et disp[er]sit. Venit [er]go Ioseph in tempore metendi ut meteret messem suam. Venit Ih[esu]s collegit spicas quas disp[er]serat. et fecerunt c[entum] modia optimi frume[n]ti. et vocavit paup[er]es et viduas et orphanos et errogavit illis triticu[m] q[ua]m fecerat. Ioseph tulit de ip[s]o frum[en]to modicu[m] p[ro] benedictione Ih[es]u i[n] domum suam. Et f[ac]t[u]s est Ih[esu]s annor[um] viii. Erat Ioseph architector faciebat ip[s]e aratra et iuga boum. Quadam die dixit q[ui]da[m] dives ad Ioseph. D[omi]ne fac michi grabatu[m] unu[m] utile et speciosu[m]. Erat aute[m] in tribulatione q[ui] lignu[m] q[uo]d habebat aptu[m] ad hoc opus erat b[re]ve. Dix[it] Ih[esu]s ad eum. Noli cont[ri]stari. Apprehende hoc lignu[m] ab uno capite et ego p[er] aliud extraham[us] ill[u]d. Q[uo]d et f[ac]t[u]m erat. Et statim invenit illud utile ad hoc q[uo]d voluit. Et dix[it] ad Ioseph. ecce labora q[uo]d vis. Ioseph aute[m] cu[m] vidisset q[uo]d fecerat a[m]plexav[it] eu[m] et dixit. Beatus sum ego q[uo]d talem filiu[m] dedit m[ihi] d[eu]s. Et cu[m] vidisset Ioseph q[uo]d tale[m] gr[ati]am habuisset et statura co[n] siderabat eum trade[re] ad dicend[um] lit[ter]as. Et tradidit illu[m] ad alium doctore[m] ut eum doceret. Dix[it] aut[em] doctor ad Ioseph. Quales literas desideras illu[m] p[ri]mu[m] doce[re]. R[espondit] Ioseph et dix[it]. P[ri]mu[m] doce ei lit[ter]as gentilicas et postea hebrea[s]. Sciebat autem doctor illum e[ss]e optime intelligentie et libent[er] suscipiebat eum. Et cum sc[ri]psisset ei primu[m] v[er] sic[u]l[u]m q[uo]d est a et b docebat eum p[er] aliquantas horas. Ih[esu]s vero tacebat et nichil re[s]pondit. Dixit Ih[esu]s ad magistru[m]. si vere magister es et vere scis lit[ter]as. dic michi fortitudine[m] de a. ego autem dicam tibi fortitudine[m] de b. Tunc furore replet[us] magister ei[us] percussit eum in capite. Ih[esu]s aut[em] iratus maledix[it] eum. et subito cecidit et mortuus est. Ih[esu]s aute[m] regressus est in domu[m] suam. Ioseph vero disposuit ad Mariam matre[m] eius ut n[on] dimitteret eu[m] egredi de atrio domus sue. Post multos aute[m] dies venit alius doctor amicus Ioseph. et dix[it] ad eum. Trade eum m[ihi] et ego eu[m] cu[m] multa suavitate docebo eum lit[ter]as. Et dixit ad eum Ioseph. Si prevales accipe eum ad disciplinandu[m]. Fiat cum gaudio. Cu[m] accepisset eum doctor ibat cum timore et magna constantia et habebat eum cu[m] exultatione. Et cum veniss[et] ad domu[m] doctoris. invenit librum in eode[m] loco iace[n]te[m]. et apprehendit eum et ap[er]uit. et non

Appendix

255

legebat ea que erant sc[ri]pta in libro sed ap[er]iet os suu[m] et loq[ue]bat[ur] de sp[irit]u s[anc]to et docebat legem. Om[ne]s v[er]o qui astabant i[bi] dilige[n]t[er] eu[m] audieba[n]t. et magist[er] ille iuxta illu[m] sedebat et libent[ur] eum audiebat et deprecabat[ur] eu[m] ut ampli[us] doceret. Cu[m] collecta fuiss[et] turba multa audiebant omne[m] s[anc]tam doct[ri]na[m] q[ua]m docebat et dilectos sermones qui exiebant de ore eius quia pussilus cum e[ss]et talia dicebat. Cum audisset hoc Ioseph timuit et currens magist[er] ille v[en]erat Ih[esu]s dixit ad Ioseph. Scias f[rate]r quia p[er]cepi i[n]fantem tuu[m] ad docendu[m] v[e]l ad disciplina[n]du[m]. ip[s]e aute[m] multa gra[tia] et sapientia repletus est. ecce nu[n]c tolle eum cum gaudio i[n] domu[m] tua[m] f[rate]r quia gratia[m] q[ua]m h[abe]t a d[omi]no data est ei. Cu[m] audisset Ih[esu]s magistru[m] talia dicente[m]. hilaris f[ac]t[u]s e[st] et dicebat. Ecce nunc magister vere dixisti. Per te resurgere h[abe]t ille qui erat mortuus. Et subito surrexit magist[er] ille qui erat. Et tulit eum Ioseph in domu[m] sua[m]. Dixit aute[m] Ioseph Iacob ad colligenda[m] stipula[m]. et secutus e[st] eum Ih[esu]s. Iacob aute[m] colligendo stipula[m]. momordit eu[m] vip[er]a et cecidit i[n] t[er]ra q[ua]si mortuus p[ro]pt[er] venenu[m]. Cu[m]q[ue] talia vidiss[et] Ih[esu]s sufflavit i[n] plaga[m] eius et subito san[us] fact[us] est Iacob. et vip[er]a mortua [est]. Post paucos dies infans vicinus ei[us] mortuus est et deplorabat eum mater eius valde. Audiens hoc Ih[esu]s abiit et stetit sup[er] puerum. et pulsavit in pectore eius et dixit. Tibi dico infans noli mori sed vive. Et statim surrexit i[n]fans. Dixit aute[m] Ih[esu]s ad matre[m] pueri. Tolle filium tuu[m] et da illi v[er]ba et recordare mei. Videntes aute[m] t[ur]be hoc mirac[u]l[u]m dixerunt. I[n] v[er]itate iste infans celestis est. iam enim plures animas liberavit a morte. et salvos fecit om[ne]s sp[er]antes i[n] se. Scribe et Pharisei dixerunt ad Maria[m]. Tu es mater istius infanti[s]. Illa aute[m] dixit. Vere ego sum. Et dixerunt ad eam. Beata es tu int[er] mulieres q[uonia]m b[e]n[e]dix[it] d[eu]s fructu[m] ventris tui q[ui]a tale[m] gloriosu[m] i[n]fante[m] et tale donu[m] sapientie dedit tibi quale nu[m]q[ua]m vidimus n[ec] audivimus. Surrex[it] Ih[esu]s et secutus est matrem suam. Maria aute[m] co[n]servabat omnia in corde suo q[ua]nta fecit Ih[esu]s signa magna i[n] pop[u]lo sana[n]do infirmos multos. Ih[esu]s au[tem] crescebat statura sapientia. et o[mne]s qui videbant eum glorificaba[n]t d[eu]m p[at]rem omnipote[n]te[m] q[ui] e[st] benedict[us] i[n] s[e]c[u]la s[e]c[u]lor[um] am[en]. Hec omnia Thomas ismaelita ego sc[ri]psi que vidi et recordat[us] sum gentib[us] et fr[atr]ib[us] meis et multa alia que fecit Ih[esu]s q[ui] nat[us] est intra iude. Ecce omnia vidit domus est a p[ri]mo usq[ue] ad novissimu[m] q[ua]nta signa et mirabilia fecit Ih[esu]s i[n] ip[s]is valde bona. Et ip[s]e est qui debet iudicare mundo[m] sed in voluntate[m] imortalitatis et invisibilia

256

Appendix

p[at]ri suo quo m[od]o enarrat sc[ri]ptura s[anc]ta et p[ro]p[ter] h[ae]c testificati sunt op[er]a eius in omnib[us] populis isr[ae]l qui ip[s]e est filius dei i[n] univ[er] so orbe t[er]re. Ih[esu]m decet om[n]is gl[ori]a et honor i[n] sempituu[m]. qui vivis et regnas d[eu]s p[er] o[mn]ia s[e]c[u]la s[e]c[u]lor[um] amen.

Greek manuscript Codex Sabaiticus 259, Greek Patriarchal Library Jerusalem, fol. 66r-72v⁹⁸⁸ Τὰ παιδικὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ᾿Aναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην ἐγὼ Θωμᾶς Ἰσραηλίτης γνωρίσαι πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἀδελφοῖς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς. γεννηθεὶς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἡμῶν Βηθλεὲμ. κώμῃ Ναζαρέτ. ὧν ἡ ἀρχή ἐστὶν αὔτη. Τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς πενταετὴς ἦν καὶ βροχῆς γεναμένης ἔπαιζεν ἐπὶ διάβασιν ῥύακος καὶ ταράσσων τὰ ὕδατα τὰ ῥυπαρὰ ὄντα συνήγαγεν εἰς λάκκους καὶ ποιῇ αὐτὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἐνάρετα τῇ καταστάσει. λόγου μόνων καὶ οὐκ ἔργων ἐπιτάξας αὐτοῖς. Εἶτα ἄρας ἐκ τῆς φύλεως πηλὸν τρυφερῶν ἔπλασεν ἐξ αὐτῶν στρουθία ῑβ. ἦν δὲ σάββατον ὅτε ταῦτα ἐποίῃ καὶ πολλὰ παιδία ἦσαν σὺν αὐτῷ. Ἰδὼν δέ τίς Ἰουδαῖος τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων παιδίων ταῦτα ποιοῦντα, πορευθεὶς πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ διέβαλλεν τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν λέγων. ὅτι σάββατον πηλὸν ἐποίησεν ὧ οὐκ ἔξεστιν. καὶ ἔπλασεν στρουθία ῑβ. Καὶ ἐλθῶν Ἰωσὴφ ἐπετίμα αὐτὸν λέγων. Διὰ τί τῷ σάββατον ταῦτα ποιεῖς. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς συγκρωτήσας τὰς χεῖρας μετὰ φωνῆς ἐπέτασαν τὰ ὄρναια ἐνώπιον πάντων. καὶ εἶπεν. Ὑπάγεται πετασθήτοι ὡς ζῴντες. Τὰ δὲ στρουθία πετασθέντες ἀπῆλθαν κεκραγώτα. Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ἐθαύμασεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν πᾶσιν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ υἱὸς Ἄννα τοῦ ἀρχιερέως λέγει αὐτῷ. Τί ποιεῖς οὕτως ἐν σαββάτῳ. Καὶ λαβὼν κλῶνον ἰτέας κατέστρεψεν τοὺς λάκκους καὶ ἐξέχεεν τὸ ὕδωρ ὅνπερ συνήγαγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. καὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν ἐξήρανεν. Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸ γεγονὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Ἄριζος ὁ καρπός σου καὶ ξηρὸς ὁ βλαστός σου ὡς κλάδος ἐκκομένος ἐν πνεύματι τιμίῳ. Καὶ εὐθέως ὁ παῖς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηράνθη. Ἐκεῖθεν πορευομένου αὐτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τρέχων ἐκεῖνος ἐρράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Ἐπικατάρατός συ ὁ ἡγεμών σου. Καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέθανεν. Καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ λαὸς ἐβόησαν ἰδόντες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν. καὶ εἶπαν. Πόθεν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἐγεννήθη ὅτι τὸ ῥῆμα αὐτοῦ ἔργον ἐστίν. Οἱ δὲ γονεῖς τοῦ ἀποθανόντος παιδίου θεασάμενοι τὸ γεγονὸς. Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἐμέμφοντο λέγοντες. Ποθὲν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἔχων οὐ δύνασαι οἰκεῖν μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ

 For the translations of this text, see Burke, De infantia Iesu, 302– 337; Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus, 219 – 242.

Appendix

257

ταύτῃ. Εἰ θέλῃς ἴναι ἐνταῦθα δίδαξον αὐτὸν εὐλογεῖν καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθαι. τὸ γὰρ παιδίον ἡμῶν ἐστερήθημεν. Καὶ λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ. Ἵνα τί τοιαῦτα λαλεῖς. Καὶ πάσχουσιν αὐτοὶ καὶ μισῶσιν ἡμᾶς. Καὶ εἶπεν τὸ παιδίον τῷ Ἰωσὴφ. Φρόνιμα ῥήματά συ ἐγινώσκες ἄν πόθεν ἦν τὰ ῥήματά σου οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς. Ἐπίπεπτα διήγισαν κἀκεῖνα οὐκ ἀναστήσονται καὶ οὗτοι ἀπολήψονται τὴν κόλασιν αὐτῶν. Καὶ εὐθέως οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες αὐτὸν ἐτυφλώθησαν. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπελάβετο τοῦ ὁτί οὐ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔτιλεν σφόδρα. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ᾿Aρκείτω σοι τὸ ζητεῖν με καὶ εὑρίσκειν μὴ πρὸς τούτῳ ἔτι καὶ μωλωπίζειν φυσικὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐπιλαβόμενος καὶ οὐκ εἶδες με σαφῶς τί σοῦ εἰμι. Ἴδε οἶδας μὴ λυπεῖν με. Σὸς γὰρ ἡμῖν. καὶ πρὸς σε ἐχειρώθην. Καθηγητὴς δέ οὗ τοὔνομα Ζαγχαῖος ἑστὼς ἀκούσας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ταῦτα λέγοντος. πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ἐθαύμασεν σφόδρα. Καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ. Δεῦρο δὸς αὐτό ἀδελφέ. ἵνα παιδευθῇ γράμματα. καὶ ἵνα γνώσιν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην καὶ μάθῃ στέργειν ἡλικιώτας. καὶ τιμᾶν γῆρας. καὶ αἰδεῖσθαι πρεσβυτέρους. ἵνα καὶ εἰς τέκνα πόθον κτήσεται ἕξειν ὁμοίως αὐτὰ ἀνταπαιδεύσῃ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν τῷ καθηγητῇ. Καὶ τίς δύναται τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο κρατῆσαι καὶ παιδεῦσαι αὐτὸ μὴ μικροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἶναι νομίζῃς ἀδελφὲ. Ὁ δέ καθηγητὴς εἶπεν. Δός μοι αὐτὸ ἀδελφὲ καὶ μή σοι μελέτω. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτοῖς εἶπεν τῷ καθηγητῇ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον. Καθηγητὴς ὢν εὐφυῶς ἐξήχθης καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ᾧ ὀνομάζῃ ἀλλότριος τυγχάνεις. Ἔξωθεν γὰρ εἰμι ὑμῶν. ἔνδωθεν δὲ ὑμῖν διὰ τὴν σαρκικὴν εὐγένειαν ὑπάρχων. Σὺ δὲ νομικὸς ὢν τὸν νόμον οὐκ οἶδες. Πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ λέγει. Ὅτε ἐγεννήσω ὢν ἐγὼ σοι παρειστήκειν ἵνα πατὴρ παιδευθῇς τὴν παιδείαν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἣν ἄλλος οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδὲ διδάξαι δύναται καὶ τὸ σωτήριον ὄνομα βαστάσις. ᾿Aνεβόησαν δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι μέγα καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ. Ὢ καινοῦ καὶ παραδόξου θαύματος. Τάχα πενταετὴς ἦν τὸ παιδίον καὶ ὢ ποῖα φθέγγεται ῥήματα. Τοιούτους λόγους οὐδέποτε οἴδαμεν. οὐδενὸς εἰρηκότος οὐδὲ νομοδιδασκάλου οὐδὲ φαρισαίου τινὸς ὡς τοῦ παιδίου τούτου. ᾿Aπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς τὸ παιδίον καὶ εἶπεν. Τί θαυμάζετε. μᾶλλον δὲ τί ἀπιστεῖται ἐφ’ οἷς εἶπον ὑμῖν ἀληθῶς ἐστὶν. Ὅτε ἐγεννήθητε ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ πατέρες τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν οἶδα ἀκριβῶς καὶ ὃ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον κτισθῆναι. ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐφιμώθησαν λαλῆσαι μηκέτι δυνηθέντες πρὸς αὐτόν. Προσελθὼν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐσκίρτα καὶ ἔλεγεν. Ἔπαιζον πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐπειδὴ οἶδα μικροθαύμαστοί ἐστε. καὶ τοῖς φρονίμοις ὀλίγοι. Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παριγορίσθαι. ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδίου. ὁ καθηγητὴς εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. Δεῦρο ἄγαγε αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ παιδευτήριον. κἀγὼ διδάξω αὐτὸ γράμματα. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπιλαβόμενος τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ παιδευτήριον. καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος κολακεύσας αὐτὸν ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον. καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ζακχαῖος τὸν ἀλφάβητον. καὶ ἤρξατο ἐπιστοιχίζειν αὐτῷ. καὶ λέγει τὸ αὐτὸ γράμμα πλεονάκις. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ. Πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸ εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἠγανάκτησεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Ἐγώ σε θέλω παιδεῦσαι μᾶλλον ἢ παιδευθῆναι παρά σου ἐπειδὴ

258

Appendix

οἶδα τὰ γράμματα ἅ συ διδάσκεις ἀκριβῶς πολλοῦ κρειττοτέρους σου. καὶ ταῦτα ἐμοί εἰσιν ὥσπερ χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον ἅτινα οὐ παρίστησι τὴν φωνὴν ἢ τὴν δόξαν οὔτε τὴν δύναμιν τῆς συνέσεως. Παυσάμενον δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς τὸ παιδίον εἶπεν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὰ γράμματα πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄλφα ἕως τοῦ ϖ μετὰ πολλῆς ἕξεως. Καὶ τρανῶς ἐμβλέψας τῷ καθηγητῇ εἶπεν. Σὺ τὸ ἄλφα μὴ εἰδὼς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν τὸ βῆτα πῶς διδάσκεις ἄλλον. Ὑποκριτὰ εἰ οἶδας πρῶτον δίδαξόν με τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τότε σοι πιστεύσω λέγειν τὸ βῆτα. Εἶτα ἤρξατο ἀποστοματίζειν τὸν διδάσκαλον περὶ τοῦ α στοιχείου. καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν αὐτῷ εἰπεῖν. ᾿Aκουόντων δὲ πολλῶν λέγει τῷ καθηγητῇ. Ἄκουε διδάσκαλε καὶ νόει τὴν τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου τάξιν. καὶ πρόσχες πῶς δὲ ἔχει κανόνας ὀξεῖς καὶ χαρακῆρα μέσον. οὓς ὁρᾷς ὀξυνομένους διαβαίνοντας. συναγομένους. ἐξέρποντας. ἀφελκομένους. ὑψουμένους. Χορεύοντας. βελεφετοῦντας. Τρισήμους. Διστόμους. ὁμοσχήμους. ὁμοπαχεῖς. ὁμογενεῖς. Σπαρτούχους. Ζυγοστάτας. ἰσομέτρους. ἰσομέρους. κανόνας ἔχον τὸ ἄλφα. ᾿Aκούσας δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς τὴν τοιαύτην προσεγορίαν καὶ τοὺς τοιύτους κανόνας τοῦ πρώτου γράμματος εἰρηκότος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠπορήθη ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην διδασκαλίαν καὶ ἀπολογίαν αὐτοῦ. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ καθηγητὴς. Οἴμοι οἴμοι ἠπορήθην ὁ ταλαίπωρος ἐγώ. ἐμαυτὸν αἰσχύνην παρέσχον ἐπικατασπασάμενος τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. Ἆρον ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἀδελφὲ. Οὐ γὰρ φέρω τοῦ βλέμματος αὐτοῦ. οὐδὲ τὸν τρανὸν τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ. Ἁπλῶς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο γηγενὴς οὐκ ἔστιν. Τοῦτο δύναται καὶ τὸ πῦρ δαμάσαι. Τάχα τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον πρὸ τῆς κοσμοποιΐας ἦν. Ποία γαστὴρ τοῦτο ἐγέννησε. ἢ ποία μήτρα ἐξέθρεψεν. ἐγὼ ἀγνοῶ. Οἴμοι ἀδελφὲ ἐξηχεῖ με. Οὐ παρακολουθῶ τῇ διανοίᾳ μου. Ἠπάτησα ἐμαυτόν ὁ τρισάθλιος ἐγώ. Ἡγούμην ἔχειν μαθητὴν καὶ εὑρέθην ἔχωντα διδάσκαλον. Ἐνθυμοῦμαι φίλοι τὴν αἰσχύνην μου ὅτι γέρων ὑπάρχω καὶ ὑπὸ παιδίου νενίκημαι. καὶ ἔχω ἐκκίσαι καὶ ἀποθανεῖν. ἢ φυγεῖν τῆς κώμης ταύτης. διὰ τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. Οὐ δύναμαι γὰρ οὐκέτι ὁραθῆναι. εἰς ὄψιν πάντων μάλιστα τῶν ἰδόντων ὅτι ἐνικήθην ὑπὸ παιδίου πάνυ μικροῦ. Τί δὲ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ἢ διηγήσασθαί τινι περὶ ὧν προσέθηκέν μοι κανόνας τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου. ἀληθῶς ἀγνοῶ φίλοι. Οὔτε γὰρ ἀρχὴν οὐδὲ τέλος ἐπίσταμαι. Τί γὰρ οῦν ἀδελφὲ Ἰωσήφ. ἄπαγε αὐτὸ μετὰ σωτηρίας εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. Τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ παιδίον τί ποτε μέγα ἐστὶν, ἢ θεὸς ἢ ἄγγελος ἢ τί εἴπω οὐκ οἶδα. Τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ἐγέλασεν καὶ εἶπεν. Νῦν καρποφορείτωσαν τὰ ἄκαρπα καὶ βλεπέτωσαν οἱ τυφλοὶ. καὶ φρονήσατε οἱ ἄσοφοι τῇ καρδίᾳ. ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄνωθεν πάρειμι ἵνα τοὺς κάτω ῥύσωμαι καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄνω καλέσω καθὼς διεστείλατό με ὁ ἀποστείλας με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. καὶ εὐθέως ἐσώθησαν πάντες ὑπὸ τῆς κατάρας αὐτοῦ πεπτωκότες καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα παρουργίσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τότε. πάλιν δὲ μετὰ ἡμέρας πολλὰς ἔπαιζεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ καὶ ἑτὲρων παιδίων ἔν τινι δώματι ὑπερῲῳ. Ἓν δὲ τῶν παιδίων πεσών ἀπέθανεν. Ἰδῶν δὲ τὰ ἄλλα παιδία ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν. κατέλιπον δὲ τόν Ἰησοῦν μόνον. καὶ ἐλθόντες οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ τεθνηκότος παιδίου ἐνεκάλουν τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες. σὺ κατέβαλας τό παιδίον ἡμῶν. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν. Ἐγὼ οὐ

Appendix

259

κατέβαλα αὐτό. Ἐκείνων δὲ ἐμμενώντω καὶ κραζόντων κατέβη Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τοῦ στέγου καὶ ἔστη παρὰ τὸ πτῶμα καὶ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων. Ζῆνον Ζῆνον τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστα καὶ εἰπὲ εἰ ἐγὼ σε κατέβαλον. καὶ ἀναστὰς εἶπεν. Οὐχί κύριε. καὶ ἰδόντες ἐθαύμασαν. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. καὶ κοιμοῦ. καὶ οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ παιδίου ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν. Ἦν δὲ τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ὡς ἐτῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ ἐπεύθη ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας γεμίσαι ὕδωρ. Ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑδρείᾳ ἦν ὁ ὄχλος πολύς κρουσθούσα ἡ κάλπη ἀπέρραγεν. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἁπλώσας τὸ παλλίον ὃν βεβλημμένος ἐγέμισεν τὸ ὕδωρ. καὶ ἤνεγκεν τῇ μητρί αὐτοῦ. Μαρία δὲ ἰδοῦσα ὃ ἐποίησεν σιμίον ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατεφίλει αὐτὸν λέγουσα. Κύριε ὁ Θεός μου εὐλόγησον τὸ τέκνον μας. Ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ μή τις αὐτῷ βασκάνῃ. Ἐν δὲ τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ σπόρου σπείροντος τοῦ Ἰωσήφ ἔσπειρεν καὶ τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ἕνα κόρον σίτου. καὶ ἐθέρισεν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ κόρους ρ’ μεγάλους. καὶ ἐχαρίσατο πτωχοῖς καὶ ὀρφανοῖς. Ἦρεν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπόρου τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ἐτῶν ὀκτώ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ τέκτονος ὄντος καὶ ἐργαζομένου ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγούς ἔλαβεν κράβαττον παρά τινος πλουσίου ἵνα αὐτὸν ποιήσῃ μέγα πάνυ καὶ ἐπιτήδειον καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς κανόνος τοῦ καλουμένου κολοβωτέρου ὄντος καὶ μὴ ἔχοντος τὸ μέτρον ἦν λυποῦμενος ὁ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ μὴ ἔχων τί ποιῆσαι. Προσελθὼν τὸ παιδίον τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ λέγει Θὲς κάτω τὰ δύο ξύλα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σου μέρους ἰσοποίησον αὐτὰ. καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Ἔστε δὲ τὸ παιδίον ἐκ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους καὶ ἐκράτησεν τὸ κολοβὸν ξύλον καὶ ἐξέτεινεν αὐτὸ. καὶ σον ἐποίησεν μετὰ τοῦ ἄλλου ξύλου. καὶ εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ μὴ λυποῦ ἀλλὰ ποίει ὃ θέλῃς. ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ περιλαβὼν κατεφίλει αὐτὸν λέγων μακάριός εἰμι ἐγὼ ὅτι τοῦτον παιδίον ἔδωκέν μοι ὁ Θεός. Ἰδὼν δὲ Ἰωσὴφ τὸ φρόνιμον καὶ νουνεχὲς αὐτοῦ ἠβουλήθη μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸ ἄπορον γραμμάτων ἀλλὰ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ἕτερον διδάσκαλον. καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος γράψας αὐτῷ τὸν ἀλφάβητον ἔλεγεν εἰπὲ ἄλφα τὸ δὲ παιδίον λέγει. σύ μοι πρῶτον εἰπὲ τί ἐστὶν τὸ βῆτα κἀγώ σοὶ ἐρῶ τί ἐστὶν τὸ ἄλφα. Πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸ καὶ κατηράσατο αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ καθηγητὴς καὶ ἀπέθανεν. καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς γονεῖς αὐτοῦ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καλέσας τὴν μητήρα αὐτοῦ παρήγγειλε αὐτῇ μὴ ἀπολύσῃ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἵνα μὴ ἀποθνήσκωσιν οἱ παροργίζοντες αὐτὸν. καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας τινὰς πάλιν ἕτερος καθηγητὴς εἶπεν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰωσήφ. Δεῦρο ἀδελφέ δός μοι αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ παιδευτήριον ἵνα μετὰ κολακείας δυνήσωμαι αὐτὸ διδάξαι γράμματα. ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ θαρρεῖς ἀδελφὲ ἄγαγε αὐτὸ μετὰ σωτηρίας καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος λαβόμενος τὸ παιδίον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς ἀπήγαγεν μετὰ φόβου καὶ ἀγῶνος πολλοῦ τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἡδέως ἐπορεύετο. καὶ εἰσελθὼν ἐν τὸ διδασκαλείον εὗρεν βιβλίον ἐν τῷ ἀναλογείῳ κείμενον. καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὸ οὐκ ἀνεγίνωσκεν τὰ γεγράμμενα διὰ τὸ μὴ ἴναι αὐτὰ ἐκ νόμου Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀνοίξας

260

Appendix

τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐπεφεθέγξατο ῥήματα φοβερὰ ὥστε τὸν καθηγητὴν ἄντικρυς καθιζόμενον ἡδέως πάντα ἠκούει αὐτῷ καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸ ἵνα πλείονα εἴπῃ τὸν δὲ παρεστῶτα ὄχλον ἐκπληττέσθαι ἐν τοῖς ὁσίοις ῥήμασιν αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ταχέως ἔδραμεν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον ὑπονόησας μήκετι οὗτος ὁ καθηγητὴς ἄπειρός ἐστὶν καὶ πάθῃ εἶπεν δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς τῷ Ἰωσήφ. ἵνα οἶδας ἀδελφὲ ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν τὸ παιδίον σου παρέλαβον μαθητήν αὐτὸ πολλῆς χάριτος καὶ σοφίας μεστόν ἐστιν τοιγαροῦν ἀδελφέ ἄπαγε αὐτὸν μετὰ σωτηρίας εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν τῷ καθηγητῇ ἐπειδὴ ὀρθῶς ἐλάλησας καὶ ὀρθῶς ἐμαρτύρησας διὰ σὲ καὶ ὁ πληγεὶς σωθήσεται. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐσώθη κἀκεῖνος ὁ καθηγητής. Ὁ δὲ λαβόμενος τὸ παιδίον ἀπήγαγεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰάκωβος ἀπήγαγεν εἰς τὴν νάπην τοῦ δῆσαι φρύγανα ἵνα ἄρτοι γίνωνται. ἀπήγεν καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ συλλεγόντων αὐτῶν τὰ φρύγανα ἔχιδνα παλαμναῖα ἔδακεν τὸν Ἰάκωβον εἰς τὴν χεῖραν αὐτοῦ. Κατατεινομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλυμένου προσέδραμεν τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ κατεφύσησεν τὸ δῆγμα. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἰάθη τὸ δῆγμα καὶ τὸ θηρίον ἀπενεκρώθη καὶ Ἰάκωβος ἐστάθη. Πάλιν σχίζοντος ξύλα ἐν ἴσῳ νεωτέρου τινός καὶ ἔσχισεν τὴν βάσιν τοῦ ποδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔξαιμος γενόμενος ἀπέθνησκεν. Θορύβου γενομένου ἔδραμεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. καὶ βιασάμενος διῆλθεν διὰ τοῦ ὄχλου καὶ κρατήσας τὸν πόδα τὸν πεπληγότα καὶ εὐθέως ἰάθη. καὶ εἶπεν τῷ νεανίσκῳ ὕπαγε σχίζε τὰ ξύλα σου. Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐθαύμασαν καὶ εἶπαν. Πολλὰς γὰρ ψυχὰς ἔσωσεν ἐκ θανάτου καὶ ἔχει σῶσαι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ. Ὄντος δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ δωδεκατοῦς ἐπορεύοντο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἔθος εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ Πάσχα. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐπιστρέφειν αὐτοὺς ἀπέμεινεν Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ νομίσαντες εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ. ἦλθαν ἡμέρας ὁδὸν καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν καὶ ἐν τῖ γνωστοῖς αὐτῶν. καὶ μὴ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ ζητοῦντες αὐτόν. καὶ μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς εὗρον αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καθήμενον ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλων καὶ ἀκούοντα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπερωτῶντα αὐτούς. ἐξίσταντο δὲ οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτοῦ πῶς ἀπεστομάτιζεν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπιλύων τὰ κεφάλαια τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν τὰ σκολιὰ καὶ τὰς παραβολάς. καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τέκνον τί ἐποίησας ἡμῖν ἰδοὺ ὀδυνώμενοι λυπούμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἵνα τί ἐζητεῖτέ με οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με. οἱ δὲ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι εἶπαν τῇ Μαρίᾳ Σὺ εἶ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου ἡ δὲ εἶπεν ἐγὼ εἰμι εἶπαν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν μακαρία εἶ σύ ὅτι ηὐλόγησεν κύριος Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου. Τοιαύτην γὰρ σοφίαν ἐνεστώς καὶ δόξαν ἀρετῆς οὐδὲ εἴδαμεν οὔτε ἠκούσαμέν ποτε. ἀναστὰς δὲ ἐκεῖθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠκολούθησεν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος τοῖς γονεῦσιν αὐτοῦ. καὶ διετήρει πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα συμβαλοῦσα ἐν τῇ καρ-

Appendix

261

δίᾳ αὐτῆς. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτεν σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ χάριτι παρὰ Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις ᾧ ἡ δόξα.

Greek manuscript Athens 355, Ethnike Bibliotheke, fol. 61v-68v⁹⁸⁹ ᾿Aναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην κἀγὼ γνωρίσαι πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἀδελφοῖς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἡμῶν Βηθλεὲμ καὶ ἐν κώμῃ Ναζαρέτ οὗ ἡ ἀρχή ἐστὶν αὔτη. Μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐτῶν πέντε γενομένης βροχῆς ἔπαιζεν ἐπὶ διάβασιν ῥύακος καὶ τὰ μὲν ῥυπαρὰ ὕδατα συνήγαγεν εἰς λάκκους καὶ εὐθέως ἐποίει αὐτὰ καθαρὰ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ. Εἶτα πάλιν ἐπάρας πηλὸν καθαρὸν ἐκ λάκκου ἐποίησε δώδεκα στρουθία ἦν δὲ σάββατον ὅτε ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παίζων μετὰ τῶν παίδων τῶν Ἑβραίων. ἀπῆλθον δὲ πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ λέγοντες αὐτῷ. Ἰδοὺ τὸ παιδίον σου παῖζον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐπῆρε πηλὸν καὶ ἐποίησε δώδεκα στρουθία. Καὶ ἀπελθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ. ἵνα τί οὕτως ἐποίησας ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῷ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κρωτήσας τὰς χεῖρας λέγει τοῖς στρουθίοις. Ὑπάγετε πετάσατε καὶ μιμνήσκεσθέ μου οἱ ζῴντες. καὶ πετάσαντα τὰ στρουθία ἀπῆλθον κράζοντα. ἀπήγγειλαν πᾶσι τὸ σημεῖον ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Ἄννας δὲ γραμματεὺς ἐκεῖ ἦν μετὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ λαβὼν κλάδον ἐτέας διέτρεψε τοὺς λάκκους καὶ ἐξέχεε τὸ ὕδωρ ἐξ αὐτων ὃ συνήγαγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. ὃν εἶδος τοῦτο ποιήσαντα ἠγανάκτει κατ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπε. Σοδομίτα ἄσεβες καὶ ἀνόητε τί σε ἠδίκησαν οἱ λάκκοι οἱ ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ ὕδατα. Ἰδοὺ νῦν ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς καὶ μὴ ἔχῃς ῥίζαν μήτε κεφαλὴν μήτε καρπόν. καὶ πεσὼν ἐξηράνθη παραχρῆμα. ἐλθόντες δὲ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ ἦραν αὐτὸν παραχρῆμα τεθνηκότα κατεμέμφοντο δὲ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ λέγοντες ὅτι ἔχεις τοιοῦτον παιδίον καὶ ἰδὲ τί ποιεῖ ἡμῖν. Δίδαξον αὐτὸ εὐλογεῖν καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθαι. Εἶτα μετ’ ὀλίγας ἡμέρας περιπατῶν ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ εἰς τὴν κώμην καὶ δραμὸν ἓν παιδίον ἔδωκε τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ὦμον. Καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτῷ. Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου. Καὶ εὐθέως πεσὸν ἀπέθανεν. οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἰδόντες τὸ θαῦμα ἀνεβόησαν λέγοντες πόθεν ἦν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο καὶ ἔλεγον τῷ Ἰωσήφ. Οὐ δύνασαι οἰκεῖν μεθ’ ἡμῶν παιδίον τοιοῦτον ἔχων. λαβὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀναχώρησον ἀπεντεῦθεν. Εἰ θέλεις οἰκεῖν μεθ’ ἡμῶν δίδαξον αὐτὸ εὐλογεῖν καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθαι. τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν ὡς ἀνάπηρα ἐποίησεν. Προσκαλεσάμενος δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐνουθέτει αὐτὸν κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγων. Διὰ τί καταρᾶσαι καὶ πάσχουσιν καὶ μισοῦσιν ἡμᾶς. καὶ διώκουσιν ἐκ τῆς

 Burke translated his edition of the Gd variant, reconstructed based on three manuscripts, out of which only manuscript Athens 355 contains the complete text. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 392– 451.

262

Appendix

κώμης. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅτι τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὰ ἀλλὰ σά εἰσιν. ὅμως ἔχω σιωπῆσαι διὰ σέ. ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἕξουσι τιμωρίαν ἑαυτῶν. Καὶ εὐθέως ἀγανακτῶντες ἐτυφλώθησαν. καὶ διηπόρουν μαινόμενοι. ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἔτεινεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ὀργισθεὶς ἠγανάκτησεν λέγων τῷ Ἰωσήφ. ᾿Aρκεῖ σοι ὅτι βλέπεις με καὶ μή με λοπϊάζεις. οὐ γὰρ οἶδας τίς εἰμὶ καὶ πρὸς σὲ πάρειμι. Διδάσκαλος δέ τίς ὀνόματι Ζακχαῖος ἠκροᾶτο πάντα ὅσα ἐλάλει Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἐθαύμαζε λέγων ἐν ἑαυτῷ. τοιοῦτον παιδίον ταῦτα φθέγγεται. καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν Ἰωσὴφ λέγει αὐτῷ. Φρόνιμον παιδίον ἔχεις καὶ καλὸν νοῦν ἔχει ἀλλὰ παράδος μοι αὐτὸν ἵνα μάθῃ γράμματα. καὶ διδάξω αὐτὸν πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην ἵνα μὴ ἀνυπότακτον. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Οὐ δύναταί τίς τοῦτον ὑποτάξαι εἰ μὴ μόνος Θεός. μὴ μικρὸν σταυρὸν νομίζῃς αὐτὸν εἶναι ἀδελφέ. ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦτο λέγοντος ἐγέλασε καὶ εἶπε πρὸς τὸν Ζακχαῖον. ἀληθῶς καθηγητά ὅσα εἴρηκέ σοι ὁ πατήρ μου ἀληθές ἐστί. καὶ τούτων μὲν ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος καὶ πρὸς σὲ πάρειμι καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐγεννήθην καὶ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμί. ἐγὼ οἶδα ὑμᾶς πόθεν ἐστὲ καὶ πόσα ἔτη ἔσται τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν ἀληθῶς λέγω σοι, διδάσκαλε, ὅτε ἐγεννήθης ἐγὼ εἰμί. καὶ εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι διδάσκαλος, ἄκυσόν μου κἀγὼ διδάξω σε σοφίαν ἣν οὐδεὶς ἄλλος οἶδε πλὴν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ πέμψαντός με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. σὺ γὰρ τυγχάνεις ἐμὸς μαθητὴς κἀγὼ οἶδά σε πόσων ἐτῶν εἶ καὶ πόσον ἔχεις ζῆσαι. καὶ ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μου ὃν εἶπεν ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσεις ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπόν σοι ἀληθῆ εἰσιν. οἱ δὲ παριόντες Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ ἀκούοντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐθαύμασαν καὶ εἶπον. ὢ ξένον καὶ παράδοξον πρᾶγμα. οὔπω ἐστὶν ἐτῶν πέντε τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο καὶ τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται. Τοιούτους γὰρ λόγους οὐδέποτε ἠκούσαμεν εἰρηκότος τινὸς ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. ᾿Aποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς. Πάνυ θαυμάζετε. μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπιστῆτε ἐφ’ οἷς εἶπον ὑμῖν. ἀληθῶς οἶδα καὶ πότε ἐγεννήθητε ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ πατέρες καὶ τὸ παράδοξον λέγω ὑμῖν. ὅτε δὴ ὁ κόσμος ἐκτίσθη, ἐγὼ εἰμὶ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ὅτι οὕτως λέγει τὸ παιδίον ἐθυμώθησαν μὴ δυνάμενοι ἀποκριθῆναι αὐτῷ λόγον. Προσελθὼν δὲ τὸ παιδίον καὶ σκιρτῆσαν αὐτοῖς λέγει. Ἔπαιξα ὑμᾶς. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μικροθαύμαστοί ἐστε μικροὶ τοῖς φρονήμασιν. Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παρηγορεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδίου. εἶπεν ὁ καθηγητὴς πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσήφ. ἄγαγε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ παιδευτήριον. κἀγὼ αὐτὸν διδάξω γράμματα. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ λαβὼν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς χειρὸς ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον. καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτῷ ἀλφάβητον καθηγητὴς καὶ ἤρξατο ἐπιτηδεύειν καὶ εἶπε τὸ ἄλφα πλειστάκις. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτὸν ἕως ὥρας πολλάς. ὀργισθεὶς οὖν ὁ καθηγητὴς ἔκρουσεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἀξίος παθὸν εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Ἐγώ σε παιδεύω μᾶλλον ἢ παιδεύομαι ἀπὸ σοῦ ὅτι οἶδα γράμματα ἅ σύ με διδάσκεις καὶ πολλή σου κρίσις ἐστί. καὶ ταῦτά σοί ἐστιν ὡς χοῦς χαλκοῦς ὡς κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον ἅτινα οὐ παρέχουσι διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν. οὐδέ τινος ψυχὴ τὴν δύνα-

Appendix

263

μιν τῆς σοφίας μου. Παυσάμενος δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς εἶπε τὰ γράμματα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄλφα ἕως τὸ ϖ μετὰ πολλῆς ὀξύτητος. ἐμβλέψας δὲ εἰς τὸν καθηγητὴν λέγει αὐτὸν. Σὺ τὸ ἄλφα μὴ εἰδὼς κατὰ φύσιν τὸ βῆτα πῶς μᾶλλον διδάσκεις. Ὑποκριτά εἰ οἶδας δίδαξόν με πρῶτον σὺ τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τότε σοι πιστεύω τὸ βῆτα. ὁ δὲ ἤρξατο ἐπερωτᾶν τὸν διδάσκαλον περὶ τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου. καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν εἰπεῖν οὐδέν. ᾿Aκουόντων δὲ πολλῶν λέγει πρὸς Ζακχαῖον. Ἄκουε διδάσκαλε καὶ νόει τὴν τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου τάξιν. δέ πῶς ὧδὲ ἔχει δύο κανόνας καὶ χαρακῆρας μέσον. ὀξυσμένους διαμένοντας συναγομένους. ὑψουμένους χορεύοντας τριστόμους Διστόμους ἀμαχίμους ὁμογενεῖς παρόχους Ζυγοστόμους ἰσομέτρους κανόνας ἔχει τὸ ἄλφα. ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ζακχαῖος τὰς τοιαύτας προσεγορίας καὶ τοὺς κανόνας τοῦ πρώτου γράμματος εἰρηκότος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠπόρησεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην διδασκαλίαν καὶ ἐβόησε λέγων. Οἴμοι ὅτι ἠπατήθην ὁ τάλας ἐγὼ καὶ ἐμαυτῷ αἰσχύνην κατέσχον. Ἆρον αὐτὸν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ παρακαλῶ σε ἀδελφέ. Οὐ φέρω τὸ αὐστηρὸν τοῦ βλέμματος αὐτοῦ. οὐδὲ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ. τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον δύναται παραδαμάσαι πάντας καὶ χαλινῶσαι τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο πρὸ τῆς κοσμοποιΐας ἦν. Ποία μήτηρ αὐτὸ ἐγέννησεν ἢ τίς ἐξέθρεψεν αὐτό ἐγὼ ἀγνοῶ. Οἴμοι φίλοι μου ἐξέστη μου ἡ διάνοια. Ἠπατήθην ἐγὼ ὁ ἄθλιος κἀγὼ ἠγωνιζόμην ἔχειν μαθητὴν καὶ εὐθέως ἔχω διδάσκαλον καὶ τὴν αἰσχύνην οὐχ ὑποφέρω ὅτι γέρων ὢν ὑπὸ παιδὸς ἐνικήθην. ὧν οὔτε ἀρχὴν εὑρίσκω οὔτε τέλος καὶ ἔχω ἐκκακῆσαι καὶ ἀποθανεῖν. ἢ φυγεῖν τὴν κώμην διὰ τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. Οὐ δύναμαι γὰρ ὁραθῆναι. εἰς ὄψιν αὐτοῦ πάντων ἰδόντων ὅτι ὑπὸ παιδὸς ἐνικήθην. Τί δὲ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ἢ διηγήσασθαι περὶ ὧν προέθηκέ μοι κανόνα τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου. οὗ ἐγὼ ἀγνοῶ παρακαλῶ σε ἀδελφέ ὕπαγε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. οὗτος γὰρ μέγας ἐστὶν ἢ Θεὸς ἢ ἄγγελος ἢ κτίστης τῶν ἁπάντων τῶν δὲ Ἰουδαίων παραινούντων τὸν Ζακχαῖον ἐγέλασεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν. Νῦν καρποφορείτωσαν τὰ ἄκαρπα. Νῦν βλεπέτωσαν τὰ ἄβλεπα. Νῦν ἀκουέτωσαν οἱ κωφοὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ. ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄνωθεν πάρειμι ἵνα τοὺς κάτω ῥύσωμαι καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄνω βλέπω καθὼς προσέταξέ μοι ὁ ἀποστείλας με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. καὶ ὡς ταῦτα εἶπε τὸ παιδίον ἐγένοντο ὑγιεῖς πάντες ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ λόγον πονηρόν. Μιᾷ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔπαιζεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σὺν τοῖς παισὶ καὶ ἓν παιδίον ἔπεσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνωγαίου καὶ ἀπέθανεν. ὡς δὲ εἶδον τὰ παιδία τὸ πτῶμα ἔφυγον. ἀπέμεινε δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μόνος εἰς τὸ ἀνώγαιον. ἐλθόντες δὲ οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ τεθνηκότος παιδίου ἔλεγον τῷ Ἰησοῦ. ὅτι σὺ αὐτὸν κατέβαλες. ὡς δὲ ἐμαίνοντο κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατῆλθε κάτω καὶ στὰς ἐπάνω τοῦ πτώματος ἔκραζε λέγων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τεθνηκότος Ζῆνον Ζῆνον ἀνάστα καὶ εἰπὲ ἐγώ σε κατέβαλα. καὶ ἀναστὰς παραχρῆμα εἶπεν. Οὐχί κύριε. οὐχί ἰδόντες δὲ οἰ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ τὸ παράδοξον θαῦμα ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν. Εἶτα μετ’ ὀλίγας ἡμέρας νεώτερός τις ἐν τῇ γειτονίᾳ ἔσχισε ξύλα. καὶ ἔκοψε τὸν δεξιὸν αὑτοῦ πόδα. καὶ συνήχθη ὁ ὄχλος ἐπ’ αὐτῷ εἰσῆλθε δὲ καὶ ἰώμενος τὰς νόσους ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός καὶ κρατήσας τοῦ πληγωμένου ποδός

264

Appendix

παραχρῆμα ἰάθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος. ἀναστὰς σχίσον τὰ ξύλα καὶ μνημόνευέ μου. Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σημεῖον προσεκύνησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπον. ἀληθῶς τάχα ὁ Θεὸς οἰκεῖ ἐν τῷ παιδίῳ τούτῳ. Γενομένου δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς ἑξαετοῦς ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτὸν ἡ Θεοτόκος ἵνα ἀγάγῃ ὕδωρ. ὄχλου δὲ ὄντος πολλοῦ ἐν τῇ πηγῇ ἐκλάσθη ἡ ὑδρία αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἁπλώσας τὸ πάλλιον αὑτοῦ ὃ ἐφόρει ἔθηκεν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ἐπήγαγε τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ Μαρίαμ. ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ἡ ἁγία Θεοτόκος ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σημεῖον κατεφίλησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπε. Κύριε ἐλέησον τὸν υἱόν μου. Ἐν δὲ τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ σπόρου ἀπῆλθεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἵνα σπείρῃ σῖτον. ἠκολούθησε δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐν τῷ σπείρειν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ἔσπειρε καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μίαν δράκαν. Ἐν δὲ τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ θέρους συνάξας ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὃν ἔσπειρε σῖτον, ἡλώνισεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ μόδια ἑκατόν. καὶ καλέσας χήρας καὶ ὀρφανοὺς δέδωκεν αὐτῶν τὸν σῖτον ὃν ἔσπειρε. Κεκράτηκε δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σίτου ὀλίγον ἵνα ἔχωσιν εἰς εὐλογίαν τοῦ σπόρου. Ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐτῶν ὀκτώ ἦν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τέκτων ἐργαζόμενος ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγούς λέγει αὐτῷ τις πλούσιος κύρ’ Ἰωσὴφ ποίησόν μοι κλίνην ἔντιμον καλήν ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἦν ἐν θλίψει διὰ τὸ εἶναι τὸ ἓν ξύλον στρεβλόν. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μὴ λυποῦ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον θὲς τὰ ξύλα καὶ ἰσάζωμεν αὐτό. ἐποίησε ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸ ἓν μέρος τοῦ ξύλου ἔτεινεν αὐτός. καὶ λέγει τῷ Ἰωσήφ ποίει ὃ βούλει ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς σημεῖον περιπλακεὶς ἐφίλησε τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγων Μακάριός εἰμι ὅτι τοιοῦτον παιδίον δέδωκέ μοι ὁ Θεός. ὡς δὲ εἶδεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ὅτι ὀξὺν νοῦν ἔχει καὶ ἡλικίαν αὐξάνει, ἠβουλήθη δοῦναι αὐτὸν ἵνα μάθῃ γράμματα καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτὸν εἰς ἕτερον διδάσκαλον ὅπως αὐτὸν διδάξῃ καὶ λέγει ὁ διδάσκαλος τῷ Ἰωσήφ ποῖα γράμματα θέλεις διδάξω αὐτὸν πρῶτον λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ⁹⁹⁰ τὰ ἑλληνικὰ εἶτα τὰ ἑβραϊκά. ἔχων δὲ πεῖραν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὁ καθηγητὴς ἐφοβεῖτο αὐτόν. ὅμως γράψας αὐτὸν τὸν ἀλφάβητον ἐπεστοίχασεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πολλὰς ὥρας ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε πρὸς τὸν καθηγητήν εἰ ὄντος διδάσκαλος ᾖς καὶ οἶδας καλῶς τὰ γράμματα εἰπέ μοι τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ἄλφα κἀγώ δέ σοι λέγω τὸ βῆτα. ὀργισθεὶς δὲ ὁ διδάσκαλος ἔτυψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀγανακτήσας ἐκατηράσατο αὐτὸν καὶ εὐθέως ἔπεσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος ὀλιγωρήσας ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ παρήγγειλε τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἀφῇ αὐτὸν ἔξωθεν τῆς οἰκίας ἐξέρχεσθαι ἵνα μὴ καταρᾶται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. μεθ’ ἡμέρας δὲ τινας ἕτερος διδάσκαλος φίλος ὢν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ λέγει αὐτόν. Παράδος μοι αὐτόν ἀδελφὲ κἀγὼ μετὰ πολλῆς παρακλήσεως διδάξω αὐτὸν τὰ γράμματα λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰωσήφ εἰ γὰρ θαρρεῖς ἀδελφὲ παράλαβε αὐτὸν καὶ δίδαξον. μετὰ πολλῆς χαρᾶς ἀπελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον εὗρε βίβλον κειμένην καὶ ἀνοίξας αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀνεγίνωσκεν

 In the margin, fol. 66r.

Appendix

265

τὰ ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ γεγραμμένα ἀλλὰ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὑτοῦ ἔλεγεν ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐδίδασκε τὸν νόμον αὑτοῦ τοὺς παρόντας καὶ ἀκούοντας ὥστε καὶ ὁ καθηγητὴς πλησίον αὐτοῦ καθίσας πάνυ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουσεν παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν ἵνα πλείονα εἴπῃ ὄχλος δὲ πολὺς συνεισῆλθε καὶ ἠκροῶντο πάντες καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίᾳ. καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ ὅτι νήπιος ὢν τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται. ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἔδραμεν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον καὶ λέγει αὐτὸν ὁ καθηγητὴς ἵνα εἴδῃς ἀδελφὲ ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐπαρέλαβον τὸ παιδίον σου εἰς μαθητήν αὐτὸς δὲ χάριτος καὶ πολλῆς σοφίας ἐστὶ μεστός λαβὲ αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου μετὰ χαρᾶς. τὸ γὰρ χάρισμα ὃ ἔχει ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐστιν. ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῦ καθηγητοῦ τούτους λόγους ὄντος μειδιάσας εἶπεν ἐπειδὴ ἀληθῶς ἐμαρτύρησας διὰ ἐσὲ κἀκεῖνος σωθήσεται ὃς χθὲς πέπονθε καὶ παραχρῆμα ἰάθη ὁ ἄλλος καθηγητής. παραλαβὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὸ παιδίον ἤγαγεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ. μεθ’ ἡμέρας δὲ τινας ἔπεμψεν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Ἰάκωβον συλλέξαι φρύγανα τοῦ φούρνου ἠκολούθει δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ συλλεγόντων τὰ φρύγανα ἔχιδνα ἔδακε τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἔμελλε τελευτᾶν ἐκ τοῦ πόνου τοῦ φαρμάκου. ὁ δὲ εὐθέως ἐμφυσήσας τὴν πληγήν ἰάθη Ἰάκωβος καὶ τὸ θηρίον ἀπεκτάνθη. ὀλίγων δὲ ἡμερῶν διελθουσῶν παιδίον τῆς γειτονίας ἀπέθανε καὶ ὠδύρετο ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ σφοδρῶς ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἦλθε καὶ στὰς ἐπάνω τοῦ παιδίου ἥψατο τοῦ στήθους αὐτοῦ εἰπών σοὶ λέγω βρέφος μὴ ἀποθάνῃς ἀλλὰ ζήθητι καὶ ἔσο μετὰ τῆς μητρός σου καὶ εὐθέως ἀνέβλεψε τὸ παιδίον καὶ λέγει ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ ἆρον τὸ παιδίον σου καὶ δὸς αὐτῷ μασθὸν καὶ μνημόνευέ μου. οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι ἰδόντες τὸ παράδοξον θαῦμα εἶπον ἀληθῶς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἢ Θεὸς ἢ ἀγγελός ἐστὶν ὅτι πᾶς λόγος αὐτοῦ ἔργον γίνεται. Ἄλλοτε πάλιν οἰκοδόμος τίς πεσὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους ἀπέθανεν ἐλθὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει τῷ τεθνηκότι σοὶ λέγω ἄνθρωπε ἀναστὰς ποίει τὸ ἔργον σου εὐθέως ἀνέστη καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτόν ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι εἶπον ἀληθῶς τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον οὐράνιόν ἐστιν πολλὰς γὰρ ἔσωσε ψυχὰς καὶ σῶσαι ἔχει μέχρι ζωῆς αὑτοῦ. Γενομένου δὲ δωδεκατοῦς ἐπορεύοντο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Πάσχα μετὰ τοῦ ὄχλου καὶ ἐκοινώνουν τὸ Πάσχα. ὑποστρέψαντες δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει αὑτῶν Ναζαρέτ ἔμεινεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. ἐνόμισαν δὲ σὺν τῷ ὄχλῳ καὶ εἰς τὴν συνοδίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι ὁδεύσαντες δὲ ἡμέρας διάστημα τῇ ἑσπέρᾳ ἐζήτουν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ καὶ ἐν τοῖς γνωστοῖς αὑτῶν. καὶ μὴ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν λυπηθέντες ὑπέστρεψαν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας εὗρον αὐτὸν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ καθεζόμενον καὶ διδάσκοντα τοὺς ὄχλους ἡδέως αὐτοῦ γὰρ πάντες ἤκουον οἵ τε γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ νομοδιδάσκαλοι καὶ ἐθαύμαζον πάντες ὅτι πῶς παιδίον πάντας ἀπεστόμιζεν τούς τε πρεσβυτέρους καὶ νομοδιδασκάλους τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἑρμηνεῦον αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον καὶ τὰς φωνὰς τῶν προφητῶν προσελθοῦσα δὲ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ εἶπε διὰ τί τέκνον τοῦτο ἡμῖν ἐποίησας καὶ ἐζητοῦμεν ὀδυνόμενοι ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς τί με ἐζητεῖτε οὐκ εἶπον ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ

266

Appendix

εἶναί με. οἱ δὲ φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραμματεῖς ἔλεγον πρὸς τὴν Μαριάμ. Σὺ εἶ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου λέγουσι πάλιν αὐτῇ μακαρία σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν καρπὸν τῆς κοιλίας σου. Τοιαύτην χάριν καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δόξαν οὐδέποτε εἴδαμεν ἢ ἠκούσαμν πώποτε. ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς ἡ δὲ Μαρία πάντα διετήρει ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτῆς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ λαῷ μεγαλεῖα ἰώμενος τὰς νόσους πάντων ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτεν ἡλικίᾳ καὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ χάριτι καὶ ἐδοξάσθη παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὑτοῦ καὶ ἔστιν εὐλόγητος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων ἀμήν.

Greek manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91, fol. 199v–204r⁹⁹¹ Λόγος ἰσραηλίτ[ου] φιλοσόφου εἰς τὰ παιδικὰ κεφάλεια τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἡμῶν Ἰ[ησο] ῦ Χ[ρίστο]υ. Κύριε ἐ[λέη]σον. ᾿Aναγκαῖ[ον] ἡγησάμην ἐγὼ Θωμᾶς ἰσραηλίτ[ης] πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ἀδελφοῖς γνωρίσαι τὰ παιδικὰ καὶ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ κ[υρίο]υ ἡμ[ῶν] Ἰ[ησο]ῦ Χ[ρίστο]υ. ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ κ[ύριο]ς ἡμῶν Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς Χ[ριστὸ]ς γεννηθεὶς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἡμῶν. Τὸ παιδίον ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς πενταετὴς γενόμενος βροχῆς γενομένης ἔπαιζεν ἐπὶ διάβασεις ῥύακος καὶ τὰ ῥέοντ[α] ὕδατα παρεσυνήγαγε[ν] εἰς λάκκους. καὶ ἐποίη αὐτ[ὰ] εὐθέ[ως], καθαρὰ καὶ ἐνάρετα ἵνα μό[νῳ] λόγῳ. καὶ οὐκ ἔργῳ ἐπέτασθη αὐτὰ ἐπάρας δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐφάλε[ος] αὐτῶν πηλ[ὸν] τρυφερ[ὸν] ἔπλασεν ἐξ αὐτ[οῦ] στρουθία [δώδεκα] ἦν δὲ σάββατον ὅτε ταῦτα ἐποίη παίζων. ἦν δὲ καὶ πολλὰ παιδία παίζοντα σὺν αὐτῷ. Ἰδὼν δὲ τις Ἰουδαῖος ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἐν τῷ σαββάτ[ῳ] ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλε τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ λέγων. Ἰδοὺ τὸ παιδίον σου παίζων ἐπὶ τὸ ῥυάκιν. καὶ ἦρεν πηλ[όν] καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ στρουθία [δώδεκα]. Καὶ ἐβεβήλωσεν τῷ σαββάτ[ῳ]. Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ ἰδὼν ἀνέκραξεν αὐτὸν λέγων. Διατὶ ποιεῖς ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι ἐν σαββάτῷ. Ὁ δὲ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς συγκροτήσας τὰς χεῖρας, ἀνέκραξεν τοῖς στρουθίοις. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. Ὑπάγετε καὶ πετάσθηντα τὰ στρουθία ὑπῆγον κράζων. Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐθαμβήθησαν καὶ ἀπελθόντες ἐδιηγήσαντο τοῖς πρώτοις αὐτῶν ὅπερ ἴδων σημεῖον πεποιηκότ[α] τοῦ Ἰ[ησο]ῦ. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἄννα ἀρχιερέ[ως] ἦν ἑστὼς ἐκεῖ μετὰ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ λαβὼν κλαδίον ἰτέας, ἐξέχεεν τὰ ὕδατα ἃ συνήγαγεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς. ἰδὼν δὲ τὸ παιδίον Ἰ[ησοῦ] ς, ἠγανάκτησεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ἄδικε ἀσεβὴ καὶ ἀνόητε τί ἠδίκησάν σε τὰ ὕδατ[α] καὶ οἱ λάκκοι. Ἰδοὺ νῦν καὶ σύ, ὡς δένδρον ἀποξηρανθῇς ὅ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐνέγκῃς φύλλα οὔτε ῥίζαν οὔτε καρπ[όν]. καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ὁ π[αῖς] ἐκεῖνος ἐξηράνθη

 Burke translated his edition of the Ga variant, reconstructed based on a number of manuscripts, among which this manuscript. See Burke, De infantia Iesu, 340 – 389.

Appendix

267

ὅλος. Ὁ δὲ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἀνεχώρησεν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτ[οῦ]. οἱ δὲ γονεῖς τοῦ ξερανθέντο[ς] ἐβάστασαν αὐτ[όν] λέγοντες αὐ[τῷ] [ὅτι] τοιοῦτον ἔχεις π[αι]δίον ἐργαζόμενον τοιαῦτ[α]. Εἶτα πάλ[ιν] ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς διὰ τῆς κώμης καὶ παιδίον τρέχοντα διερράγη εἰς τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ. Καὶ πικρανθ[εὶς] ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Οὐκ ἀπελεύσει τὴν ὁδόν σου. Καὶ παραχρῆμα πεσ[ὸν] ἀπέθανεν. ἰδόντες δὲ τινες τὸ γινόμεν[ον], εἶπον πόθεν τοῦτω τὸ παιδί[ον] ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα ἔτοιμον ἦν καὶ εἰς ἔργον. Καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ γονεῖς τοῦ τεθνεῶτος, ἐμέμφον[το] τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰωσήφ λέγοντος. Σὺ τοιοῦτον παιδίον ἔχων οὐ δύνασαι […] μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἢ οἰκεῖν, ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ταύτῃ. ἢ δίδαξον αὐτῷ εὐλογεῖν καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθαι. τὰ γὰρ παιδία ἡμῶν θανατοὶ. Προσκαλεσάμενος δὲ ὁ Ἰωσήφ τὸ παιδίον κατ’ ἰδίαν, ἐνουθέ[τει] αὐτὸν λέγων. Ἵνα τί τοιαῦτα κατεργάζει. καὶ πάσχουσιν οὗ[τοι] καὶ μισοῦσιν ἡμᾶς. καὶ διώκωσιν. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς αὐτῷ. ἐγὼ οἶδα ὅ[τι] τὰ ῥήματά σου ταῦτα, ἐμά οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ σά. ὅμως σιγήσω διὰ σέ. ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἤσουσι τὴν κόλασιν αὐτῶν. Καὶ οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες αὐτ[ὸν] ἐτυφλώθησαν. καὶ ἰδόντες ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα καὶ ἠπόρουν καὶ ἔλεγον περὶ αὐτ[οῦ]. Τί ἐσ[τίν] τοῦτο. ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆ[μα] ἤτε καλ[ὸν] ἤτε κακ[όν], ἔργον ἐγένετο. ἰδόντες δὲ τοῦτω ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἐγόγγυζον ἔτι πλῆον κατ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἐγερθεὶς Ἰωσήφ, ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον. καὶ ἔτιλλ[εν] αὐτῷ σφό[δρα]. τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἠγανάκτησεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ᾿Aρκετόν σοί ἐσ[τίν] ζητεῖν καὶ μή εὑρίσκ[ειν]. Μάλι[στα] ὅτι σοφὸς ἔπραξας οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σός εἰμί, μή με λύπ[ει]. Καθηγητής δέ τις ὀνόμα[τι] Ζακχαῖος ἐστὼς ἐν μέ[ρει] ἤκουσε τοῦ Ἰ[ησο]ῦ ταῦτα λαλοῦντος πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθαύμασεν σφόδρα. ὅτι παιδίον τοιαῦταν ὃν τοιαῦτα φθέγγεται. καὶ μετ’ ὀλί[γας] ἡμέ[ρας] προσήγγι[σε] τῷ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Ὦ ἀδελφὲ Ἰωσὴφ, τὸ παιδίον α[ὐτ]οῦ φρόνιμον ἐσ[τι] καὶ νοῦν ἔχει. δεῦρο παράδως μοι αὐτὸ ὅπ[ως] μάθοι γράμμα[τα] μάθοι. καὶ ἐγὼ διδάξω αὐτ[ὸν] μετὰ τῶν γραμμάτων πᾶσαν ἐπιστήμην καὶ προσαγορεύειν πάντες τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τιμᾶν αὐτοὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς συνιλικιώτας φοβεῖσθαι καὶ ἐντρεπέσθαι γονεῖς. ὅπως καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ ἰδίον τέκνον, ἀγαπηθήσεται. ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ὀργισάμενος πρὸς αὐτ[ὸν], εἶπε τῷ καθηγητῇ Ζακχαί[ῳ]. τίς δύναται τοῦτον παιδίον διδάξαι μικροῦ στ[αυ]ροῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος. μή νομίσῃς ἀδελφέ. ὡς δὲ ἤκουσε τὸ παιδίον τοῦτα τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ εἰρήκοτ[ος], ἐγέλασε μέγα καὶ εἶπε τῷ καθηγητῇ. ἀληθ[ῶς] καθηγητά πάντα ὅσα εἴρηκέν σοι ὁ π[ατ]ήρ μου ἀληθὰ ἐισὶν. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐγὼ, Κ[ύριό]ς εἰμι. ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀλλότριοί ἐσταὶ. ὅτι ἐμοὶ μόνον ἡ ἐξουσία, ἐδόθ[η] αὐτὴ ἐγὼ πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶ[νος] εἰμὶ καὶ νῦν πάρημοι καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐγεννή[θην] καὶ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμ[ι]. ἐγὼ καὶ οὐκ οἴδατε τίς εἰμὶ. ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα τὸ, πόθεν ἐστὲ καὶ πόθεν ἔτη καὶ πόσα ἐις[ὶν] ἔτη τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν. ἀληθ[ῶς] λέγω σοι, διδάσκαλε, ὅτε σὺ ἐγέννω, ἐγὼ οἶδα. καὶ εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι διδάσκαλος, ἄκυσόν μου κἀγὼ σοι διδάξω σοφίαν ἣν οὐδεὶς ἄλλος οἶδεν καὶ πλὴν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ πέμψαντός με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ἐγὼ σου διδάσκαλός εἰμὶ σὺ δὲ ἐμοῦ μαθητὴς ἐγὼ οἶδα πόσων χρονῶν

268

Appendix

εἶ καὶ πόσ[ον] ἔχεις ζῆσαι. ἀληθ[ῶς] μόνος ἐγὼ οἶδα. καὶ ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸν σταυρόν μ[ου] ὃν εἴπεν σοι ὁ πατήρ μου τότε πιστεύσει. ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἶπον σοί ἀληθινά εἰσι. καὶ τούτων μὲν ἐγὼ Κ[ύριό]ς εἰμὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀλλότριοί ἐσ[τ]ὲ. ὅτι τότε καὶ νῦν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ εἰμι. οἱ δὲ παρόντες Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξεπλάγησαν ἀκούοντες τοῦ παιδαρίου τοιαῦτα λέγοντος καὶ ἐξεβόησαν μεγάλην φωνὴν λέγοντες. Ὦ καινοῦ καὶ παραδόξου θαύματος. Τάχα ὅλων πέντε ἐτῶν οὐκ ἐστιν τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο. καὶ οἶδε ποῖ [α] φθέγγηται. ἤ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν εἰρηκότος […] οὔτε ἀρχιερέ[ως] οὔτε νομοδιδασκάλου οὔτε γραμματέ[ως] ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Φαρισαί[ου] τινὸς ὡς τοῦ παιδίου τούτου. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε τὸ παιδίον αὐτοῖς. Τί πάνυ θαυμάζετε. μᾶλλον δὲ ἀπιστεῖ[τε] ἐφ’ οἷς εἶπον ὑμῖν. ὅτι εἴπον π[ῶς] οἶδα οἴε ἐγεννήθη[τε] ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ π[ατέ]ρες ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ π[ατέ]ρες τῶν π[ατέ]ρων ἔτι. καὶ τὸ παράδοξον ὅτι οἶδα ὅτε ὁ κόσμος ἐκτίσθη, καὶ ὁ πέμψας πρὸ[ς] ὑμᾶς οἶδε. ᾿Aκούσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖ[οι] ὅ[τι] καὶ ὤμνυεν ἐφυκήθησαν μηκέτι δυνάμ[ενοι] αὐτῷ λαλ[ῆσαι]. Προσελθ[ὸν] δὲ τὸ παιδίον αὐτοῖς ἔλεγε. Ἔπαιξα πρὸ[ς] ὑμᾶς. ἐπειδὴ οἶδα ὅτι μικροί θαυμαστοί ἐστὲ καὶ μικροὶ τοῖς φρονήμασιν. Ὡς οὖν ἔδοξαν παρηχωρεῖσθ[αι] ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ παιδὸς ἤρξατο ὁ καθηγητ[ὴς] λέγειν. τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ. Δεῦρο […] ἄγαγε αὐτ[ὸν] εἰς τὸ παιδευτήριον. κἀγὼ διδάξω αὐτὸν γράμματα. Ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ κρατήσας αὐτοῦ τῆς χειρὸς, ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλεῖον. Ὁ δὲ διδάσκαλ[ος] Ζακχαίος κολακεύσας αὐτὸν ἔδειξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀλφάβητον. καὶ ἤρξατο ἐπιτρέπ[ειν] αὐτ[ὸν] εἶπειν τὸ ἄλφα πλεονάκις. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουεν αὐτῷ ἕ[ως] ὥρ[ας] πολλ[άς]. ὔπερον δὲ εἶπεν. Ἐγώ θέλω διδάσκεσθαι; Ἐγώ οἶδα τὰ γράμματα σου ἅ διδάσκεις πολλά σου κρεῖττον καὶ ταῦτα μοί ἐσ[τι] ὡς χαλκὸς ἠχῶ[ν] ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζων’. τίνα παρ’ αἰτῶ ὡς φωνῆς ἀμοιβὴν οὔτε δόξαν σοφί[ας] οὔτε δύναμιν ψυχῆς. οὔτε συνέσεως. Τὸ δὲ παιδίον παυσάμεν[ον] τῆς ὀργῆς εἶπεν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ πάντ[α] τὰ γράμμ[ατα] ἀπὸ τοῦ α ἕ[ως] τοῦ ϖ μ[ετὰ] πολλῆς ἐξετάσεως τρανῶς. ἐμβλέψας δὲ πάλιν τῷ καθηγητῇ Ζακχαίῳ λέγει αὐτῷ. Σὺ τὸ ἄλφα μὴ εἰδὼς κ[ατὰ] φύσιν τὸ βῆτα π[ῶς] ἄλλ[ους] διδάσκεις. Ὑποκριτὰ πρῶτον εἰ οἶδας δίδαξον τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τότε σοι πιστεύσωμεν περὶ τοῦ βῆτα. εἶτα ἤρξατο ἀποστοματίζ[ειν] τ[ὸν] διδάσκαλον περὶ τοῦ π[ρώτο]υ γρά[μματο]ς. καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἀποκριθῆν[αι] αὐτῷ. ᾿Aκουόν[των] δὲ πολλ[ῶν] λέγει τὸ παιδίον τὸν Ζακχαῖ [ον]. Ἄκουε διδάσκαλε τὴν τοῦ π[ρώτο]υ στοιχ[είου] τάξιν. καὶ πρὸς ὧδὲ π[ῶς] ἔχει κανόν[ας] καὶ μεσοχαρακῆρας οὓς ὁρᾷ ξίνους διαβαίνοντας συναγομ[ένους]. ὑψουμ[ένους] χορεύον[τας] βαλεφεγγούντας τρισή[μους] ὁμογενεῖς ὑπαρπούχους ζυγοστάτας ἰσομέτρους κανόνας ἔχει τὸ ἄ[λφα]. ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος Ζακχαῖος τὰς τοσαύτα[ς] ἀπολλογί[ας] καὶ τοσαύτην διδασκαλί[αν], εἶπε τοῖς παροῦσιν. Οἶμοι φίλοι ὑπορήθην ὁ τάλας ἐγὼ ἐμαυτῷ αἰσχύν[ην] παρέχων. ἐπισπασάμενος δὲ τὸ παιδὶ ἔφη. Ἆρον αὐ[τὸ] ἀδελφὲ Ἰωσήφ. Οὐ φέ[ρω] τὸ αὐστηρὸν τοῦ βλέμματος τοῦ προσώπου αὐ[τοῦ]. οὐδὲ τὸν λόγον αὐ[τοῦ] ἀκούσ[ας] ἅπαξ ἢως ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἐστι γηγενὴς. τοῦτο δύναται καὶ πῦρ δαμάς[αι]. τοῦτο πρὸ τῆς κόσμου ποίησιν ἐστι γεγεννημέν[ον]. Ποί[α] γαστὴρ

Appendix

269

τούτον ἐγέννησεν. Ποί[α] δὲ μ[ητέ]ρα ἐξέθρεψεν τοῦτον. ἐγὼ ἀγνοῶ. Οἶμοι φίλοι ἐξεχείμαι οὐ παρακολουθῶ τῇ διανοί[ᾳ] αὐτοῦ ἠπατήθην ἐγὼ ὁ τρισάθλι[ος] ἐγὼ ἠγωνιζώμην καὶ εὑρέθην ἔχειν διδάσκαλον ἐγνοῶ τὴν αἰσχύνην ὅ[τι] γέρων ὑπάρ[χων], καὶ ὑπὸ παιδί[ου] ἐνική[θην]. καὶ ἔχω ἐκκακῆσαι καὶ ἀποθαν[εῖν] διὰ θέ [ας] τούτου τοῦ παιδίου. Οὐ δύναμ[αι] γὰρ ἔτι ὁραιθῆν[αι]. εἰς τὴν ὄψιν αὐτ[οῦ] μάλλιστα εἰπόντων πάντων ὅτι ἐνικήθην ὑπὸ παιδί[ου] μικρ[οῦ]. Τί ἔχω διηγήσασθαι τινι περὶ ὧν μου εἶπεν κανόνων τοῦ π[ρώτου] στοιχεί[ου]. Οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἀρχὴν ἢ τέλος γινώσκω. Τοιγαροῦν ἀξιῶ σ[ε] ἀδελφὲ Ἰωσήφ. ἀπάαγε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. τοῦτο γ[ὰρ] ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἢ Θ[εὸ]ς ἐστι ἢ ἄγγελος ἢ τί εἴπω οὐκ οἶδα. τῶν δὲ Ἰουδαί[ων] παραινούντων τὸν Ζακχαῖον ἐγέλασε τὸ παιδίον μέγα καρποφορήτωσαν τὰ σὰ καὶ βλεπέτωσαν οἰ τυφλοὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄνωθεν πάρειμι ἵνα τοὺς κάτω ῥύσωμαι καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄνω καλέσω καθὰ διετάξατο ὁ ἀποστείλας με εἰς ὑμᾶς. καὶ ὡς τὸ παιδίον κατέπαυσε τὸν λόγον εὐθέ[ως] ἐσώθη[σαν] ὑπὸ τὴν κατάραν αὐτοῦ πεσόντες καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀπὸ τότε ἐτόλμα παροργίσαι αὐτ[ὸν] μήπ[ως] καταάσετ[αι] αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσον[ται] ἀνάπηροι. Μεθ’ ἡμέρας δὲ τινας ἔπαιζεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἔν τινι δοματίῳ ἐν ὑπερό[ῳ] καὶ ἓν τῶν παιδίων τῶν παιζόντων πεσὼν ἀπὸ τῆς διστέγου κάτω ἀπέθανεν. ἰδόντα δὲ τὰ ἄλλα παιδία ἔφυγων εὐθέ[ως]. Κατελήφθη δὲ μόνος ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς. καὶ ἐλθῶντες οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ ἀποθανώντος παιδίου ἐνεγκάλουν αὐτὸν ὡς αὐτὸς καταβαλόντος αὐτ[ὸν]. Ἐκείνον δὲ ἐπηρεαζόντων αὐτ[ὸν] καταβαλόντων αὐτ[ὸν] κατεπήδησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἀπὸ τοῦ στέγους καὶ ἔστηκεν παρὰ τοῦ πτώματος καὶ ἔκραζεν φωνῇ με[γάλῃ] κ[αὶ] εἶπε[ν]. Ζῆν[ον] οὕτω γὰρ ἔκαλλᾳ ὁ παῖς ἀναστὰς εἰπέ μοι ἐγώ σοι κατέβαλον. ὁ δὲ π[αῖς] ἔφη. Οὐχί κ[ύρι]ε ἐκατέβαλας ἀλλὰ ἀνέστησ[ας]. καὶ ἰδόντες ἐξεπλάγησαν οἰ γονεῖς τοῦ παιδί[ου] καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτ[ὸν] ἀναστάντα προσεκύνη[σαν] τῷ Ἰ[ησο]ῦ. μετ’ ὀλίγας ἡμέρας ξύλα σχίζων τις νεώτε[ρος] ἐν γειτονίᾳ τούτου ἔπεσεν ἡ ἀξίνη καὶ ἔσχισεν τὴν βάσιν τοῦ ποδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτίκα ὄλι[…] ἰαθήμησθεν μικρ[ὸν] δὲ ἀπέθνῃσκεν. Θορύβου δὲ γενομένου καὶ συνδρομῆς ἔδραμεν καὶ τὸ παιδίον Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς καὶ βιασάμενος διῆλθεν τ[ὸν] ὄχλον καὶ ἐκράτησην τοῦ νεανίσκου τὸν πεπληγότα πό[δα] καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ἰάθη εἶπε δὲ τῷ νεανίσκῳ ἀνάστα νῦν σχίζε τὰ ξύλα καὶ μνημόνευέ μου. ὁ δὲ ὄχλ[ος] ἰδὼν τὸ γεγονὸς προσεκύνησαν τὸ παιδίον λέγοντες. ἀληθῶς τάχα ὁ Χ[ριστὸ]ς οἰκεῖ. Ὄντος δὲ αὐτὸν ἑξαετοῦς πέμπει αὐτὸν ἡ μ[ήτ]ηρ αὐτ[οῦ] Μαρία, ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. Δεδωκ[ὼς] αὐτ[ὸν] ὑδρί[αν]. ἐν δὲ τῷ ὄχλῳ συνγκρουσθεῖσα ἡ ὑδρία διερράγει. ὁ δὲ Ἰ [ησοῦ]ς ἁπλώσας τὸ παλλῖον ὅπερ αὐτὸ ἐβεβλήτος ἐγέμησεν αὐτὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ἤνεγκε τῇ μ[ητ]ρὶ αὑτοῦ. ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ Μαρία τὸ γεγονὸς κατεφίλῃ αὐτ[ὸν] καὶ διετήρει ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ μιστή[ρια] ἃ ἔβλεπεν αὐτ[ὸν] ποιοῦντα. Πάλιν δὲ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ σπόρου ἐξῆλθεν μετὰ τοῦ π[ατ]ρὸς αὐτοῦ ἵνα σπήρῃ σῖτον εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σπήρειν τὸν π[ατέ]ρα ἔσπηρεν καὶ τὸ παιδίον Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἕνα κόκκου σίτου. καὶ θερίσας καὶ ἁλωνίσας ἐποίησεν μεδίμ[ων] ρ. καὶ καλέσας τοὺς πτωχοὺς πάντας καὶ πένητ[ας] τοὺς ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐν τῇ ἅλω[νι] ἐχαρίσατο αὐτ[οῖς] τὸν

270

Appendix

σῖτον. ἀλλὰ λειφθέντα τι ἔλαβε τοῦτο ὁ Ἰωσήφ καὶ ἀπήγει εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐ[τοῦ] ἐκ τοῦ σί[του] Ἰ[ησο]ῦ. ἦν δὲ λοιπ[ὸν] ἐτῶν ἤ ὅτε τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς. τοῦ δὲ πρὸς αὐτοῦ τέκτον[ος] ὄντος καὶ ἐργαζομ[ένου] αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐκείνῳ καιρῷ ἄρο[τρα] καὶ ζυγ[ούς] ἐπετάγη αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι κράβατος παρὰ τινος πλουσίου ὅπ[ως] ποιήσει αὐτ[ῷ]. τοῦ δὲ ἑνὸς κάνονος τοῦ καλουμέ[νου] ἐνλακτὸν μὴ ἔχον[τος] μέτρον κολοβω[τέρου] ὄντος καὶ μὴ ἔχων τί ποιῆσαι ὁ Ἰωσὴφ, εἶπεν αὐ[τῷ] ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς, θὲς κάτω τὰ δύο ξύλ[α] καὶ τοῦ μέσ[ου] μέ[ρους], ἰσοποίησον αὐτὰ. καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἰωσὴφ καθ[ὼς] εἶπε τὸ παιδίον. ἔστη δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς εἰς τὸ ἑτέρου μέ[ρους] καὶ ἐκράτησεν τὸ κολοβώ[τερον] ξύλον καὶ ἐκτείνας αὐτὸ ἴσον ἐποίησεν μετὰ τοῦ ἄλλου. καὶ εἶπε τῷ π[ατ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ μὴ λυποῦ μὴν ἀλλὰ ποίει ὃ θέλεις. ὁ δὲ Ἰωσὴφ περιλαβ[ὼν] τὸ παιδίον κατεφίλ[ει] αὐτ[ὸν] λ[έγων] Μακάρι[ός] εἰμι ὅ[τι] τοῦτον τὸν παιδίον μοι ἔδωκην ὁ Θ[εό]ς. ἰδὼν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν νοῦν τοῦ παιδί[ου] καὶ τὴν ἡλικί[αν] καὶ τὴν νεό[τητα] ὠς ἀκμά[ζει] πάλιν ἠβουλείσατο μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἄπειρον γραμμά[των] καὶ ἀπαγαγ[ὼν] αὐτὸ παρέδωκεν ἑτέρῳ διδασκάλῳ εἶπε δὲ ὁ διδάσκαλος τῷ Ἰωσήφ ποῖ[α] θέλεις γράμματα διδάξω αὐτ[ὸν] εἶπε δὲ Ἰωσὴφ πρῶτον τὰ ἑλληνικὰ ἔπειτα ἑβραϊκά. εἴδη γὰρ ὁ διδάσκαλος τὴν πεῖραν τοῦ παιδί[ου] καὶ ἐφοβεῖ[το] αὐτόν. ὅμ[ως] γράψας τὴν ἀλφάβητον ἐδιάβαζε τοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ πολλ[ὴν] ὥρα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρί[νατο] αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς οὐδὲν λέγων. ἀλλὰ τί ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἔφατο εἰ ὄντος διδάσ[καλος] εἰ καὶ οἶδας ὅλος καλ[ὸς] τὰ γράμματα, εἰπέ τοῦ ἄ[λφα] τὴν δύναμιν, κἀγώ σοι ἐρῶ τοῦ βῆτα. πικρανθεὶς δὲ ὁ διδάσκαλ[ος] ἔκρουσεν αὐτ[ὸν] εἰς τὴν κεφαλ[ήν]. τὸ δὲ παιδίον ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἠγανάκτησε καὶ κατηράσατο αὐτὸν καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ἐλιποθύμησεν καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ στόματος. ἐξ ἐπίδησεν δὲ τὸ παιδίον καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκο[ν] αὑτοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐλυπήθη καὶ παρήγγειλεν τῇ μ[ητ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ ὅπ[ως] ἔξω τῆς θύρ[ας] μὴ ἀπολύσῃ αὐτὸν ὅ[τι] ἀποθνῄσκουσιν οἱ παροργίζοντες αὐτ[ὸν]. μετὰ δὲ χρόνον τινα ἕτερος πάλιν καθηγητής γνήσι[ος] ὢν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἄγαγέ μοι αὐ[τὸ] εἰς τὸ παιδευτή[ριον] ὁ ἂν δυνηθῶ ἐγὼ μετὰ κολακεί[ας] διδάξω αὐτ[ὸν] τὰ γράμμ[ατα]. πρέπει γὰρ τὸ παιδίον φρόνιμον ὄν τὸ καὶ νοῦν ἔχων, εἰδέναι γράμμα[τα]. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰωσήφ εἰ θαρρεῖς ἀδελφέ ἄπαγε αὐτ[ὸν] μετὰ σε. καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτ[ὸν], ἀπήγαγεν μετὰ φόβ[ου] καὶ ἀγώνου πολλ[οῦ]. τὸ δὲ παιδίον ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἡδέ[ως] ἐπορεύετο. καὶ εἰσελθὼν θράσυν[ος] εἰς τὸν διδάσκαλον εὗρεν βιβλίον κείμενον ἐν τῷ ἀναλογί[ῳ]. καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὸ οὐκ ἀνεγίνωσκε τὰ γεγραμμ[ένα] ἐν αὐτῷ ἀλλὰ ἀνοίξας τὸ στό[μα] αὐτοῦ, ἐφθέγγετο πν[εύματ]ι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐδίδασκεν τὸν νόμον τοὺς παρόντας, καὶ ἀκούοντες αὐ[τοῦ] ἦν δὲ ὄχλο[ς] πολὺς ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῇ ὡραιό[τητι] τῆς διδασκαλί[ας] αὐτοῦ. καὶ τῇ στοῖμασιν τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ὅτι νήπι[ος] ὂν τοιαῦτ[α] φθέγγε[ται]. ἀκούσας δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ἐφοβή[θη] καὶ ἔδραμεν εἰς τὸ διδασκαλΐον. Πτωησάμ[ενος] μὴ οὔτως ὁ καθηγητ[ὴς] ἔστε ἄπειρος εἶπε δὲ ὁ καθηγητὴς τῷ Ἰωσὴφ. ἵνα εἴδῃς ἀδελφέ. ἐγὼ μέν τὸ παιδί[ον] παραλαβῶν ὡς μαθητήν αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῆς χάριτ[ος] καὶ σοφί [ας] μεστ[ός] ἐ[στὶ] τοιγαροῦν ἀξιῶ σε ἀδελφέ ἆρον αὐτ[ὸν] εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.

Appendix

271

ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν τὸ παιδίον ταῦτ[α] αὐτοῦ εἰρηκό[τος] πρὸτον Ἰωσὴφ εὐθέ[ως] προσεγέλασεν αὐτ[ὸν] καὶ εἶπε. ἐπειδὴ ὀρθῶς ἐκρίν[ησας] καὶ ὀρθ[ῶς] ἐμαρτύρησ[ας] διὰ σὲ κἀκεῖνος ὁ πληγωθεὶς σωθήσεται καὶ παραχρῆμ[α] ἰάθη ὁ ἕτερος καθηγητ[ής]. παρέλαβε δὲ Ἰωσὴφ τὸ παιδίον καὶ ἀπήγαγεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. ἔπεψεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τ[ὸν] Ἰάκωβον τοῦ δῆσαι ξύλ[α] καὶ ἐνέγκαι εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. ἠκολού[θει] δὲ τὸ παιδ[ίον] ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἐπεὶ ἔχει κρεμάσης[ε] εἰς χειρὰς Ἰακώβου καὶ δαχθεὶς καὶ κατεφύσησε τὸ δῆγμα ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ὁ μὲν ἐπάνθη τοῦ σπώρου ὁ δὲ ἦγουν τὸ θερίον διερράγη. ἐν τῇ γειτο[νίᾳ] τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ἄ νοσ[ῶν] τις ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔκλαιεν ἡ μή[τη]ρ αὐτοῦ σφόδρα. ἤκουσεν δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ὅ[τι] πένθος μέγα καὶ θόρυβος γίνεται ἔδραμεν σπουδαῖος καὶ εὑρ[ὼν] τὸ παιδίον νεκρ[ὸν] ἥψατο τοῦ στήθους αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγει αὐ[τῷ] σοὶ λέ [γω] μὴ ἀποθάνῃς ἀλλὰ ζῆθι καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ἀνίστη καὶ προσεγήλασε. εἶπε δὲ τῇ μ[ητ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ ἆρον τὸ τέκνον σου καὶ μνημόνευέ μου. ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ ὄχλ[ος] ὁ παρεστὼς ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπ[εν] ἀληθῶς τοῦτο τὸ παιδ[ίον] ἢ Θ[εὸ]ς ἢ ἀγγελός ἐ[στιν] ὅτι πᾶς λόγ[ος] αὐτοῦ ἔργον γί[νεται]. ἐξῆλθεν δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς, πάλιν καὶ ἔπαιζεν με[τὰ] τῶν παίδων. μετὰ δὲ χρόνον τινὰ οἰκοδομῆς γενομ[ένης] ἔπεσεν ἄν[θρωπ]ος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναβάθρ[ας] κάτω, καὶ ἀπέθαν[εν] συνδρομ[ῆς] δὲ γενομ[ένης] καὶ θορύβ[ου] μ[εγάλου] ἵστατο τὸ παιδ[ίον] ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς καὶ ἀπῆλθ[εν] ἕ[ως] ἐκεῖ ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν ἄν[θρωπ]ον κείμ[ενον] νεκρ[ὸν] ἐπελάβετο τῆς χειρ[ὸς] αὐτ[οῦ] καὶ εἶπ[εν] σύ λέγω ἄν[θρωπ]ε ἀνάστα ποίει τὸ ἔργον σου καὶ εὐθέ[ως] ἀναστ[ὰς], προσεκύνης[εν] αὐτόν. οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι ἐκραύγασ[εν] λέγοντες. τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον οὐ[ρά]νιόν ἐσ[τιν] πολλ[ὰς] γὰρ ψυχὰς ἔσωσ[εν] ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ἔχει σῶσ[αι] ἕ[ως] πάσ[ας] τ[ὰς] ἡμέ[ρας] τῆς ζω[ῆς] αὐ[τοῦ]. ὄντος δὲ αὐτ[οῦ] [δωδεκατοῦς] ἔτης ἐπορεύοντο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτ[οῦ] κα[τὰ] τὸ ἔθο[ς] εἰς τὴν τοῦ Πάσ[χα] ἑορτὴν μετὰ τῆς συνοδί[ας] αὐτ[ῶν] μετὰ λαβούντ[ο] τὸ Πάσ[χα] ἀπέστρεφον εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτ[ῶν] ἐν δὲ ὑποστρέφ[ειν] αὐτοὺς ἀνῆλθεν Ἰ [ησοῦ]ς ὁ π[αῖς] εἰς Ἱ[ερουσαλή]μ ἐνόμισαν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ εἶναι τῆς συνοδί[ας]. μεταξύ δὲ ὁδεύσαντες ὁδὸν ἡμέ[ρας] μι[ᾶς] ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ὄψε ἐν τῇ συγγενεῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν, ἐλυπήθησ[αν] καὶ ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ζετοῦντες αὐτὸν καὶ ἐγένητο πρωῒ. καὶ μετὰ τὴν τρίτην ἡμέρ[αν] εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ αὐτὸν καθεζόμενον ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλ[ων] καὶ ἀκού [οντα] καὶ ἐρωτῶν[τα] περὶ ὧν ἐζήτουν γνῶναι περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ προσῆλθον πάντ[ες] ἐθαύμαζον πῶς παιδί[ον] ὑπάρχ[ων] ἀπεστόμιζεν καὶ τούς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διδασκάλ[ους] τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπιλ[ύω]ν τὰ κεφάλ[αια] τ[οῦ] νόμου καὶ τὰς ῥῆσεις τῶν προφητ[ῶν] προσελθοῦσα δὲ ἡ μή[τη]ρ αὐτοῦ Μαρία εἶπε τῷ Ἰ[ησο]ῦ ἴνα τί τέκνον ἐποίησ[ας] ἡμῖν. ἰδοὺ ὠδυνόμ[ενοι] καὶ λυπούμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐν τ[οῖ]ς οἴκοις τοῦ π[ατ]ρ[ό]ς μου δεῖ εἶναί με τί ἄρα ἐζητεῖτε με οἱ δὲ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι εἶπον. σὺ εἶ ἡ μή [τη]ρ τοῦ παιδί[ου] τούτου ἡ δὲ εἶπ[εν] ἐγὼ εἰμὶ καὶ εἶπον αὐτὴν μακαρί[α] σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶν ὅτι εὐλόγησ[εν] ὁ Θ[εὸ]ς τ[ὸν] καρπ[ὸν] τῆς κοιλία[ς] σου. Τοιαύτην

272

Appendix

γὰρ δόξ[αν] καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὔτε οἴδαμ[εν] οὔτε ἠκούσαμ[εν] πόπω[τε]. ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς ἠκολούθησεν τῇ μ[ητ]ρὶ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἦν ὑποτασσόμ[ενος] τοῖς γονεῦ [σιν] αὐτοῦ. ἡ δὲ μή[τη]ρ αὐτοῦ διετήρ[ει] τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅσα ἐποίησ[εν] ὁ Ἰ [ησοῦ]ς τὸ δὲ παιδίον ὁ Ἰ[ησοῦ]ς προέκοπτεν σοφίᾳ καὶ χάριτι καὶ ἐδοξάσθη ὑπὸ θ[εο]ῦ παντοκράτ[ορος] αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.

Slavonic manuscript Cod. 637, formerly in the National Library, Belgrade, Serbia, Collection of P.S. Srećković (edition by Novaković)⁹⁹² Младѣньство Господа Бога и спаса нашего Іс. Христа, отьче благослови! Азь ϴома избраньныи Ісраильтѣнинь вьзвѣстихь вьсѣмь оть ѥзыкь, братиѥ, видѣти дѣтьство, егда створи величнѩ Господь нашь Ісоусь Христось, рожден се вь градѣ Назареθѣ ѡть дѣвы Мариѥ, иже града владычьства есть. Тѣмь отроче и Господь бывь в лѣть и дьждоу бывьшоу играше вь мимоходештихь рѣчицахь, одьждаѥть и текоушти водѣ моутьнѣи соушти сьбыраше ихь вь пишьце, и абиѥ ѩко дѣте твораше, а не дѣломь повелѣваѥ ниѣмь. Абнѥ вьзьмь брѣниѥ оть землѥ меко, и створи оть нѥго ві пьтиць. Бѣше бо соубота, егда твораше Ісоусь играѥ, и многыѥ дѣти бѣхоу тоу сь нимь играюште. Видѣвь же ѥдинь оть Юдеи ѥже твораше Ісоусь играѥ вь соуботоу, и шьдь рече отьцоу ѥго Иосифоу: Се отрокь твои играѥть тамо вь рѣчицахь и вьзьмь каль и сьтвори оть нѥго ві пьтиць и оскврьнѩѥть соуботы. Шьдь же Иосифь отьць ѥго на мѣсто, и видѣвь Ісоуса и вьзва и. И рече ѥмоу: Что створиши вь соуботоу, ихь же не достоить творити? Ісоусь же вьсплескавь пьтицамь своимь, и рече имь: Вьзьлетѣте вы и да ме поменете жива соушта. Тьгда вьзлетѣхоу пьтице и летѣхоу поюште. И видѣвьше же Июдеиѥ и оужасоше се. И вь коупѣ шьдьше и вьзвѣстише ниѣмь иже створи Ісоусь. Сынь же Ианьны кьнижьника бѣше тоу стоѥ сь Ісоусомь и сь Иосифомь. Вь ть чась вьзьмь вѣю врьбовоу и расыпа ѥмоу вирькь, и истекоше воды изь нихь, иже си бѣ сьтвориль Ісоусь. И видѣвь Ісоусь разорениѥ вировь вьзьнѣгодовавь рече ѥмоу: Содомлѩнине нечисты и неразоумьны, како те вьзненавидѣше мои вирьци и моѥ рѣчице? Нь да исьхиеши ѩко и дрѣво и да не имаши ни листиѩ, ни плода своѥго. И абиѥ отрочишть соухь бысть вь ть чась. Ісоусь же бѣжавь иде вь домь свои. Родителѩ же

 Novaković, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika,” 36 – 92.

Appendix

273

ѥго пришьдьша вьзеста сь плачемь и глаголахоу Иосифоу: По что таково отроче имаши? И пакы гредоуштоу Ісоусоу скрозѣ градь и ино отроче текь сь зади скочи ѥмоу на рамо. И абиѥ прогнѣва се Ісоусь, и рече ѥмоу: Да не доидеши до дома своѥго. Тьгда абиѥ паде ниць отроче. И видѣвьше то ини отроци, вьзоупише глаголюште: Откоудоу се отроче роди се, ѩко слово вьсакоѥ ѥго на вьсако дѣло готово ѥсть. И пришьдьша родителѩ падьшаго кь отьцоу ѥго Иосифоу и прѣштахоу, глаголюште: Откоудоу се роди отроче се? Ѩко таково отроче имѣѥ, не можеши быти вь градѣ семь; аште ли хоштеши жити сь нами, то оучи ѥго благословити, а не клети дѣтеи нашихь. Тьгда призва Иосифь отроче своѥ Ісоуса, и сице оучаше и, глаголѥ: По что тако кльнѥши тоужднѥ дѣти и страждоуть сице и ненавидеть нась, изьгонеть ны изь града сего. Тогда рече Ісоусь отьцоу своѥмоу: Азь вѣдь сиѥ глаголи нѣсоуть мои, еже ты глаголѥши, обаче азь да прѣмлькноу тебе ради, отьче. Онь же да приимоуть троуды своѥ. И абиѥ глаголюштеи на нь ослѣпѣхоу и не видѣвьше не смѣѩхоу гнѣвати ѥго по семь. Оужась бо великы нападе на нѥ, ѩко вьсако дѣло ѥго, ѥже рече, аште либо зло, либо добро, то истина бываше. Тогда абиѥ видѣвь Иосифь что сьтвори, и ѥть Ісоуса за оухо и протегноу и зѣло. И бѣхоу ини тоу сь ними играюште. Отроче же Ісоусь вьзнегодовавь рече ѥмоу: Достоить ти, да иштеши мене обрѣзати, отьче, разбоиниче мои, истиноу ты не вѣси ли, твои ли ѥсмь азь? То и ты не оскрьблѩи мене, нь оубо твои ѥсмь сынь, ѩко кь тебѣ придохь. И оучитель етерь бѣше тоу стоѥ сь Иосифомь. Оуслыша Ісоуса глаголюшта кь отьцоу своѥмоу, и чоудѣше се зѣло, ѩко отроче таковаѩ словеса глаголаше отьцоу своемоу. И бысть по мнозѣхь дьнехь, приде кь Исифоу и глагола ѥмоу, ѩко добрь оумомь имаши дѣтишть твои и моудрь, приди и прѣдаи ми ѥго, да наоучоу книгамь и вьсемоу наставлѥнию кьнижьномоу, ѩко да разоумѣѥть вь старьцехь чьстьно, ѩко прадѣди и отьци, и любити ѥго имамь сь кротостию, ѩкоже и вьсе сьврьстьникы ѥго, и боѩти се и срамлѩ родитель своихь, ѩко да и тои вьзлюблѥнь боудеть оть родитель своихь. Иосифь же прогнѣва се и рече: Оучителю, томоу кто можеть наоучити ѥго, кто моу маломоу Христоу или мниши быти ѥго, брате мои! Ѩкоже слыша отроче Ісоусь отьца своѥго рекьша то, насмиѩ се вельми и рече Закьхѣю оучителю: Вьса, ѥлико ти рече отьць мои, истина ѥсть, вьсемоу же Господь азь ѥсмь, а вы тоужди ѥсте, мнѣ бо ѥдиномоу власть ѥсть дана оть Бога, ѩко азь прѣжде вѣкь ѥсмь и оть вѣка азь ѥсмь, и вь вьса родих се и сь вами ѥсмь, или кто ѥсмь азь? Азь бо вѣмь откоудоу вы ѥсте и кто ѥсте и како се ѥсте родили и колико ѥсть лѣть

274

Appendix

живота вашего. И вьсе ти истиноу глаголю, оучителю. Ѥгда же ты раждаше се, азь прѣдстоѩхь, и прѣжде рождениѩ азь знаю старьце. И аште хоштеши сьврьшень быти оучитель, попослоушаи мене, и азь наоучоу те прѣмоудрости, ѥже инь никто не вѣсть развѣ мене и пославьшаго ме кь вамь, да наоучю вы. Азь бо ѥсмь тебѣ оучитель, а ты оубо оученикь мьнѣ наречеши се, зане азь знаю оть коихь лѣть ѥси и колико лѣть живота твоѥго ѥсть? Вь истиноу знаю. Егда хоштеши видѣти крьсть мои, ѥже рече отьць мои, истина ѥсть. Вьсемоу азь ѥсмь Господь и отьць, вы же тоужди ѥсте, ѩко тогда и до вѣка тьжде ѥсмь азь. Соушти же тоу Иоудеиѥ слышеште словеса та и дивлѩхоу се. И вьзоупивьше вельми и рекоше: О новоѥ чюдо, понѥже, ѩко е. лѣть ѥсть отрочете сего и се такыѥ рѣчи глаголѥть, таковыѥ бесѣды николиже не знаю рекьше арьхиѥрею; законодавьца и оучителѩ и кьнижьника ни оу Фарисеи не бѣ такова, ѩкоже отроче се ѥсть. Отвѣштавь Ісоусь рече имь: Вьси вы чюдите се, нь паче не разоумѣѥте и не вѣроуѥте, вь истиноу вѣдь кьгда родисте се вы и отьци ваши прѣславьно глаголахоу вамь. Вь истиноу азь знаю пославьшаго ме кь вамь, и ѥгда вь мирь сьздань бысть. Слышавьше же Июдеиѥ како бесѣдоуѥть и ничесоже не вьзьмогоу отвѣштати и. Пришьдь же отроче Ісоусь сказаше играѥ и роугаѥ се имь, глаголаше, зане ихь вѣдѣше мало чюдьнѣхь и мало разоумьныхь, ѩкоже слава вь мнѣ вьмѣнѩше се на оутѣшениѥ отрочетоу. Рече же оучитель отьцоу ѥго Иосифоу: Приведи ѥго, да се оучить вь оучилишти, и азь да наоучю ѥго книгамь. Иосифь же отьць ѥго ѥмь Ісоуса за роукоу, и приведе и вь оучилиште, и написа ѥмоу арьфа вита, и начеть сказати ѥмоу множицею. Онь же мльчаѩше и не послоушаше ѥго чась голѣмь. И прогнѣвавь се оучитель и заоуши ѥго. Тьгда рече отроче Ісоусь: Недостоино твориши. Азь хоштоу тебѣ казати, а или хоштоу оть тебе наказань быти. Тьгда пакы начеть ѥго оучити дидаскаль. И сказа ѥмоу: арьфа. Ісоусь же рече ѥмоу: Да рьци ты: Виθа, вѣмь оубо азь книгы, имь же ме хоштеши оучити, а ты много осоуждаѥши се, ѩко ты оубо рече ѩко мѣдь звьнешти и ѩко кумьваль звецаюшти, ѩко не прѣставеть се горы гласове прѣмоудростию ни доуши си лоуны разоума. И прѣмлькноу отроче, ѩко рече вьсоу крамолоу и оть арьфа до ωмега и многымь истьзаниѥмь сь гнѣвомь вьзрѣвь на дидаскала. И рече ѥмоу: Ты арьфоу не вѣси по законоу и не оумѣѥши людь како оучити лицемѣре. Аште арьфоу знаѥши, то вѣроуи о виθѣ. И паче начеть отроче прѣпирати дидаскала о замышлѥни прьвомь писани. Тьгда иже бѣхоу слышали глаголанѩ та, глаголахоу Закьхею оучителю: Разоумѣи прьвога стиха чинь и разоумѣи како имать правило. Вьтореи чрьтѣ ѥже по срѣдѣ видиши, створи, и миноухь заданиѩ та. И вьзвышахоу глаголюште хвалоу триоупостасноу

Appendix

275

оть двою ѥстьствоу ѥдинообразьноу и ѥдинодрьжавьноу, равьночьстноу стоѥштоу. И равно правило имѣѥ арьфа. Ѩкоже бо слыша дидаскаль Закьхеи таковыѥ рѣчи оть отрочета испрьва оть прьваго закона ѩкоже рече вьсоу истиноу и немѣѩхоу како отвѣштати о оучени ѥго. И рече: О горѣ мьнѣ, изоумихь се азь оканьны, голѣмоу срамотоу имамь. И рече: Вьзми брате Иосифе, и отведи ѥго тамо, ѩко паче тои оучить нась. Не трьплю бо красоты видѣниѩ ѥго и добрьныхь словесь ѥго. Вь истиноу отроче се нѣсть оть земльныхь. Се ти отроче може те огнь оумоучити, нь обаче древлѥ строѥниѥ мира сего нѣсть. Каѩ ложесна народи ѥго? Коѩ ли мати вьздои ѥго? Азь бо не знаю ѥго. О горѣ мьнѣ дроузи мои? Забыхь се и не имаю оума своѥго, прѣльстихь бо се много безоумны и страстьны азь. Вьсхотѣхь бо, да имамь себѣ оученика, и обрѣтохь себѣ оучителѩ. И помышлѩю оубо срамотоу мою, ѩко азь младь бѣхь и пакь сьстарѣхь се; имамь бо злобоу оть отрочета сего, нь азь да оумроу за нѥго, не могоу бо вьзырати на лице ѥго паче и вьсѣмь видештимь ѥго, ѩко побѣждень быхь оть дѣтишта млада. Како имамь решти или повѣдати комоу о прѣложеньныхь ми правилѣхь, прьваго стиха не разоумѣю бо, о друзи, зачела бо оучениѩ ни коньца не знаю, мнозѣ бо правдѣ достоино ѥсть отроче се, нь вьзьми ѥго, брать Иосифе, и отведи ѥго вь домь свои, сиѥ бо отроче велико ѥсть, либо ѥсть Богь, либо аггель, не знаю оубо, како ѥго нарекоу, Июдеиѥ же прѣдстоѩхоу ти. Тьгда вьсмиѩ се вельми отроче Ісоусь и рече: азь плодь принесоу ти о всѣхь за здравиѥ, да прозроуть слѣпи, и глоуси прослышоуть и неразоумьин срьдцемь разоумьни да боудоуть, ѩко азь сь выше ѥсмь, да нижьныхь избавлю и на высотоу вьзьведоу ихь, ѩкоже заповѣда ми пославы ме отьць кь вамь. Ѩкоже прѣста отроче глаголати слово, тьгда абиѥ спасени бывьше о нихь же глаголаше Ісоусь, иже падохоу оть клетвы законьныѥ Ісоусовы. И никтоже отолѣ не смѣѩше гнѣвати ѥго, да не пакы прокльнеть ихь и боудоуть неключими вьси. По дьнехь же инѣхь вьзигра Ісоусь на здани высоцѣ, и ѥдинь оть дѣтеи еврѣискыхь вьзигра сь Ісоусомь на полатѣ высоцѣ и спаде оть закрылиѩ еврѣискоѥ дѣте, и оумрѣть. Видѣвьше же ини отроци бѣжахоу, и абиѥ оста единь Ісоусь. И придоста родителѩ ѥго оумрьшаго отрочета: Тарохою, глаголюште, ты сврьже наю сына. Ісоусь же рече: Нѣсмь ѥго сврьгль азь, нь самь скочи оть закрылиѩ и ѥсть мрьтво отроче ваю. Тьгда вьзвавь абиѥ Ісоусь отроче: Зиноѥ, Зиноѥ, вьстани (тако бо бѣше име оумрьшомоу), вьстани и рьци, аште те свалихь ѩ. И вьскрьсе отроче и рече: Ни, Господи мои. И вьси видѣвьше дивлѩхоу се. Родителѩ же отрочете прослависта Бога о бывьшихь ѥго чюдесехь и поклониста се Богоу.

276

Appendix

И пакы же, не по мнозѣхь дьнехь, юноша ѥтерь, сѣкоушти дрьва вь соусѣдѣхь и оудари се сѣкырою и отсѣче пласоу оть ногы своѥ и оужасе се, и начеть оумирати. Мльва же бысть и стекоше се людиѥ и тече Ісоусь. И тече Ісоусь, идеже бѣ юноша ть и приде скозѣ народь едьва. И ѥть ѥго за ногоу и оусѣченоу и абиѥ цѣла бысть нога болештаго. Рече же Ісоусь юноши: Вьстани, и сѣци дрьва и помени ме Ісоуса. Народи же видѣвьше и поклонише се Ісоусоу и рекоше: вь истиноу оубо Богь вь нѥмь живеть. Бывьшоу же Ісоусоу вь .ѕ. лѣть посла ѥго мати Мариѩ на водоу, да ѥи донесеть водоу вь домь. И ниспоуштаюштоу ѥмоу скоудельникь вь народѣ же стлькноувьшоу се, и разби се. Ісоусь же прострь ризоу свою, вь ню же бѣ обльчень, и напльни ю воды, и принесе матери своѥи. Видѣвьши же мати ѥго Мариѩ знамениѩ, ѩже сьтвори Ісоусь и приѥмьши облобыза и матерскыи и блюдѣше ѥго. Егда бысть пакы вь врѣме сѣдьбѣ, иде сь отьцемь своимь Иосифомь, да сѣѥта пьшеницоу на нивѣ своѥи. И ѥгда сѣѩше отьць ѥго, тьгда отроче Ісоусь вьсѣѩ мѣроу пьшенице. И пожеть Иосифь обрьше и обрѣть ρ. мѣрь великыхь и призва Иосифь вьсе оубогыѥ и дасть имь пьшеницоу на гоумьнѣ своѥмь. И самь Иосифь вьзеть оть пшенице, еже сѣѩ Ісоусь. Бѣше же отроче Ісоусь вь то врѣме .и. лѣть. Бѣше нѣкто богать зѣло, и вьзва Иосифа, да и маисторьство дрѣводѣльноѥ сьдѣла ѥмоу, ѩкоже хоштеть Егьдоусь. И бысть ѥдино дрѣво кроупо, ѥже хотѣше прагь быти. И оскрьбѣ Иосифь зѣло. Тьгда рече Ісоусь отьцоу своѥмоу: Положи обѣ дрѣвѣ на земли тькьмо. И ѥть Ісоусь за окраштеньноѥ дрѣво и протегьноу и. И абиѥ равьно сьтвори дроугомоу дрѣвоу. И рече Иосифоу отьцоу своѥмоу: не скрьби, нь сьтвори ѩкоже хоштеши. Иосифь же приѥмь облобыза, и рече вь себѣ: Благословлѥнь ѥсмь азь, ѩко сико отроче дасть ми Богь. Видѣвь же Иосифь поспѣшениѥ и вьзрасть отрочетоу и прѣмоудрость и помысли пакы ѩко книгы не оумѣѥть, и ведь прѣдасть ѥго дроугомоу дидаскалоу. И рече дидаскаль: коимь книгамь хоштеши да оучю ѥго. Иосифь же рече: прѣжде елиньскымь, по томь еврѣискымь. Знаѩше бо дидаскаль отрочета того законь и боѩше се оть нѥго. И написа ѥмоу арьфа вита, и прооучаше ѥго, глаголѥ: арьфа, и пакь глагола ѥмоу: виθа. И не отвѣшта ѥмоу, нь рече ѥмоу: аште оучитель ѥси и знаѥши добрѣ, рьци ми арьфа силою, и азь тьгда рекоу ти о виθѣ. Тьгда прогнѣва се дидаскаль ть и оудари Ісоуса вь главоу. Ісоусь же негодовавь проклеть дидаскала того, и абиѥ изнемогь паде ниць. Ісоусь же вьставь иде вь домь свои. Иосифь же отьць ѥго оскрьби се зѣло и запрѣти матери ѥго глаголѥ: не поуштаи ѥго, жено, на дворь изь домоу, ѩко да не страждоуть сице гнѣваюште его.

Appendix

277

Пакы же на ино лѣто рече дроугы дидаскаль искрьни Иосифоу: греди и приведи ѥго вь казательство, еда быхь азь могль оутолить ѥго, и ласкаюште наоучю ѥго книгамь и врачебьнымь боуквамь. Тьгда рече Иосифь: како дроугыѥ дары принесоу оучителю ѥго? Врачь же начеть оучити ѥго, и показа ѥмоу былиѩ врачебнаѩ. Бѣше чловѣкь ть единѣмь окомь слѣпь и приде врачевати око ѥдно. Тьгда Ісоусь видѣвь отроче и рече ѥмоу: како ѥдно око приде врачевати, а о гледаюштимь како не радиши? И се рекьшоу Ісоусоу отьѥть се зѣница цѣлаго ока, и бысть ѥмоу болѣзнь велика зѣло, ѩко искаше вожда себѣ. Ісоусь же косноу се очию ѥго, и доуноу на лице ѥго, ицѣли очи ѥго; и прозрѣ. И принесе дары и дасть оучителю ѥго. Врачь же видѣвь чловѣка обѣ очи имоушта и не позна ѥго и не домысли се о дарѣхь, комоу принесе ихь, и рече ѥмоу: кто ѥси ты иже ми таковаѩ принесеши, ѩко азь не знаю тебе. Онь же рече: знаѥши ли чловѣка едино око имоушта, иже оть тебѣ ицѣлѩ. Почюдивьше се врачь и рече ѥмоу: каковымь образомь ицѣлѩ, едино бо око врачеваше и обѣ ти бысть больнѣ и не видѣѩше сь нима не болѣвьшомоу здравомоу. Онь же истиноу вьзвѣштаѥ и рече ѥмоу: добрымь твоимь оученикомь Ісоусомь обѣ исцѣлѣстѣ. Врачь же разоумѣвь ѩко ничесоже оуспѣ о рѣчехь тѣхь, и пакы вьпроси ѥго. Онь же истиньнаѩ дѣла сказа ѥмоу: Ѩко прѣжде не обрѣтохь тебе, придохь тебе искати, и наидохь добраго оученика твоѥго Ісоуса. Отвѣштавь ми и рече: чюждоу ти се, чловѣче, како зрештомоу окоу не сматраѥши, нь о гледаюштимь потрѣбоу иштеши. Азь бо слышавь рѣхь: То что могоу смотрити. Онь же рече: аште хоштоу, да исцѣлю те. И вьставь доуноу на ме, и косноу се очию моѥю, и затвореньноѥ око моѥ отврьзе и больноѥ ицѣли. Врачь же вьставь и измывь пльно ѥже гоушти и очисти ѥго. Иосифа же призва нареченьнаго отьца Ісоусова и рече ѥмоу: поими сына своѥго и отведи ѥго тамо, ть бо врачьство чловѣкомь имать разорити. Вьзеть же Иосифь отроче своѥ Ісоуса и отведе и вь домь свои. Вь дроугы же дьнь посла Иосифь сына своѥго Иѩкова да свезавь дрьва донесеть вь домь свои. Идоуштоу же ѥмоу и сьбыраюштоу дрьва идѣѩше Ісоусь изь далече по нѥмь. И се зьмиѩ люта оусѣкноу Иѩкова вь роукоу, и оцѣпѣнѣвь паде. И иьглоу се и приближи се Ісоусь кь нѥмоу, и доуноу на оуѩдениѥ его, тьгда адь ослабѣ ѥмоу, а звѣрь оумреть. Ино же пакы отроче оумрѣ вь соусѣдѣхь, и плакаше се мати ѥго. Слышавь же Ісоусь плачь велеи, тече абиѥ, и видѣ отроче лежешта мрьтва на лонѣ матере своѥѥ. Коусноу се прьсехь ѥго и рече: тебѣ глаголю, дѣтиштоу, не оумираи, нь живь боуди и матери своѥи. Тьгда абиѥ вьсклони се отроче и вьсмиѩвь се кь Ісоусоу, и рече Ісоусь кь женѣ: вьзми си

278

Appendix

дѣтишта своѥго и даждь сьсь ѥмоу, и помени ме Ісоуса. Видѣвьше же народи дивише се и глаголахоу: сиѥ отроче либо ѥсть Богь, либо ѥсть аггель прѣбываѥи вь нась, ѩко вьсако слово ѥго на вьсако дѣло готово ѥсть. Приде же Ісоусь оть тоудоу, вь дроугоѥ же лѣто сьзданию творимоу, спаде чловѣкь сь высоты и оумрѣть. Стече же се народь многь и веиль бысть велеи. Слышавь же Ісоусь тече тамо. И видѣ чловѣка мрьтва лежешта. И ѥмь ѥго за роукоу десноую и рече ѥмоу: тебѣ глаголю, чловѣче, вьстани, и твори дѣло твоѥ. Видѣвьше же народи дивише се и рѣше: се отроче сь небесь ѥсть, многыѥ бо доуше спасе оть смрьти, и спасти имать до живота своѥго. Бывьшоу же Ісоусоу вь .ві. Лѣть вьзидоста родителѩ ѥго по обычаю вь црьквь вь Ероусалимь вь празьникь пасцѣ сь дроужиною. И приѥмьша паскоу вьзвратиста се вь домь свои. Тьгда отроче Ісоусь оставь вь Ѥроусалимѣ, и не знаѩста родителѩ ѥго что створи Ісоусь. Мнѣста же: вь родѣ ѥсть вь дроужниѣ. И на срѣдѣ поути шьствиѩ дьнь ѥдинь искаста ѥго вечерь вьрождени. И бысть оутро, и не обрѣтаста ѥго родителѩ. И вьзвратиста се пакы вь Ѥроусалимь скрьбешта. И вьзискаста ѥго. По трехь же дьнехь обрѣтоста ѥго вь црькви сѣдешта посрѣдѣ оучитель. И послоушаста родиелѩ ѥго, како прѣпираше се. И вьпрашахоу его о нѥмь же хотѣхоу разоумѣти. И вьноушахоу вьси слышештеи глаголаниѩ та, и чюждахоу се вьси како отроче прѣпираѥть старьце людскыѥ оучителе и раздрѣшаѥ имь вьсакоу правьдоу законьноую и причахь чловѣчьскыхь. И по томь глагола Июдеомь: Гдѣ соуть дроузи мои, да играимь. Они же бѣхоу затворили вь хыжи. Исоусь же вь врата тькноувь и благословивь рече: да боудоуть свиниѥ. Егда же родителиѥ отврьзоше чеда своѩ, тьгда излѣзьше крьтеште коѥждо на страноу. Пришьдьши бо мати ѥго Мариѩ и рече кь нѥмоу: по что нама сиѥ сьтвори, чедо, се бо скрьбешта и болешта иштевѣ тебѣ. Рече же Исоусь: что искаста мене, ли не вѣста, ѩко иже соуть отьца моѥго и мнѣ вь тѣхь подобаѥть быти. Кьнижьници же и фарисеиѥ рѣше кь матери ѥго: ты ли ѥси мати отрочета сего? Она же рече: азь ѥсмь. И рѣше ѥи: благословлѥиьна ты ѥси вь женахь, и благословлень плодь оутробы твоѥ. Таковыѥ бо славы и таковыѥ дѣли и прѣмоудрости таковыѥ не видѣхомь. Вьставь же Ісоусь и иде вь слѣдь матере своѥ, и бѣ повиноуѥ се родителѥма своима. Мати же ѥго сьблюдаше (вьсе) ѥлико твораше величиѩ и слагаше вь срьдьци своѥмь. Ісоусь же спѣше прѣмоудростию и тѣломь и благодѣтию и ицѣленимь прославивьшомоу вьса оть Бога отьцоу и сыноу и светомоу доухоу, Богоу нашемоу слава.

Appendix

279

Slavonic manuscript Cod. 162, Russian State Historical Museum, Moscow, Collection of A. I. Hludov, fol. 200v-206r Чтениѥ дѣтьства Іс[уса] Х[ристо]ва, w[тьче] бл[а]г[осло]ви Азь ϴѡма Ис[раи]льтѣнинь избраннѣ вьзвѣстихь вамь всѣмь вь градѣ їер[осо]л[и]мѣ еже творааше г[оспод]ь нашь Іс[оусь] Х[ристос]ь знамениа и чюдеса. рождеи се вь странѣ жидовсцѣмь виθлеωмѣ. Вь градѣ Назарѣте. Бѣше же влчьстви томь ωтроче триимь лѣтомь. и дьждевомь бывшиимь. играаше ωтроче Іс[оусь]. вь мимотекоущиихь рѣчицахь дьждевниих. и потекоше води моутны. И сьбирааше Іс[оусь] вь виркови. и твораше ихь чисти. Словомь ты смо, а не дѣломь и вьземь брениѥ мекко. и створи птиць. Бѣ же соубота, егда творааше Іс[оусь] играе и мнѡги дѣти бѣхоу с нимь играюще. Видѣвше же їюдеие и шдьше повѣдаше їѡсїфоу ѡцоу его. ѡтрокь твои творить игре. вьземь брение мекко и сьтвори ві птиць. Его же не до[сто]ить творити. И оскврьнити соуботи. И пришьд Їѡсїфь на мѣсто, и призва І[соу]са и г[лаго]ла емоу. Почто твориши вь соуботоу, ихь же не до[сто]ить творити. І[соу]с же плесьнь роукама и вьзоупи г[лаго]ль и бл[а]г[осло]ви. Гл[аголи]ѥ имь идѣте вьзлетите. и помните ме жива соуща. Зовоуще ви ви. И видѣвше Їюдеиє и оужасоше се. И шдьше вьзвѣстише ниѣмь еже видѣше вь знамени еже сьтвори І[соу]сь с[и]нь б[о]жии. И се видѣвь, іже бѣ книжникь тоу стое сь Їѡсїфомь. И вьзьмь вѣхь врьбовь и оудари вь виркови, и истекоше води еже бѣше сьбраль І [соу]сь. И видѣвь отроче и негодова. Содомлѩнине, нечтиви и неразоумны. Что вьзобидоше виркови мои та ихь разкази и се да исьхиеши ѩко тои дрѣво. Да не принесеши плода ни корѣне. И абыѥ исьше отрокь вь ть ча[с] и падесе. І[соу]сь же иде вь дом свои. И родителѩ же ѡслабленнааго приидоста плачющасе ѡтрочета своего. И рекоста Їѡсїфоу виждь си ѡтроче каково имаши. И пакы идѣше скрозѣ гра[д] ино же ѡтроче текь вьскочи на рамо его. И разгнѣва се отроче І[соу]сь и рече. Да не вьзвратиши се поздравоу ѩмо же идѣши, и абыє падь издьше. Тог[д]а видѣвше дроузи с нимь бывше чюдише се и рекоше ѡ[т]коу[д] се ѡтроче. ѩко слово его и дѣло готово ѥ[сть] и пришь[д]ша родителѩ его па[д]шааго и запрѣщаста гл[агол]юще таково ѡтроче имѣє не можеши быти с нами з[д]е вь градѣ семь. аще ли наоучи его вльсвити а не клети. наше дѣти иско[у]сни творити. И призва Їѡсїфь ѡтроче ѡ таинно г[лаго]ль. Чедо почто тако кльнеши. И рьпщоуть на на[с] людие вси. И изгонет ни изь гра[д] сего. и ре[че] ѡтроче І[соу]сь. Гла[с] мои нѣ[с] ѩко гл[а]сь ихь. Ѡбаче тебе рада оумльчоуть. Они же да приимоуть троуды ихь. И потомь оубоаше се. И не смѣахоу гнѣвати єго. Ѩко вьсь гла[с] еже ре[че] збивает се емоу. Или золь или добрь. И разгнѣва се Їѡсїфь на І[соу]са. И еть его за власи и поте-

280

Appendix

заше зѣло цепено. І[соу]сь негодова. Докле стрти искати мене и неѡбрѣтати. разбоиниче ег[д]а истинине веси твои ли ѥсмь азь. Аще ли то не гнѣваи мене. Обаче твои ѥсмь к тебѣ приидохь. Оучител бѣ тоу стое именемь закхеи. слишавь І[соу]са сїце гл[агол]юща кь ѡ[т]цоу си. и чюди се зѣло. И ре[че] ѩко ѡтроче се таково гл[агол]ѥть. Не по мнозѣхь днехь прииде кь Їѡсїфоу закхеи г[лаго]ла емоу. ѩко смисльно и разоумно ѡтроче имаши да прѣдаи ми его да га наоучю книгамь и всемоу наставлению. Еже послоушати емоу старце. И почести всакого и родителѥ боѩти се и почитати. И срамлѩти се ихь. Ѩко ктѡ ѡ[т] своихь чедь почтань боудеть. Їѡсїфь же ре[че] кь оучителю да кто можеть мла[д] соуща хитра. Смѣрен бо ѥ[ст] и кротькь. Паче всакиихь си. Ѩкоже слыша І[соу]сь оца своего сице г[лаго]ла. Вьсмѣа се и ре[че] закхеѡви вса ѥже ти ре[че] ѡ[т]ць мои истина ѥ[сть] ѩко вьсѣмь азь ѥсмь г[оспо]дь. ви же тоуж[д]и ѥсте. Ѩко мнѣ единомоу да се всака вла[сть] ѩко азь прьвѣивась есьмь и прьвѣи вась родих се. Ви же не вѣсте ѡ[т]коу[д] есмь азь вѣде вась ѡ[т]коу[д] есте и ког[д]а родисте се и колико лѣть ѥ[сть] живота вашего. Истиноу оучителю гл[агол]ѥ. Ег[д]а ты роди се, ѩ прѣ[д]стоѩхь прѣ[д] б[о]г[о]мь попрѣди всего мира. Азь вѣди истиноу. И ти оучителю аще хошеши сьврьшень быти, ты вьпрашаи мене, и азь те наоучю всакои прѣмоудрости. юже не вѣсть никто развѣ мене пославшааго ме кь вамь. да и аз наоучю вась. Вь истиноу оучитель есмь. ты же оучитель нарицаеши се мнѣ. Понѥже азь вѣде. колико лѣть имаши. Ег[д]а же оузриши кр[с]та моего. Его же ре[че] ѡ[ть]ць мои. Тог[д]а разоумѣеши. Ѩко вса елико ти рекохь, истина соуть. И всемоу азь б[ог]ь ѥсмь. И ви же тоуж[д]и ѥсте. Слышавьше же їюдеие г[лаго]ли їс[оусо]ви. Дивише се гл[агол]юще ѡ прѣдивноѥ ч[оуд]ю. То поне тре[х] лѣть нема ѡтроче се а такова гл[агол]ѥть. Таковѣхь бо словесь не слишахѡ[м] николиже. законоу оучителѩ и фарисеа. Ѩкоже отроче се гл[агол]ѥть. Ѡ[т]вѣща имь гл[агол]ѥ: Вси ви чюдите се. А не вѣроуете. Ѩко азь рѣхь вамь истино[у]. И послави ме истиньнь ѥ[сть]. Егда мирь вьсь небезде. Нь азь прѣди всего мира бѣхь. Слышавше же їюдеие такови гл[агол]ы и оубоаше се. Никто же вьзможе ѡ[т]вѣщати емоу. И ѡш[д]ьшиихь ѡтрочеть. Играахоу ра[д]ваахоу се. И досаж[д]аше гл[агол]ь. Понеже азь вѣде ѩко чюдни ѥсте. и маломощни есте. Ѩко слава вьмѣнѩше се, на поспѣшение ѡтрочете. И ре[че] оучитель кь ѡ[ть]цоу его. Приведи его вь наказание. И азь наоучю его книгамь. Їѡсїфь же емь дѣтища и веде его кь оучителю. Оувещаваѥ ї[соу]са. и написа емоу азь вѣде. и наче оучитель прѣди гл[агол]ати. Рьци. Азь. Многоущи ре[че] р[е]ци. І[соу]с же не провѣща емоу вь единь ча[с]. И прогнѣва се оучитель и оудари его по главѣ. И ре[че] емоу ѡтроче. Недостоина сьтвори. Азь тебѣ хощоу оучити, а паче ли хощоу ѡ[т] тебе наказань быти. Азь книги оумею все. Имиже ме

Appendix

281

оучиши. И ниѩ ли та могоуть ме ѡсоуидити. И тие мнѣ нѣсоуть. Ѩко мѣдь звьнещи. Или коумбаль звецающи. Ви же гла[с] неимате. Ни прѣмоудрости. ни д[оу]ши сїлныи разоума. Рекь сице прѣмльче ѡтроче. рекь вьсоу грамата. Ѡт азь дое ѩсно. Вьзрѣвь ї[соу]сь на оучителѩ закхеа. И ре[че] ты не вѣси що е азь. Ащо ли боукви. Понеже не вѣси лице мѣ[т]ре. Да како ме оучиши книгамь. Аще ли вѣси то да скажи ми чтѡ ѥ[ст]ь ѥ. Иначе прорицати оучителю си. Слыши оучителю и разоумѣи. Азь. Авь стоухне. И ре[че] закхеи кь ѡтрочетоу. Недоразоумѣю се таковомоу ѡ[т]вѣтоу чтѡ рещи. Сьтворихь себѣ и срамотоу ѡбрѣтохь. Нь поими си їѡсїфе. Отроче свое вь домь свои. Не трьпе оугледати быстро ти его. И пѣсньнихь его словесь. Виж[д]оу бѡ ѩко нѣ[с] сеи ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь ѡт земльныихь. себо ѡгнемь мощьныимь моучитныи. и азь се емоу чюж[д]оу се ѡ[т]коу[д] ѥ[сть] коѩ ли м[а]тре ложесна родише его. И азь подвизах се имѣти оученика и ѡбрѣтох си оучителѩ. Бе промишлѩи срамотоу мою ѩко ѡ[т] детища посрамлень бы[х]. Стар си и ниѩ имамь ѡзлоблень оумрѣти ѡ[т] сего ѡтрочете. Не моги соущи налище его зрѣти. Что хощоу сьтворити. Или чтѡ хощо[у] комоу повѣдати. Ѡт прѣ[д]ложениихь ми правилѣхь вьпрьвне стоухиѥ. Ни зачела ни конца не вѣде что ѥ[сть]. Приими брате и веди ѥ вь домь свои. Себо нѣщо ѥ[сть] ли бо б[ог]ь ли бо агг[е]ль. Или нѣщо ѥ[сть] велико не веде с юдеωм же прѣдьстоещимь оу закхеа. Вьсми асе ѡтроче ї[соу]сь ниѩ принести плоды и непло[д]ные и слѣпы прозреть. И глоуси слишеть и неразоумни ср[д]цемь разоумѣють. Ѩко азь ѡ[т]вышныихь есмь. Да вась нищнихь избавлю. Инавысотоу позовоу ѩкоже заповѣда вамь. Послави ме кь вамь. Ѩкоже прѣста ѡтроче гл[агол]е и сп[а]сени быше они же вси падоше клетвы ради да ѡ[т] или не смѣаше гнѣвати его да не кльне тьихь. И потомь играаше ѡтро[че] ї[соу]с на единомь здани висоце. И едино ѡт отрочеть с нимь играаше. Испаде се ѡ[т] двое кровника и оумрѣ[ть]. И видѣвше ини дѣти и бѣшаахоу ѡ[т] тоу[д]. ї[соу]с стое единь тоу. И приидоста родителѩ падьшааго ѡтрок[а]. И кричаста на ї[соу]са. Ѩко ты сьврьже ѡтроче наше. ї[соу]с же ре[че] не азь сьврьгохь. Нь ѡнь свали се не истовство дѣе. Искочи ѡ[т] двое кровника. И ѥ[сть] мрьтьвь. Тог[д]а ї[соу]с на ѡтроче гл[аголи]ѥ на име емоу зине вьстани. Азь ли те сьврьгохь. И вьста ѡтроче ѡ[т] сьмрьти. Ни г[оспо]ди мои. Тог[д]а видѣвше вси и дивише се. А родителѩ его прослависта гра[д]. И поклонише се народи ї[соу]соу. И покаже не по мнозѣхь днехь. Юноша етерь зцѣпеше дрьва в соусѣде[х]. И прѣсече си ногу. И наче оумирати. И мльве же бывши истечению. Ѡтроче же ї[соу]с провре се скрозѣ народи. Неть его заврѣдноую ногоу. И ре[че] ем[оу] тебе юноше гл[агол]ю вьстани цѣпи дрьжа. И помени ме. Народи же видѣвше знамение бывшее. И поклонише се ї[соу]соу. И рекоше вьйстиноу ѩко б[ог]ь с нимь живе[т]. И соущоу ї[соу]соу скончашоу ƨ

282

Appendix

лѣть. И м[а]ти его марїа поиде на водоу вьзьмь сь соудь вь народѣ. И тлькноувши и разби водонось. ї[соу]с же простьрь рїзоу вь ню же бѣ ѡбльчень. И испльнию води. И несе м[а]т[е]ри и видѣвши м[а]т[р]и его еже сьтвори ї [соу]с и лоби злего и паки изиде ї[соу]с сь ѡцемь своимь да сѣе пшеницоу на нивѣ. И сѣа ѡ[т]ць его и сѣа господь единь. И поже и створи .р. кьбьль пшенице великыихь и призва ї[соу]с все оубогие и нищие. На гоумно и раз[д]а имь седбоу ѡтрочета. Сьврьши же ѡ[т]роче .и. лѣ[ть]. И ѡцоу его хитроу соушоу и дѣлающоу нѣкомоу богатоу соушоу. И оукрати се единомоу ѡ[т] правиль нарицаемыи нилать. И неимоущиимь мѣри. И вь спечалова їѡсїфь зѣло. И ре[че] емоу ї[соу]с положи долоу обѣ дрѣвѣ. И стани на краи. И ѡбѣ дрѣвѣ сьтвори равне. И сьтвори ѩкоже повелѣ емоу ї [соу]с. И ет се за кратко дрѣво и потеза его равно сьтвори сь дроугыимь. И ре[че] ѡцоу си неснелити сьтворихь ѩкоже хощеши. Їѡсїфь же приѥмь дѣтища и лобзл его. И ре[че] си в себѣ бл[а]жень ѥсмь азь с тобою. Ѩко таково ѡтроче да[с] ми ѣ г[оспод]ь. И видѣв же їѡсїфь спѣхь и вьзрасть и моудро ѡтрочета и пакы помь если е дати ѩко да не боуде не вѣдещеѥ книгы и ведь и прѣда иномоу оучителю. И ре[че] оучитель кь їѡсїфоу коимь книгамь хощешь да наоучю е и ре[че] емоу їѡсїфь прѣж[д]е грьчесыимь потомь иевреискои и видѣв же оучитель ї[соу]са хїтра соуща и прѣмоудра. И наче боати се. И написа ѥмоу азь вѣде и прѣди гл[агол]аше азь. ї[соу]с же ре[че] понѥмь. Пакы же оучитель ре[че] надль зѣвѣде. ї[соу]с не глагола по немь. И потомь ре[че] ї[соу]с емоу. Аще оучитель еси и вѣси добрѣ. Повѣждь ми азоу сьль. Азь рекь вѣде разгнѣва се оучитель. И оудари его по главѣ. Ѡтроче же ї[соу]с прогнѣва се, и проклеть его. И падесе изнемоги. ї[соу]с же иде вь домь свои. Їѡсїфь же ѡскрьбѣ зѣло. И запрѣти м[а]т[е]ри его г[лаго]ли. Не испоущаи его изь домоу. Ѩко да не страж[д]оуть гнѣвающи его. И вь дроузѣм же л[ѣт]ь дроугы оучитель искрьны ш[д]ь їѡсїфоу гл[агол]и[ѥ] приведи его кь мнѣ е да могоу оувѣщавь его оутѣшити и наоучити книгамь. Лѣпо ѥ[сть] ѡтроче се и моудро вьзрастомь. Да би вѣдело книгы. И ре[че] емоу ї[соу]с аще оуповаеши собою то поимне брате. И ѡпасно по емь е оучитель. И веде сь подвигомь вь домь свои ѡтроче же иде сь дрьзновениѥмь вь оучилище. И обрѣте книгы лежеще вь ѡлтари. И ѡ[т]врьз оуста своѩ наче г[лаго]лати д[у]хомь с[ве]тыимь. И оучаше люди прѣстоупниѥ законоу и слышаахоу его. Народь же мнѡгь прѣ[д]стоаше їс[оусо]ви. И чюдѣхоу се красотѣ оучению его. И готовьствоу словесь его. Ѩко дѣтище се и таковаго ѥ[сть]. Слышав же їѡсїфь и оубоа се и тече вь оучение. Еда искоушень боудеть имь. И ре[че] оучител азь ѡтроче се приехь ѩко оученика. Ѡн же мнѡго бл[а]г[одари]ти и прѣмоудрости знаѥ ть вь себѣ. Ѩко тъ и бл[а]гь ѥсть, и бь ѥ[сть], достоино ѥ[сть]. Брате мои поими ѥ оумлюти се, и веди ѥ вь домь свои.

Appendix

283

Ѩкоже слыша ѡтроче, сице гл[агол]юща кь ѡ[т]цоу его. И абиѥ проре[че] ї [соу]с кь оучителю. Тебе ра[ди] ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь ѡнь оу ѩзвлѥнь да спе[с]т се. И сцѣле ѡн оучитель вь томь ча[с]. И потомь ї[соу]с прохож[д]а шез[д]аниа црковнаа. И спаде се кїрамида. И оудари ї[соу]са. И ре[че] ї[соу]с потрѣби се з[д]ание злии домь. И абие разори се, все з[д]ание его. И ре[че] да сьзиж[д]ет се пакы, вь доброе з[д]ание. А невь идолодеменское. И сьз[д]ае словомь и мнозѣмь оучителимь прѣда. Ѩко видѣ їѡсїфь ѡ[т] ни единого оучителѩ не наоучи се нь па оучителѥ оучаше и потомь прѣда его врачеви. И кь врачеви томоу прихож[д]аше ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь ѡ единомь оцѣ видѣ. Да зреше око исцѣлѩеть а слѣпааго не брѣжаше. Ѡшдьшоу же оучителю. Прииде ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь на помазание и ѡбрѣте ѡтроче вь врачилище. И вьпроси каза оучителѩ г[д]е ѥ[сть], да ми помаже ѡко. и ре[че] емоу ї [соу]с чюж[д]оу ти се ч[е]л[о]в[е]че. Ѩко ѡвидещи имь оцѣ печеши се. И ре[че] емоу да що хощоу оучинити. И ре[че] емоу ї[соу]с хощеши ли да те исцѣлю. И ре[че] емоу хощоу и косноу се роукама своима. И абые исцѣлѩста емоу ѡбѣ ѡчи. Врач же помисли вь себѣ ѩко ни едине ползе сьтвори[х] емоу. И ревность приѥмь вь ср[д]ци своемь. И ч[е]л[о]в[е]ка вь прашааше како исцѣле. И ре[че] емоу добрыимь твоимь оученикомь приидохь и помаза ми ѡчи и виж[д]оу. Се или ти ѩвившаго и. И почюдив се врачь вьпрашааше гл[аголи]ѥ како исцѣле. Понеже ти бѣсте ѡчи врѣдне. И ѡслѣпемь не радише. Нь видешее и ниѩ ти естѣ обѣ ѡчи [зд]раве. Ѡнь же все видеше проповѣда. Добрыимь твоимь оученикомь. Ѩко приидохь и тебе не ѡбрѣтохь нь оученика ти ѡбрѣтохь. И ре[че] ми сице чюж[д]оу ти се ч[е]л[о]в[е]че. Како цѣлиши видещее ѡко. А ѡне видещимь ѡцѣ не печеши се. Да и азь ѡ[т]вѣщахь емоу да хощоу сьтворити. Тог[д]а ми ре[че] хощеши ли да те исцѣлю. И рекохь хощоу. Тог[д]а се косноу ѡбѣма ѡчима моима и исцѣле с тами ѡчи. Врач же помисли вь себѣ ѩко никое ползесь творихь емоу. И ревность приемь вь ср[д]ци своемь. И ч[е]л[о]в[е]ка нецѣлѣвшааго ѡ[т]поусти. И абыѥ їѡсїфа призва и ре[че] поими си ѡтроче и ведне. Се бо хощеть все врачство ч[е]л[о]в[е]че сказати и поѥмь їѡсїфь ѡтроче. И веде е вь домь свои. И потомь посла їакѡва с[и]на своего. Да бере храстие. Ехидна лютлоу сѣкноу еговь роукоу. И ѡцѣпенѣ роука его. И приближи се ї[соу]с и доуноу на врѣдь его. И ослабѣ емоу врѣдь. А змил оумрѣ. И пакы ино ѡтроче оумрѣ вь соусѣдехь. И плачаше се м[а]ти его зѣло. Слышав же ї[соу]с плачю бывшоу, и тече скоро. И видѣ лежеща на лонѣ м[а]т[е]ри своѥи. И пристоупи ї[соу]с и косноу се вьпрьси его. И ре[че] тебѣ гл[агол]ю дѣтищоу вьстани не оумираи и живь боуди м[а]т[е]ри своеи. И абыѥ вьста ѡтроче и вьсмиа се. И ре[че] ї[соу]с поимне и да и емоу ѩсти. Видѣвше же наро[д] что сьтвори ї[соу]с и чюдише се. И рекоше ѩко вьсемь ѡтроче ти или б[ог]ь или аггель, прѣбы-

284

Appendix

ваѥть вь нѥмь. Все бо слово и дѣло его готово ѥ[сть]. И ш[д]ь ї[соу]с ѡ[т] тоуде, идеше вь домь свои. По дроузѣм же лѣть, зданию творимоу и ѡ[т] з[д]аниа ч[е]л[о]в[е]кь свали се и оумрѣ сь высока бобѣ се свалиль. Истечению бывшоу и мльве велицѣи. И слышав же ѡтроче ї[соу]с идѣ тамо. И видѣ ч[е]л[о]в[е]ка мрьтва лежеща. И емь за роукоу и ре[че] тебѣ гл[агол]ю ч[е]л[о]в[е]че вьстани и твори дѣло своѥ. И абиѥ вьста и поклони се емоу и видѣвше народи дивише се. И рекоше ѩко ѡ[т] б[ог]а ѥ[сть]. Се моги да сп[ас]еть ѡт сьмрьти и сп[аси]ти има всѣхь. И скончавшоу ї[соу]соу ве лѣ [ть] изидоста родителѩ его по ѡбычаю вь їер[оу]с[а]л[и]мь. Вь празникь паскы, из дроужиноу поѥмь ї[соу]са їѡсїфь и м[а]т[е]ре его. Вьзврати стасе вь домь свои. Ѡтроче же ѡ[т]иде вь їер[оуса]л[и]мь. И неразоумѣста родителѩ его. Нь мнѣвшавь дроужине соуша. И приидоста искати его. По три дни вь рож[д]ени вь дроужинѣ. И не ѡбрѣтоста его. И вьзвратиста се вь їер[оуса]л[и]мь. Скрьбеше искаста его. По три дни ѡбрѣтоста и вь цркви. И оучителие послоушаахоу его. Закона что мааго. И вьпрашаахоу его ѡнем же хотѣхоу разоумѣти ѡ[т] него и вси внимахоу слышеще словеса его и чюдѣхоу се. Ѩко дѣти щьсьи прѣпираеть стариихь и оучител ѥ раз[д]роушаеть главы законние. И притче пррочскыи и прииде м[а]ти его марїа. И ре[че] что сьтвори нама таковое чедо. Се болеще и скрьбѣше искаховѣ тебе. И ре[че] ї[соу]с почтѡ искасте мене скрьбеше не вѣсте ли ѩже ѥ [смь] оу ѡца моего. Вь тѣх ми достои ть быти. Книжници же и фарисеие рекоше м[а]т[е]ри его. Ты ли еси м[а]ти ѡтрочета сего. Ѡна же ре[че] азь ѥсмь. Ѡни же рекоше бл[а]женна ты еси вь женахь. И бл[а]г[осло]вень пло[д] удѣва твоего. И г[оспод]ь б[ог]ь бл[а]г[осло]виль те ѥ[сть]. Ѩко таковаго дара б[о]жиа и прѣмоудрости неслышахомь николиже. И вьставь ї [соу]с иде вь слѣдь м[а]т[е]ре своеи. И бѣ повиноуе се има. Марїа же м[а]ти его блюдаше словеса его вь ср[д]ци своѥмь. И вса ѩже творѩше ї [соу]с величиѥ н[е]б[ес]ь. Іже прѣспѣваше моудростию и тѣломь. Исцѣлениа твораше. Ѡ всѣмь прославлѩющи се ѡ[т] б[ог]а ѡца своего емоу же слава вь вѣкы аминь.

Slavonic manuscript St Petersburg, 13.3.17, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, fol. 177r-183v Дѣанїа и дѣтство Г[оспод]а наше[га] И[сус]а Х[рист]а. ѡче бл[аго]с[ло]ви. Избранныи възвѣстих азь ϴома иср[аи]льтѣни[н]. Въсѣсѣ[х] ѡ[т] ѧзыкь братїе видѣ[х] дѣ[т]ство Г[оспод]а нашего. еже сътвори величьство Г[оспод]ь, истр[с]ть. рѡди бо сѧ въ странѣ нашеи иже нарицаетсѧ, виѳлеемь. Въ градѣ Назаретъстѣ[м]. Иже въ вла[д]чьстви том, ѡтрочѧ ї

Appendix

285

[соу]сь, четырїемь лѣто[м] бывь. и дъж[д]оу бывшоу, играаше въ мимохож[д]енїи рѣчиць дъж[д]евныи[х]. Текѫщїи[х] вод мѫтныи[х] събирааше и[х] въ единѫ строуѫ. и абїе чистыи[х] творѣше слово[м] тъкмо а не дѣло[м] повелѣваѫ и[м]. Паче възе[м] ѡ[т] бренїа мѧккь каль, и сътвори ѡ [т] него дванадесѧте птицъ. Бѣше сѫбота ег[д]а творѣше. И играаше. и многы дѣти тоу бѣхѫ съ ни[м] и играахѫ. И видѣвше жидове еже творѣше играѫщи ше[д]ше и повѣдашѫ ѡцоу его Иѡсифоу. Гл[агола]ще се ѡтрокь твои играеть въ рѣчици тамо. Възе[м] бренїе и сътвори .ві. птиць и сквръни[т] сѫ[бо]тѫ. И прише иѡсіфь на мѣсто и видѣ ї[соу]са и призва его гл[агол]ѧ почто сїе твориши въ сѫ[бо]тѫ. их же недо[сто]ить творити. ї [соу]сь же съплескавь рѫкама и възъпивь птица[м] и ре[че]. Възлетѣте и ипомѣнѣте живы сѧще. Излетѣшѫ птицѧ и идошѫ зовѧще. И видѣвше въси и оужасошѫс. Въкоупѣсъ ше[д]ше сѧ и възвѣстишѫ инѣмь и видѣшѫ знаменїе еже сътвори ї[соу]сь. С[и]нь же анны книжника бѣше съ Иѡсїфѡ[м]ь тоу. И въз[м]е вѣѫ връбовѫ и раскази емоу виркы и истекошѫ воды из ни[х] же бѣ събраль. Ѡтроче же ї[соу]сь видѣвь бывшее и негодова и ре[че] емоу Содомите нечьстиве неразоумне что тѧ ѡбидѣшѫ мои вирове и воды та и[х] раскази. Се да бѫдеши ѩко и дрѣво соу[х] да не принесеши ни листїа ни коренїа ни пльда. И абїе ѡтро[к] тъ, то[м] часѣ соу[х] бывесь. ї[соу]сь же иде въ до[м] свои. Родителѣ же прїидоста ослабенаго и гл[агол]аста їѡсифоу. Виж[д]ы ѩко таково ѡтрочѧ имаше. пакы же ї [соу]сь идѣше сквозѣ гра[д]. ѡтроче ино скочи на рамо его. И прогнѣвасѧ ї [соу]сь. и ре[че] да не доидеши пѫте[м] тѣ[м]. И абїе паде ниць ѡтрочѧ издъше. видѣвше же дроуѯи и рекошѫ ѡ[т]кѫдоу бо сие ѡтрочѧ рѡдисѧ ѩко въсѣ слово[м] его и дѣло[м] его готово бываеть. И прїидоста родителѣ па[д]шааго прѣтѧща їѡсифоу ѡцоу и гл[агол]ѧша, ты, таковое ѡтрочѧ имѣѫ не можеши съ нами жити въ градѣ се[м]. аще ли то оучи е бл[агосло]вити, а не клѧти. Нашѫ бо дѣти искоусны твори[т]. Призвав же їѡсифь ѡтрочѧ ї[соу]са, и оучаше е гл[агол]ѧ. Почто тако клънеши и страж[д]ѫть си. И ненавидѧ[т] на[с] и изгонѧ[т] ны изь гра[д]. И ре[че] ї[соу]сь, Азь вѣдѧ ѩко гл[агол]и мої си, нѣсѫ[т] тъ еже азь гл[агол]ѧ, ѡбаче тебе ради прѣмлъчѧ. Они же рїимѫ[т] троу[д] и[х]. И абїе гл[аголѧ]ще на него въси и ѡслъпошѫ и не видѣшѫ и оубоашѫ[с] ѯѣло и к томоу не смѣахѫ его гнѣвати. ѩко въсѣкь гл[агол]ъ ѡтрочѧ те еже речаше либо зло либо добро. и видѣ їѡсифь ѩко сътвори и разгнѣва сѧ ѯѣло. и ѧть его за оухо и влѣчаше ѡн же ѡтѧѯаше сѧ. ѡтрочѧ же ї[соу]сь негодова и ре[че]. Довлеть пти искати мене и не ѡбрѣтати ѡ разбоиниче ѩко въ истинѫ твои ли есмь не вѣси. Абїе не ѡскръблѣи мене. твои бо есмъ и к тебѣ прїидо[х]. Нѣкыи же оучите[л] стоѧ бѣ тоу имене[м] закхеи, и слыша ї[соу]са гл[агол]ѧ къ ѡцоу своемоу. и чюдисѧ ѯѣло. ѩко ѡтрочѧ тако гл[аголѫ]ща. И по мноѯѣ

286

Appendix

прїближисѧ закхеи къ їѡсифоу гл[агол]ѧ. имаши ѡтрочѧ мѫдро грѧди и прѣдаж[д]ь мие. да навыкне[т] книгы и въсемоу наоучѧ еже оумѣти емоу. Въсѧ старцѧ чьсти и прѣ[д] ды. А ѡцѧ любити съ кротостїѫ. И въсѧ съвръстникы его. боатисѧ и срамѣтисѧ родителю, ѩко да ѡ[т] инѣ[х] и ѡ [т] свои[х]ь чьд възлюбень бѫде[ть]. їѡсифь же прогнѣвасѧ ѯѣло на ѡтрочѧ ре[че] ре[че] къ оучителю: да кто може[т] наоучити его. чим же маломоу гви его мниши бо ти ѩко бра[т] ти е[сть]. Ѩко слыша ѡтрочѧ ѡца си, тако рекша, оусмиѩ сѧ велми и ре[че] къ закхеоу истина е[с] оучителю. Въсе еже ре[че] ѡ[та]ць мои, и семоу азь г[оспод]ь есмь. вы же тоуж[д]и есте. Ѩко мнѣ единомоу вла[с] да[с] сѧ. Ѩко азь прѣж[д]е бѣ[х] и ниѣ азь есмь. И оу ва[с] роди[х]сѧ и с вами есмь. И не знаете кто есмь азь. Аз же ва[с] знаѫ кто есте и ког[д]а се родисте сѧ. и колико лѣть е[с] живота вашего. въ истинѫ гл[агол]ѧ ти оучителю. Ег[д]а родистесѧ азь знаѫ. и прѣж[д]е рож[д]ьства вашего азь знаѫ въ истинѫ. И аще хощеши съвръшень быти оучите[л], то послоушаи мене и азь наоучѧ тѧ прѣмѫдрости еѧ же никто же не вѣ[с] развѣ и мене и пославшаго мѧ къ ва[м], да ва[с] наоучѧ. Азь тебѣ оучите[л] есмъ. ты же мнѣ оучени[к] нарицаешисѧ. понеже знаѫ колико лѣ[т] имаши. И колико врѣмѧ живота твоего. Истинно знаѫ. Ег[д]а оузриши кр[с]т мои, иже ти ре[че] ѡ[т]ць мои. Тогда вѣрѫ имеши ѩко въсе елико рекѫ ти истина е[сть]. И се азь блгь есмъ. вы же тоуж[д]и есте. ѩко тож[д]е и ниѣ есмь. Сѫщїи же Июдеие тоу слышѫще дивлѣхѫсѧ. И възъпивше велми и рекошѫ. ѡ дивное чю[д] и прѣславное е[сть]. Лѣ[т] не има[т] ѡтрочѧ се. И таковыѫ рѣчи слышахо[м] ѡ [т] него ѩковыи[х] же не слышах ѡ[м] ре[к]ша, на хїи ереми книжничѧ ти ї [соу]са. Имѣже ї[соу]сь. Ѡ .и. Лѣ[т] ѡцоу же его маистороу сѧщоу. в то врѣмѧ ѩко хотѣше нѣкоемоу богатоу да сътвори[т] съсѧды. Единомоу правилоу нарица емоу двѣ дрѣвѣ бѣстѣиѧ едино ѡкрѧпено неимѣѧ мѣры. Ре[че] ї[соу]сь ѡцоу своемоу по[ло]жи двѣ дрѣвѣ долоу. И ѡ[т] своѧ страны равно сътвори. И сътвори їѡсїфь ѩко же ре[че] емоу ї[соу]сь равна конца. И емь ї[соу]сь крѧпое дрѣво и потѧги же и равно е сътвори. Дроугомоу дрѣвоу и ре[че] їѡсифоу не скръби нѧ твори еже хощеши. Їѡсїфь же приемъ ѡтрочѧ и ѡблобыза е и ре[че] Бл[а]ж[ен]ь есмъ азъ каково ѡтрочѧ да[с] ми Б[ог]ь. Видѣв же їѡсїфь въспѣанїе ѡтрочѧ ти и възраста мѧдрости его. и пакы помысли да бѫде[т] оумѣѧи книгы и ведеи и прѣдаде его дроугомоу оучителю. И ре[че] їѡсифоу оучите[л] книгам ли хощеши да наоучѧ его. їѡсїф же ре[че] прѣж[д]е елиньскы[м], пото[м] и еврѣискы[м]. Знааше оучите[л] законь ѡтрочѧтоу и боашесѧ его. Ѡбаче написа емоу аз боуквы. и прѣди вѣщааше емоу гл[агол]ѧ азь, ї[соу]сь ре[че] емоу. Азь. и пакы помлъча гл[агол]а емоу боуквы. И не ѡ[т]вѣща емоу ї[соу]сь помлъчаи ре[че] емоу ї[соу]сь. аще оучите[л] еси и оумѣеши добрѣ книгы ръци ми аз овѧ

Appendix

287

силѧ. азь ти ѡ[т]вѣщаѧ боуквы и прогнѣвасѧ оучите[л] и оудари его по главѣ. Ѡтрочѧ же негодоваи проклѧ[т] его. Тог[д]а тоу изнемогь паде ниць. ї[соу]с же ѡтиде въ домь свои. їѡсиф же ѡскрь[…..] и запрѣти м[а]т[е]ри его. И ре[че] не испоущаи его вънь из дом[оу] ѩко да не страж[д]ѫть тако гнѣваѫщеи его. По лѣтѣ пакы едино[м] дроугыи пакы оучите[л] ближнїи їѡсїфоу ре[че] иди и приведи е въ наказате[л]ство. Не могѧ лї азь оувѣщаѫи и ласкаѧи его, наоучити книга[м]. Лѣпо е[ст] ѡтрочѧ и мѫдро. И възра[с] имѣѧ да оумѣеть книгы. Ре[че] їѡсїфь аще оуповаеши брате. То поими есъ ѡпасенїемь. Събоазниѧ нї […]подвигом. Ѡтрочѧ же въпиде съ дръзновенїемь въ оучите[л]ство. И ѡбрѣте книгы лежѧщѧ на конець келїа. Ѡ[т]връзение чьтѣше ѩже бѣхѧ писана. Въ ни[х]. Нѫ ѡ[т]връзе оуста своа гла[гола]аше д[у]хо[м] с[ве]ты[м] и оучааше законоу и послоушаахѫ его, прѣ[д]стоѧщии. Имаѣхѫс паче да более ре[че] ть. Народ же многь прише[д] послоушаахѧ ї[соу]са. И чюж[д]аахѫ[с] красотѣ и оученїю его. И готовствоу словесь его. Ѩко дѣтищь съ, таковаа гл[агол]аше. Слышавь їѡсиф и оубоасѧ […] ре[че] оучите[л]ство разоумѣеть. Ѩко да и тъ оучите[л] искоушень бѫде[т]. И ре[че] оучите[л] їѡсифоу да вѣси брате ѩко азь поѧ[х] ѡтрочѧ сие ѩко оученїка. Ѡн же бл[а]г[оде]тїѧ исплънень е[сть]. Бл[а]г[о]д[е]тѩ же ѡ[т] б[ог]а е[ст]. Что оубо до[с] ино е[ст] и он ми е брате и веди е въ до[м] свои. Ѩко слыша ѡтрочѧ си рекша оучителѣ къ ѡцоу его. Тог[д]а въсмїасѧ понеже празо ре[че]. Тебе ради и ѡнь ч[е]л[ове]кь сп[ас]етсѧ оуѩзвеныи. И абїе то[м] часѣ цѣль бы[с] и ѡнь оучите[л]. Пото[м] же ї[соу]с ходѧщоу скозѣ и долыѯи же м[……] западе на него. Ре[че] п[…..]исѧ ѯѣло ѯижде мы домен тог[д]а потрѣбисѧ и долское капище. Тог[д]а пакы ре[че] да съ ѯиж[д]етсѧ въ доброе съз[д]анїе. А не въжилище демонъское. Тог[д]а съз[д]асѧ ѩко многѫѧ хытрость. Прѣдаваеть его їѡсїфа ини единомоу ненавыченѧ ѡнь паче оучаше. И посе[м] врачеви его прѣдаде. И къ врачеви томоу прихож[д]ааше слѣпь съ едино[м] окомь. Изрѧщее око его болѣше и помазовааше е. Патри лоуча оуже единомоу ѡбрѣтшоусѧ ѡтрочѧ тоу въ врачилищи. И оучителѣ его не бѣ тоу. Ч[е]л[овѣ]коу же прише[д]шоу на помазанїе ока. и ре[че] емоу ї[соу]с ч[е]л[ове]че ѩко ѡзрѧщїи[м] ѡцѣпечешисѧ а ѡне зрѧщи[м] никако же печалоуешисѧ. Слышав же сїе ч[е]л[ове]кь ѡ[т] отрочѧ та и почюдисѧ. И ре[че] ч[е]л[ове]кь что оубо дасъ творѧ. И ре[че] емоу ї[соу]с хощеши ли да тѧ исцѣлѧ. И ре[че] ч[е]л[ове]кь хощѧ г[оспод]и. Тог[д]а ї[соу]с коснѫсѧ очию его. И абїе прозрѣ слѣпое и и болѧщее боле исцѣлѣ. И ишед ч[е]л[ове]кь, тъ хлѣбь и вино и иныѫ дары принесе цѣлителю его. Врачь же видѣ вь ч[е]л[ове]ка ѡбѣма очима зрѧща. И недомыслисѧ ѡ дарѣ[х] комоу принесе. И рече емоу кто ты еси принесы ми таковаа не вѣдѧ. Ѡн же ре[че] къ немоу не вѣси ли мене ч[е]л[ове]ка приходѧ

288

Appendix

щанцѣа ѧщасѧ ѡ[т] тебе. Едино око имѧща и ѡ[т] тебе цѣлѧщасѧ. И юдиѩ ивжесѧ врачьви въпроси его гл[агол]ѧ како исцѣлѣ. Ѡбѣ бо ти очи бѣстѣ ѩрѣднѣ. И незрѧщее оубо и машивидѧще е, и болѣвшее з[д]раво. Ѡн же истинѫ бывшѫѧ повѣда. И ре[че] добрыи[м] твои[м] оученко[м] ѡбѣ исцѣ [л]стѣ ми. Врачь же разоуммѣ ѩко ничто же емоу небѣ оуспѣ[л]. Ниползы никоеѫ же емоу не бѣ сътвори[л] ѡ врач бѣ сего ради пакы въпроси его. ѡн же пакы по истинѣ сказа емоу чюдо еже сътвори емоу ї[соу]сь. И ре[че] емоу ѩко прѣж[д]едніи си[х] прїидо[х] ищѫщи тебе. И не ѡбрѣто[х] тебе. Нѫ оученка Твоего добра[г]а ѡтрока ѡбрѣто[х]. ѡн же възрѣвь на мене и рече ми. Чюж[д]ѫ ти сѧ ч[е]л[ове]че. Ѩко зрѧщомоу окоу поиѣ мало ползѫ и щешна ѡне видѧ щимни како же не печалоуешисѧ. Аз же слышавь то реко[х] къ немоу. Да что емоу сътворїти хощѫ. Ѡн же ре[че] аще хощеши да тѧ исцѣлѧ азь же реко[х] хощѫ. И въставь ѡтрок прикоснѫсѧ очима моим и [….] око ѡ[т]връзе а болѧщеем коле исцели. Вра[ч] же [….] въ ср[д]ци своемъ. И ѡ[т]поусти ч[е]л[ове]ка того. И призва їѡсїф ини ре[че] емоу поими с[и]на своегѡ и ѡ[т]веди. Син бо можеть врачевство ч[е]л[ове]чьское разорити. И поемь їѡсифь ѡтрочѧ и ведех е въ домь свои. Посемъ посла їѡсифь с[ы]на своего їакѡва. да свѧжеть храстїе и принесеть въ домь свои. И понемь поиде ѡтрочѧ исъбравшоу же храстїе. И зѧмїа лютаа сѣкнѫ, іакѡва въ рѫкѫ. и ѡцѣтѣнѣвшоу же емоу и оумираѫщоу. приближисѧ ї[соу]сь, и доунѫ на грїзенїе. Тогда ѩдь ѡслабѣа зъмиа оумрѣть. Ино же ѡтрочѧ пакы въ съсѣдѣ[хь] оумрѣ. плакашесѧ зѣло м[а]ти его. Слышавь же ї[соу]сь ѩко плачь и веплъ бы[ст]. тече скоро и видѣ ѡтрочѧ лежѫще на лонѣ еѫ и прикоснѫсѧ пръсе[х] его. и ре[че] къ дѣтищоу не оумри нѫ живь бѫди. И иди къ м[а]т[е]ри своеи. Тог[д]а въсмиасѧ ѡтрочѧ и оусклабисѧ къ немоу. и ре[че] кь м[а]т[е]ри его да жъ емоу сати и помѣни мѧ. Наро[д] же видѣ и дивишѧсѧ и рекошѧ въ истинѫ въсемъ ѡтрочѧ ти или б[ог]ъ или аггель прѣбываеть. въ себо слово еже ре[че] ть или дѣломь готово бываеть. И иде въ домь свои и подроузѣ. А посъ зданїю же творимоу спаде ч[е]л[овѣ]кь ѡ[т] высоты и оумрѣть. И теченїю бывшии млъвѣ немалѣ. Слыша ѡтрочѧ ї[соу]сь и иде тамо. И видѣ ч[е]л[овѣ]ка лежѧща мртва. И ѫть его за рѫкѫ и ре[че] емоу тебѣ гл[агол]ѧ, ч[е]л[овѣ]че въстани и твори дѣло свое. Тогда въставь и поклонисѧ емоу. Видѣвше же народи и почюдишѧсѧ. и рекошѫ се ѡтрочѧ б[ог]ь есть. многыѧ бо д[оу]шѫ сп[а]се ѡ[т] съмрти. и свѣт имать быти въ немь до въсего живота своего. сѫщоу же емоу .ві. лѣть. възыдоста родителѣ его въ іер[оу]с[а]лимь по обычаю въ празни[к] пасцѣ сѣ дроужиноѫ приемша пасхѫ їѡсїфь же и мариа[м], възвратистасѧ четенїе стго.

Bibliography Manuscripts Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke, Cod. Atheniensis gr. 355 Athos, M. Vatopediou, Codex Vatopedi 37 Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 271 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 288 Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale 38 (20) Göttingen, Universitätsbibliothek, syr. 10 Jerusalem, Library of the Patriarchate, Codex Sabaiticus 259 London, British Library, Harley 3199 London, British Library, Add. 14484 Madrid, Bibliotheca Nacional, 9783 Moscow, Russian State Historical Museum, Collection of A. I. Hludov, Cod. 162 Paris, BnF, lat. 6041 A Paris, BnF, lat. 1772 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, 3014 St Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 13.3.17 Tbilisi, Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts, Codex A 95 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. hist. gr. 91 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. theol. gr. 123 Vienna, ÖNB, lat. 563

Secondary literature Aasgaard, Reidar. “From Boy to Man in Antiquity: Jesus in the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies 3 (2009): 3 – 20. Aasgaard, Reidar. The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2009. Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum 1. Vienna: Gerold, 1864 – 1899. Adler, William, and Paul Tuffin, tr. The Chronography of George Synkellos. A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Agapitos, A. Panagiotis. “Narrative, Rhetoric, and ‘Drama’ Rediscovered: Scholars and Poets in Byzantium Interpret Heliodorus.” In Studies in Heliodorus, edited by Richard Hunter, 125 – 156. Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society, 1998. Amsler, Frédéric. “Les Paidika Iesou, un nouveau témoin de la rencontre entre judaïsme et christianisme à Antioche au IVe siècle?” In Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities, edited by Claire Clivaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli, 433 – 458. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-008

290

Bibliography

Amodio, Mark C., and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe. “Introduction.” In Unlocking the Wordhord: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Memory of Edward B. Irving Jr, edited by Mark C. Amodio, and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, 3 – 13. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Amudzhieva, Nadezhda, and Pavel Tsvetkov. “The Cult of Saints-healers – an Alternative and Opposition to the Official Medicine in Medieval Bulgaria.” JAHR: Europski časopis za bioetiku 4, No. 1 (2013): 357 – 366. Angusheva, Adelina. “The Application of Computer Tools to an Investigation of the Place of Prognostic Books in Medieval Slavic Tradition.” In Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML: Problems and Perspectives, edited by Anissava Miltenova, and David Birnbaum, 222 – 230. Sofia: Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, 2000. Antonova, Jeny. “Pharmacy in Medieval Bulgaria.” Die Pharmazie – An International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 62, No. 6 (2007): 467 – 469. Atsalos, Basile. La Terminologie du livre-manuscrit a l’époque byzantine 1. Termes désignant le livre-manuscrit et l’écriture. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2001. Avner, Rina. “The Initial Tradition of the Theotokos at the Kathisma: Earliest Celebrations and the Calendar.” In The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium, edited by Leslie Brubaker, and Marry B. Cunningham, 9 – 30. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Baars, Willem, and Jan Helderman. “Neue Materialien zum Text und zur Interpretation des Kindheitsevangeliums des Pseudo-Thomas.” Oriens Christianus 77 (1993): 191 – 226; (1994): 1 – 32. Bal, Mieke. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1997. Bartlett, Robert. “Symbolic Meanings of Hair in the Middle Ages.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 4 (1994): 43 – 60. Bartlett, Robert. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Bauckham, Richard. “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56, No. 4 (1994): 686 – 700. Bauer, Johannes Baptist. “Die Entstehung Apokrypher Evangelien.” Bibel und Liturgie 38 (1964): 268 – 271. Baun, Jane. Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Betsworth, Sharon. Children in Early Christian Narratives. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Beyers, Rita. “Introduction générale aux deux textes édités.” In Libri de nativitate Mariae. Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium: Textus et commentarius, edited by Jan Gijsel, 1 – 34. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Beyers, Rita. “Dans l’atelier des compilateurs. Remarques à propos de la Compilation latine de l’enfance.” Apocrypha 16 (2005): 97 – 136. Beyers, Rita. “The Transmission of Marian Apocrypha in the Latin Middle Ages.” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 117 – 140. Beyers, Rita. “Histoire de la recherche, de la composition et de l’origine du libellus De nativitate Sanctae Mariae.” In Libri de nativitate Mariae. Libellus de nativitate Sanctae Mariae, edited by Jan Gijsel, and Rita Beyers, 7 – 33. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Birnbaum, David. “Computer-Assisted Analysis and Study of the Structure of Mixed Content Miscellanies.” Scripta & e-Scripta 1 (2003): 15 – 64.

Secondary literature

291

Bischoff, Bernhard. Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bloomer, Martin W. “Corporal Punishment in the Ancient School.” In A Companion to Ancient Education, edited by Martin W. Bloomer, 184 – 198. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. BnF. “Archives et manuscrits.” Last accessed: 08/06/2021. Boff, Leonardo. Saint Joseph: The Father of Jesus in a Fatherless Society. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009. Boffey, Julia. “Short Texts in Manuscript Anthologies: The Minor Poems of John Lydgate in Two Fifteenth-Century Collections.” In The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, edited by Stephen G. Nichols, and Siegfried Wenzel, 69 – 82. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Bonfil, Robert, Oded Irshai, Guy Stroumsa, and Rina Talgam, eds. Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Bonner, Stanley. Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. New York: Routledge, 2014. Borchardt, Francis. “The LXX Myth and the Rise of Textual Fixity.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012): 1 – 21. Boulton, Maureen Barry McCann. Sacred Fictions of Medieval France: Narrative Theology in the Lives of Christ and the Virgin, 1150 – 1500. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2015. Bovon, François. “Évangiles canoniques et évangiles apocryphes: La naissance et l’enfance de Jésus.” Bulletin des facultés catholiques de Lyon 58 (1980): 19 – 30. Bouras, Charalambos. “Houses in Byzantium.” Deltion 11 (1982 – 1983): 1 – 26. Bradley, Keith R. “Child Labor in the Roman World.” Historical Reflections/ Réflexions Historiques 12, No. 2 (1985): 311 – 330. Breen, Aidan. “The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review).” Medieval Review (2011): 1 – 4. Bregadze, Tamar, Mikhael Qavtaria, and L. Qutateladze, eds. Kartul Xelnatserta agtseriloba I.1 (The Description of Georgian Manuscripts I.1). Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1973. British Library. “Detailed record for Harley 3199.” Last accessed: 08/06/ 2021. Brock, Sebastian. Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995. Brock, Sebastian. “Without Mushe of Nisibis, Where Would We Be? Some Reflections on the Transmission of Syriac Literature.” The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56, No. 1/4 (2004): 15 – 24. Brock, Sebastian, and Lucas Van Rompay. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir Al-Surian, Wadi Al-Natrun (Egypt). Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of the Likeness of Christ Which the Jews of Tiberias Made to Mock at. London: Luzac and co., 1899. Burke, Tony. “‘Social Viewing’ of Children in the Childhood Stories of Jesus.” In Children in Late Ancient Christianity, edited by Cornelia B. Horn, and Robert R. Phenix, 29 – 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

292

Bibliography

Burke, Tony. “The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review).” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, No. 3 (2010): 470 – 471. Burke, Tony. “Authorship and Identity in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Toronto Journal of Theology 14, No.1 (1998): 27 – 43. Burke, Tony. “The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Apocrypha 14 (2004): 129 – 151. Burke, Tony. “Completing the Gospel: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas As A Supplement To The Gospel of Luke.” In The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity, edited by Lorenzo DiTommaso, and Lucian Turcescu, 101 – 120. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Burke, Tony. De infantia Iesu evangelium Thomae graece. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Burke, Tony. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Ethiopic.” Last accessed: 07/08/2021. Burke, Tony. The Syriac Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Critical Edition and English Translation. New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2017. Burke, Tony, and Brent Landau, eds. New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2016. Bušatlić, Ismet. “Semiotika Bogumilstva i semiotika Islama” (Semiotics of Bogomilism and Semiotics of Islam). Znakovi vremena – Časopis za filozofiju, religiju, znanost i društvenu praksu 26 – 27 (2005): 176 – 189. Calames. Last accessed: 09/06/2021. Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Cameron, Averil. “Jews and Heretics – A Category Error?” In The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam Becker, and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 345 – 360. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Canart, Paul. “Les écritures livresques chypriotes du milieu du XIe siècle au milieu du XIIIe et le style palestino-chypriote epsilon.” Scrittura e Civiltà 5 (1981): 17 – 76. Cartlidge, David R., and J. Keith Elliott. Art and the Christian Apocrypha. London: Routledge, 2001. A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum 3. London: British Museum, 1808. Catalogue raisonné des principaux manuscrits du Cabinet de Monsieur Joseph-LouisDominique de Cambis, Marquis de Velleron. Avignon: Louis Chambeau, 1770. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae III. Paris: Typographia Regia, 1744. Cerquiglini, Bernard. Eloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie. Collection: Des Travaux. Paris: Seuil, 1989. Clanchy, Michael. “An Icon of Literacy: The Depiction at Tuse of Jesus Going to School.” In Literacy in Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavian Culture, edited by Pernille Hermann, 47 – 73. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press, 2005. Clark, Gilian. “The Fathers and the Children.” In The Church and Childhood, edited by Diana Wood, 1 – 27. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994. Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Conrady, Ludwig. “Das Thomasevangelium: Ein wissenschaftlicher kritischer Versuch.” ThStKr 76 (1903): 377 – 459.

Secondary literature

293

Constantinides, Costas N., and Robert Browning. Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus to the Year 1570. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, 1993. Constantinou, Stavroula. “Metaphrasis: Mapping Premodern Rewriting.” In Metaphrasis: A Byzantine Concept of Rewriting and Its Hagiographical Products, edited by Stavroula Constantinou and Christian Høgel, 3 – 60. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Cordeliani, Alfred. “Les traités de comput du haut Moyen Age (526 – 1003).” Bulletin Du Cange 17 (1943): 51 – 72. Cousland, J. R. C. Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. Cowper, B. Harris. The Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ. London: Williams and Norgate, 1867. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Crisci, Edoardo, and Oronzo Pecere, eds. Il codice miscellaneo. Tipologie e funzioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale Cassino 14 – 17 maggio 2003. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Cullmann, Oscar. “The Infancy Story of Thomas.” In New Testament Apocrypha 1. Gospels and Related Writings, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Translated by R. McL. Wilson, 439 – 452. Louisville: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1991. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500 – 1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Davies, Stevan. The Infancy Gospels of Jesus: Apocryphal Tales from the Childhoods of Mary and Jesus. Woodstock, Vermont: Skylight Paths, 2009. Davis, Stephen J. Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. della Croce, Angelo. Canonical Histories and Apocryphal Legends Relating to the New Testament. Milan: J. B. Pogliani and Co., 1873. de Jong, Irene J. F. Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. De Regt, Lénart J., Jan de Waard, and Jan P. Fokkelman, eds. Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. de Santos Otero, Aurelio. Das kirchenslawische Evangelium des Thomas. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967. Delatte, Armand. “Évangile de l’enfance de Jacques: Manuscrit no. 355 de la Bibliothèque Nationale.” In Anecdota Atheniensia 1, 264 – 271. Paris: Champion, 1927. Dembinska, Maria. Food and Drink in Medieval Poland: Rediscovering a Cuisine of the Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Desreumaux, Alain. “Deux anciens manuscrits syriaques d’œuvres apocryphes dans le nouveau fonds de Sainte-Catherine du Sinaï.” Apocrypha 20 (2009): 115 – 136. Dimier-Paupert, Catherine. Livre de l’Enfance du Sauveur. Une version médiévale de l’Évangile de l’Enfance du Pseudo-Matthieu (xiiie siècle). Paris: Le Cerf, 2006. Dinkler, Michal Beth. “Genre Analysis and Early Christian Martyrdom Narratives: A Proposal.” In Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins At Seventy, edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar, 314 – 336. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

294

Bibliography

Dinkova-Bruun, Greti. “Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British Library, Cotton Titus D.XX.” In Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, edited by Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers, 14 – 33. Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013. Djobadze, Wachtang. Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjetʿi, and Šavšetʿi. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992. Doane, Alger Nick. “‘Beowulf’ and Scribal Performance.” In Unlocking the Wordhord: AngloSaxon Studies in Memory of Edward B. Irving, Jr, edited by Mark C. Amodio, and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe, 62 – 75. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Doane, Alger Nick. “The Ethnography of Scribal Writing and Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Scribe as Performer.” Oral Tradition 9, No. 2 (1994): 420 – 439. Doležalová, Lucie, and Kimberly Rivers, eds. Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use. Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013. Doležalová, Lucie. “Multiple Copying and the Interpretability of Codex Contents: ‘Memory Miscellanies’ Compiled by Gallus Kemli (1417 – 1480/1) of St. Gall.” In Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, edited by Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers, 139 – 165. Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013. Doty, William G. “The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis.” In SBL Proceedings 1972. Book of Seminar Papers for 108th Annual Meeting 2, edited by Lane C. McGaughy, 413 – 448. Atlanta, 1972. Driscoll, Matthew James. “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New.” In Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, edited by Judy Quinn, and Emily Lethbridge, 85 – 102. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010. Driscoll, Matthew James. “The Long and Winding Road: Manuscript Culture in Late Premodern Iceland.” In White Field, Black Seeds: Nordic Literacy Practices in the Long Nineteenth Century, edited by Anna Kuismin, and Matthew James Driscoll, 50 – 63. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 2013. Duensing, H. “Mitteilungen 58.” ThLZ 36 (1911): 637. Dzon, Mary. “Cecily Neville and the Apocryphal Infantia salvatoris in the Middle Ages.” Mediaeval Studies 71 (2009): 235 – 300. Dzon, Mary. “Boys Will Be Boys: The Physiology of Childhood and the Apocryphal Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages.” Viator 42, No. 1 (2011): 179 – 225. Dzon, Mary. “Jesus and the Birds in Medieval Abrahamic Traditions.” Traditio 66 (2011): 189 – 230. Dzon, Mary. “Wanton Boys in Middle English Texts and the Christ Child in Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, MS Z822 N81.” In Medieval Life Cycles: Continuity and Change, edited by Isabelle Cochelin, and Karen Smyth, 81 – 145. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Dzon, Mary. The Quest for the Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017. Dzon, Mary, and Theresa M. Kenney, eds. The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha es et O! Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Eastman, Daniel. “Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 69, No. 2 (2015): 186 – 208.

Secondary literature

295

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ehrman, Bart D. “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, edited by Bart D. Ehrman, Michael W. Holmes, 803 – 830. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Ehrman, Bart D., and Zlatko Pleše, eds. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ehrman, Bart D., and Zlatko Pleše, eds. and tr. The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Elder, E. Rozanne, ed. Mary Most Holy: Meditating with the Early Cistercians. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2003. Elliott, James Keith. The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Elliott, James Keith. A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Elliott, James Keith. “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament.” In Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder, 57 – 70. London: Burns and Oates, 2008. Ellis, Simon. “Late Antique Housing and the Uses of Residential Buildings: An Overview.” In Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Shops, edited by Luke Lavan, Lale Özgenel, Alexander Sarantis, Simon Ellis, and Yuri A. Marano, 1 – 22. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ellis, Simon. “The Middle Byzantine House and Family: A Reappraisal.” In Approaches to the Byzantine Family, edited by Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher, 247 – 272. Burlington: Ashgate, 2013. Emery, Anthony. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 1300 – 1500, I–III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 – 2006. Esbroeck, Michel van. “Review of Aurelio De Santos Otero, Das kirchenslavische Evangelium des Thomas.” Analecta Bollandiana 87 (1969): 261 – 263. Esbroeck, Michel van. Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens: étude descriptive et historique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1975. Esbroeck, Michel van. ed. and tr. Maxime le Confesseur. Vie de la Vierge. Louvain: Peeters, 1986. Eustratiades, Sophronios, and Arcadios of Vatopedi, deacon. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Monastery of Vatopedi on Mt. Athos. HTS 11. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924. Reprint New York: Kraus, 1969. Evans, Craig A. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992. Fabricius, Johann Albert. Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti 1. Hamburg, 1703. Findlay, Adam Fyfe. Byways in Early Christian Literature: Studies in the Uncanonical Gospels and Acts. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923. Fine, John V. A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1987. Fine, John V. A. “The Medieval and Ottoman Roots of Modern Bosnian Society.” In The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina: Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to the

296

Bibliography

Dissolution of Yugoslavia, edited by Mark Pinson, 1 – 21. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schüssler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983. Fleischman, Suzanne. “Philology, Linguistics, and the Discourse of the Medieval Text.” Speculum 65, No.1 (1990): 19 – 37. Forrai, Réka. “Rewriting: A modern theory for a premodern practice.” Renæssanceforum. Tidsskrift for Renæssanceforskning 14 (2018): 25 – 49. Foster, Paul. “Christology and Soteriology in Apocryphal Acts and Apocalypses.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden, 213 – 232. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Foster, Paul. “Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4.1 (2006): 7 – 33. Frey, Jörg. “Texts about Jesus: Non-canonical Gospels and Related Literature.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett, 13 – 48. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Frilingos, Chris. “No Child Left Behind: Knowledge and Violence in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17, No. 1 (2009): 27 – 54. Frilingos, Chris. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: Family Trouble in the Infancy Gospels. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017. Frost, Joe L. A History of Children’s Play and Play Environments: Towards a Contemporary Child-Saving Movement. New York: Routledge, 2009. Gagova, Nina. “A Study of Groups of Manuscripts Chosen by Socio-Cultural Criteria (Manuscripts Belonging to Rulers’ Libraries from the Fourteenth And Fifteenth Centuries).” In Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML: Problems and Perspectives, edited by Anissava Miltenova, and David Birnbaum, 131 – 169. Sofia: Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, 2000. Gaiffier, Baudouin de. “Le Trinubium Annae: Haymon d’Halberstadt ou Haymon d’Auxerre?” Analecta Bollandiana 90 (1972): 289 – 298. Garitte, Gérard. “Le fragment géorgien de l’Evangile de Thomas.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 51 (1956): 511 – 520. Gathercole, Simon. “The Childhood of Jesus. Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Review).” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63, No. 1 (2012): 104. Gathercole, Simon. “Other Apocryphal Gospels and the Historical Jesus.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden, 250 – 268. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Gaul, Niels. “Rising Elites and Institutionalization – Ēthos/Mores – ‘Debts’ and Drafts. Three Concluding Steps Towards Comparing Networks of Learning in Byzantium and the ‘Latin’ West, c. 1000 – 1200.” In Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000 – 1200, edited by Sita Steckel, Niels Gaul, and Michael Grünbart, 235 – 280. Berlin: LIT, 2015. Geary, Patrick J. Women at the Beginning. Origin Myths from the Amazons to the Virgin Mary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Secondary literature

297

Gehin, Paul, and Stig Frøyshov. “Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques: À propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscrits grecs.” Revue des études byzantines 58 (2000): 167 – 184. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Genette, Gérard. The Architext: An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Gero, Stephen. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems.” Novum Testamentum 13 (1971): 46 – 80. Gerson, Jean. “Considérations sur Saint Joseph.” In Œuvres complètes 7: L’Œuvre française (292 – 339), edited by Palémon Glorieux, 63 – 94. Paris: Desclée, 1966. Getov, Dorotei, and Andreas Schminck. Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts II (Nr. 328 – 427). Frankfurt am Main: Lowenklau Gessellschaft, 2010. Gijsel, Jan, and Rita Beyers, eds. Libri de nativitate Mariae, 1: Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium, textus et commentarius; 2: Libellus de nativitate Mariae, textus et commentarius. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Gil’adi, Avner. Children of Islam: Concepts of Childhood in Medieval Muslim Society. London: Macmillan, 1992. Gippert, Jost. “Mravaltavi – A Special Type of Old Georgian Multiple-Text Manuscripts.” In One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts, edited by Michael Friedrich, and Cosima Schwarke, 47 – 91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Gjuzelev, Vasil. Učilišta, skriptorii, biblioteki i znanija v Bălgarija: XIII–XIV vek (Schools, Scriptoria, Libraries and Knowledge in Bulgaria: Thirteenth–Fourteenth Century). Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1985. Glessner, Justin M. The Making(s) of an Average Joe: Gender, the Everyday, and the Reception of Joseph of Nazareth in EarlyChristian Discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2022. Goullet, Monique, and Martin Heinzelmann, eds. La réécriture hagiographique dans l’Occident médiéval: Transformations formelles et idéologiques. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003. Gounelle, Rémi. “Editing a Fluid and Unstable Text. The Example of the Acts of Pilate (or Gospel of Nicodemus).” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 81 – 98. Grabar, Biserka. “Glagoljski odlomak Pseudo-Tomina Evandjelja” (Glagolitic Fragment of the Gospel of Pseudo-Thomas). Slovo 18 – 19 (1969): 213 – 233. Grumel, Venance. “Van Den Ven (Paul), La légende de S. Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte.” Revue des études byzantines 14, No. 1 (1956): 240 – 244. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. The Gendered Palimpsest: Women, Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “The Social History of Early Christian Scribes.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, edited by Bart D. Ehrman, and Michael W. Holmes, 479 – 496. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Halkin, François. “La Passion ancienne de sainte Euphémie de Chalcédoine.” Analecta Bollandiana 83 (1965): 95 – 121. Halkin, François. Catalogue des manuscrits hagiographiques de la Bibliothèque nationale d′ Athènes. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1983.

298

Bibliography

Hall, Thomas N. “The Earliest Anglo-Latin Text of the Trinubium Annae (BHL 505z1).” In Via Crucis: Essays on Early Medieval Sources and Ideas in Memory of J. E. Cross, edited by Thomas N. Hall, with Thomas D. Hill, and Charles D. Wright, 104 – 137. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2002. Hamilton, Janet, Hamilton, Bernard, and Yuri Stoyanov. Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, c. 650–c. 1450. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Harlow, Mary, and Ray Laurence. Growing up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome: A Life Course Approach. London: Routledge, 2002. Hatlie, Peter. The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350 – 850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Haughey, John C. “Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus (Book Review).” Theological Studies 76, No. 1 (2015): 209 – 210. Hermann, Julius Hermann. Die frühmittelalterlichen Handschriften des Abendlandes. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann Verlag, 1923. Hermann, Hagen. Catalogus codicum Bernensium (Bibliotheca Bongarsiana). Bern: Typis B. F. Haller, 1875. Herrin, Judith. A Medieval Miscellany. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999. Hervieux, Jacques. The New Testament Apocrypha, tr. D. W. Hibberd. New York: Hawthorn Books Inc., 1960. Heywood, Colin. A History of Childhood: Children and Childhood in the West from Medieval to Modern Times. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Hillner, Julia. “Family Violence: Punishment and Abuse in the Late Roman Household.” In Approaches to the Byzantine Family, edited by Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher, 21 – 46. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. Hock, Ronald F. The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1995. Horn, Cornelia B. “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on Structural and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’ Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: The ‘Book of Mary,’ the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John, and the Qu’rān.” Apocrypha 19 (2008): 267 – 291. Horn, Cornelia B., and Robert R. Phenix. “Apocryphal Gospels in Syriac and Related Texts Offering Traditions about Jesus.” In Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter, with Jakob Spaeth, 527 – 555. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Horn, Cornelia B., and John W. Martens.“Let the little children come to me:” Childhood and Children in Early Christianity. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Horne, Jackie C. History and the Construction of the Child in Early British Children’s Literature. New York: Routledge, 2016. Houghton, H. A. G. The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Hunger, Herbert. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek I. Vienna: G. Prachner, 1961. Hurtado, Larry W. “Who Read Early Christian Apocrypha?” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett, 153 – 166. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Secondary literature

299

Hägg, Tomas. The Art of Biography in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ivanov, Jordan. Богомилски книги и легенди (Bogomil Books and Legends). София: Наука и изкуство, 1970. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. Manuscripts of the Evangelium Nicodemi: A Census. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1993. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew, ed. The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe. Tempe, Arizona: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew, with W. Wydra. Evangelium Nicodemi in Polonia servatum: A Gospel of Nicodemus Preserved in Poland. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. “The Earliest Printed Versions of the Evangelium Nicodemi and Their Manuscript Sources.” Apocrypha 21 (2010): 121 – 132. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. “On the Evangelium Nicodemi before Print: Towards a New Edition.” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 97 – 114. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. “The Bohemian Redaction of the Evangelium Nicodemi in Medieval Slavic Vernaculars.” Studia Ceranea 4 (2014): 49 – 64. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. “The Evangelium Nicodemi in the Latin Middle Ages.” In The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus. Texts, Intertexts and Contexts in Western Europe, edited by Zbigniew Izydorczyk, 43 – 101. Tempe: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997. Jacimirskij, A. I. Из славянских рукописей – Тексты и заметки, Ученые записки Имп. Моск. Университета (From the Slavonic Manuscripts – Texts and Notes). Moscow, 1898. James, Montague Rhodes. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Jansen-Sieben, Ria, and Hans Van Dijk, eds. Codices miscellanearum. Brussels Van Hulthem Colloquium 1999 – Colloque Van Hulthem, Bruxelles 1999. Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique 60. Bruxelles: Bibliothe`que royale de Belgique, 1999. Jenkins, Philip. The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand-Year Story of the Survival and Influence of the Lost Gospels. New York: Basic Books, 2015. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald. “Apocrypha and the Literary Past in Late Antiquity.” In From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron, edited by Hagit Amirav and Bas ter Haar Romeny, 47 – 66. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2007. Jurčević, Ivana. “Srednjovjekovni odnosi crkve prema plemstvu u Bosni, poseban osvrt na obitelj Pavlović.” (Medieval Church-Nobility Relations in Bosnia, Special Reference to the Family Pavlović) Hum 11, No. 15 (2016): 106 – 130. Kaiser, U. U. “Jesus als Kind: Neuere Forschungen zur Jesusüberlieferung in den apokryphen Kindheitsevangelien.” In Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen, edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter, with Jakob Spaeth, 253 – 269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kalavrezou, Ioli. “Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became the Meter Theou.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 165 – 172. Kalogeras, Nikos. “The Role of Parents and Kin in the Education of Byzantine Children.” In Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto, 133 – 143. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae 33, 2005.

300

Bibliography

Kee, Howard Clark. Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Kelly, Stephen, and John J. Thompson, eds. Imagining the Book. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. Khakhanov, Alexander. Очерки по исторіи грузинской словесности (Studies on History of Georgian Literature). Москва: Университетская типографія, 1897. Kienzle, Beverly Mayne. Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145 – 1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard. York: York University Press, 2001. Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1992. Kohler, Charles. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève II. Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et cie, 1896. Kotzabassi, Sofia, ed. The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Kraemer, Ross Shepard, with Mary Rose D’Angelo, eds. Women and Christian Origins. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Krstev, Georgi. “Мястото на детство Исусово в раннохристиянската традиция и апокрифната книжнина на средновековна България” (The Place of Jesus’ Childhood in Early Christian Tradition and the Apocryphal Literature of Medieval Bulgaria). Palaeobulgarica 15, No. 3 (1991): 91 – 101. Kuev, Кuio Мarkov. “Съдбата на Ловчанския сборник, писан преди 1331. г” (The Destiny of the Sbornik of Loveč, Written before 1331). In Търновска книжовна школа 1371 – 1971, Международен симпозиум Велико Търново, 11 – 14 октомври 1971, 79 – 88. София: Българската Акаемия на науките, 1974. Labarge, Margaret Wade. A Medieval Miscellany. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1997. Labib, Pahor. Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. Cairo: Government Press, 1956. Laes, Christian. “Child Beating in Roman Antiquity: Some Reconsiderations.” In Hoping for Continuity. Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio, and Ville Vuolanto, 75 – 90. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2005. Laiou, Angeliki. Peasant Society in the Later Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Lake, Kirsopp, and Silva Lake. Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200 1. Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1934. Lambeck, Peter. Commentariorum de Augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi liber septimus. Vienna: Typis M. Cosmerovii, 1675. Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Lauer, Philippe. Bibliothèque nationale. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins 2. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1940. Lehmann, Paul Joachim Georg. Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz 1. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1918.

Secondary literature

301

Leroy, François Joseph. L’Homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople. Tradition manuscrite, inédits, études connexes. Vatican City: Biblioteca Vaticana, 1967. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Introduction.” In A Feminist Companion to Mariology, edited by Amy-Jill Levine, with Maria Mayo Robbins, 1 – 14. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Introduction.” In A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha, edited by Amy-Jill Levine, with Maria Mayo Robbins, 1 – 17. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Lewis, Agnes Smith. Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, and Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1902. Lipsius, Richard Adelbert. Die Apokryphen apostelgeschichten und apostellegenden. Braunschweig, C. A. Schwetschke und sohn, 1890. Litwa, David M. “‘From where Was this Child Born?:’ Divine Children and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” In Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God, edited by David M. Litwa, 69 – 85. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Litwa, David M., ed. Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Lockhart, James. The Men of Cajamarca: A Social and Biographical Study of the First Conquerors of Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972. Lockhart, James. Beyond the Codices: The Nahua View of Colonial Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Lockhart, James. Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Lockhart, James. Nahuas and Spaniards: Postconquest Central Mexican History and Philology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, and Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center, 1991. Lockhart, James. Of Things of the Indies: Essays Old and New in Early Latin American History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Lockhart, James, Lisa Sousa, and Stephanie Wood, eds. Sources and Methods for the Study of Postconquest Mesoamerican Ethnohistory. The Wired Humanities Project at the University of Oregon, 2007. Lowe, Elias Avery. Codices latini antiquiores: A Paleographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the Ninth Century 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Lowe, Roy. “Childhood through the Ages.” In Introduction to Early Childhood Studies, edited by Trisha Maynard, and Nigel Thomas, 65 – 74. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2004. Malkolm, Noel. Bosnia: A Short History. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Manuscripta medievalia. Last accessed: 08/06/2021. Martin-Hisard, Bernadette. “Georgian Hagiography.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography I: Periods and Places, edited by Stephanos Efthymiadis, 285 – 298. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Marx, William. The Middle English ‘Liber Aureus and Gospel of Nicodemus.’ Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2013. Mathiesen, Robert. “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa: The Written Tradition.” In Byzantine Magic, edited by Henry Maguire, 155 – 178. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995.

302

Bibliography

Maunder, Chris. “Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary in the New Testament.” In Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder, 23 – 39. London: Burns and Oates, 2008. McGuckin, John. “The Early Cult of Mary and Inter-Religious Contexts in the Fifth-Century Church.” In Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder, 1 – 22. London: Burns and Oates, 2008. McNamara, Martin, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, and Rita Beyers. Apocrypha Hiberniae I: Evangelia infantiae. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Melikset-Bek, Levon. “Фрагментъ грузинской версіи ‘Дѣтства Христа’” (The Fragment of the Georgian Version of the Childhood of Jesus). Христіанскій Восток 6.3 (1917 – 1920): 315 – 320. Meyer, Arnold. “Erzählung des Thomas.” In Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, edited by Edgar Hennecke, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 63 – 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904. Meyer, Arnold. “Kindheitserzählung des Thomas.” In Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, edited by Edgar Hennecke, 93 – 102.Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1924. Meyer, Christian, Huglo Michael, and Nancy C. Phillips, eds. The Theory of Music IV: Manuscripts from the Carolingian Era up to c. 1500 in Great Britain and the United States of America. Descriptive Catalogue. Munich: Henle, 1992. Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 59. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862. Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 89. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1865. Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca 129. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864. Miller, Timothy S. The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Miltenova, Anissava. “Marginality, Intertextuality, Paratextuality in Medieval Bulgarian Literature.” In Marginality in/of Literature, edited by Raya Kuncheva, 108 – 133. Sofia: Boyan Penev Publishing Centre, 2011. Mimouni, Simon Claude. Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995. Mingarelli, Giovanni Luigi. “De Apocrypho Thomae Evangelio … epistola.” In Nuova Raccolta d’opuscoli scientifici e filologici 12, edited by A. Calogiera, 73 – 155. Venice: S. Occhi, 1764. Molinier, Auguste, and Henri Omont. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements, Tome V, Dijon. Paris: Plon, 1889. Montanari, Massimo. Medieval Tastes: Food, Cooking, and the Table. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Müller, Diana. “Non-autonomous Texts: On a Fifteenth-Century German Gregorius Manuscript (Constance, City Archive, Ms. A I 1).” In Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use, edited by Lucie Doležalová, and Kimberly Rivers. Krems: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 2013. Naffah, Charles. “Les ‘histoires’ syriaques de la Vierge: Traditions apocryphes anciennes et récentes.” Apocrypha 20 (2009): 137 – 188.

Secondary literature

303

Naumov, Aleksander. “Apokrifite v sistemata na starata slavjanska literatura” (Apocrypha in the System of the Old Slavic Literature). Palaeobulgarica 4, No. 2 (1980): 71 – 74. Neville, Leonora. Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950 – 1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Nichols, Stephen G. “The New Philology: Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture.” Speculum 65, No. 1 (1990): 1 – 10. Nichols, Stephen G., and Siegfried Wenzel, eds. The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Nicklas, Tobias. “The Influence of Jewish Scriptures on Early Christian Apocrypha.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett, 141 – 152. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Nicolas, Michel. Études sur les évangiles apocryphes. Paris: Michel Levy Frères, 1866. Nikolova, Svetlina, Maria Yovcheva, Tanya Popova, and Lora Taseva. Българското средновековно културно наследство в сбирката на Алексей Хлудов в Държавния исторически музей в Москва. Каталог (Bulgarian Medieval Cultural Heritage in the Collection of Alexey Hludov in the State Historical Museum of Moscow. Catalog). София: Кирило-Методиевски научен център, 1999. Nilsson, Ingela. “The Same Story but Another: A Reappraisal of Literary Imitation in Byzantium.” In Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio, edited by Andreas Rhoby, and Elisabeth Schiffer, 195 – 208. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010. Nilsson, Ingela. Erotic Pathos, Rhetorical Pleasure: Narrative Technique and Mimesis in Eumathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2001. Nixon, Virginia. Mary’s Mother: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Europe. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 2004. Noja, Sergio. “L’Évangile arabe apocryphe de Thomas, de la ‘Biblioteca Ambrosiana’ de Milan (G 11 sup).” In Biblische und Judistische Studien: Festschrift für Paolo Sacchi, edited by Angelo Vivian, 681 – 690. Paris: Peter Lang, 1990. Noll, K. L. “The Evolution of Genre in the Hebrew Anthology.” In Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality I: Thematic Studies, edited by Craig A. Evans, and H. Daniel Zacharias. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Norelli, Enrico. “Gesù ride: Gesù, il maestro di scuola e i passeri. Le sorprese di un testo apocrifo trascurato.” In Mysterium regni, ministerium verbi. Scritti in onore di mons. Vittorio Fusco, edited by Ettore Franco, 653 – 684. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2001. Noret, Jacques. “Pour une édition de l’Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas.” Analecta Bollandiana 90 (1972): 412. Novaković, Stojan. “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilskog zbornika XIV vijeka” (The Apocrypha of a Cyrillic Collection of the Fourteenth Century). Starine 8 (1876): 36 – 92. Nyström, Eva. Containing Multitudes: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 11. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2009. Oikonomides, Nikolaos. “Writing Materials, Documents, and Books.” In The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century 2, edited by Angeliki Laiou, 589 – 592. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 2002.

304

Bibliography

O’Rourke, Jason. “Imagining Book Production in Fourteenth-Century Herefordshire: The Scribe of British Library, MS Harley 2253 and his ‘Organizing Principles’.” In Imagining the Book, edited by Stephen Kelly and John J. Thompson, 45 – 60. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΙΤΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ II (Jerusalem Library II). 1894, reprint: Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. Parsons, Susan Frank, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Paulissen, Lucie. “Jésus enfant divin: Processus de reconnaissance dans L’Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas.” Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 22, No. 1 (2004): 17 – 28. Peeters, Paul. Évangiles apocryphes II: L’évangile de l’enfance. Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914. Peeters, Paul. “Introduction.” In Évangiles apocryphes II, edited by Paul Peeters, i-lix. Paris: Auguste Picard, 1914. Perkins, Pheme. “Christology and Soteriology in Apocryphal Gospels.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, Tobias Nicklas, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Joseph Verheyden, 196 – 212. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Philippart, Guy. “Fragments palimpsestes latins du Vindobonensis 563 (Ve siècle?) Évangile selon S. Matthieu Évangile de l’Enfance selon Thomas Évangile de Nicodème.” Analecta Bollandiana 90, No. 3 – 4 (1972): 391 – 411. Pinakes. Textes et manuscrits grecs. < http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/71790/ > Last accessed: 09/06/2021. Popov, Andrey Nikolaevich. Описание рукописей и каталог книг церковной печати библиотеки А. И. Хлудова (Description of Manuscripts and Catalogue of Books of Church Library of A. I. Hludov). Moscow, 1872. Price, Merrall Llewelyn. “Remembering the Jews: Theatrical Violence in the N-Town Marian Plays.” Comparative Drama 41, No. 4 (2007 – 8): 439 – 463. Ragusa, Isa. “Il manoscritto ambrosiano L. 58. Sup.: l’infanzia di Christo e le fonti apocrife.” Arte Lombarda 83, No. 4 (1987): 5 – 19. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “The Afterlives of New Testament Apocrypha.” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, No. 2 (2015): 401 – 425. Reiter, Eric H. “The Reader as Author of the User-Produced Manuscript: Reading and Rewriting Popular Latin Theology in the Late Middle Ages.” Viator 27 (1996): 151 – 170. Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005. Restall, Matthew. “A History of the New Philology and the New Philology in History.” Latin American Research Review 38, No. 1 (2003): 113 – 134. Restall, Matthew. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Restall, Matthew. The Black Middle: Africans, Mayas, and Spaniards in Colonial Yucatan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009. Restall, Matthew, and Amara Solari. 2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Richter, Michael. Bobbio in the Early Middle Ages: The Abiding Legacy of Columbanus. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.

Secondary literature

305

Rosén, Thomas. The Slavonic Translation of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 39. Uppsala: Coronet Books Inc., 1997. Rubenstein, Jay. Guibert of Nogent: Portrait of a Medieval Mind. London: Routledge, 2002. Rubin, Miri. Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary. London: Penguin Books, 2010. Rulkens, Annika. “‘Domus dei’ and ‘opus dei’: The Reichenau Monastery in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries.” MA Thesis, Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 2007. Runciman, Steven. The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Sapir–Abulafia, Anna. “Christian Imagery of Jews in the Twelfth Century: A Look at Odo of Cambrai and Guibert of Nogent.” In Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000 – 1150), edited by Anna Sapir– Abulafia, 383 – 391. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998. Sapir–Abulafia, Anna. Christians and Jews in Dispute: Disputational Literature and the Rise of Anti-Judaism in the West (c.1000 – 1150). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998. Schaff, Philip, ed. Saint Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1975. Schmid, Hans, ed. Musica et Scolica enchiriadis una cum aliquibus tractatulis adiunctis. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie de Wissenschaften, 1981. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings. Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Ltd, 1991. Schroeder, S. Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991. Schröter, Jens. “The Formation of the New Testament Canon and Early Christian Apocrypha.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett, 167 – 184. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Sedlar, Jean W. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000 – 1500. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994. Ševčenko, Ihor. “Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/1 (1981): 289 – 312. Shailor, Barbara A. “A Cataloger’s View.” In The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, edited by Stephen G. Nichols, and Siegfried Wenzel, 153 – 167. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Shanidze, Akaki. “The Fragment of the Georgian Version of the Apocryphal ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and its Incomprehensible Passages” (in Russian). Stalinis Saxelobis T’ibilisis saxelmwipo Universitetis Sromebi 18 (1941): 29 – 40. Sheingorn, Pamela. “Reshapings of the Childhood Miracles of Jesus.” In The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha es et O!, edited by Mary Dzon, and Theresa M. Kenney, 254 – 292. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Shoemaker, Stephen. “The Virgin Mary’s Hidden Past: From Ancient Marian Apocrypha to the Medieval Vitae Virginis.” Marian Studies 60 (2009): 1 – 30. Shoemaker, Stephen. “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources.” In Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder, 71 – 88. London: Burns and Oates, 2008.

306

Bibliography

Shoemaker, Stephen. “Mary at the Cross, East and West: Maternal Compassion and Affective Piety in the Earliest Life of the Virgin and the High Middle Ages.” The Journal of Theological Studies 62, No. 2 (2011): 570 – 606. Shoemaker, Stephen. “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library.” Le Muséon 124, No. 3 (2011): 259 – 278. Shoemaker, Stephen. Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Shoham-Steiner, Ephraim Effie. “The Virgin Mary, Miriam, and Jewish Reactions to Marian Devotion in the High Middle Ages.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 37, No. 1 (2013): 75 – 91. Sigalos, Lefteris. “Housing People in Medieval Greece.” International Journal of Historical Archeology 7, No. 3 (2003): 195 – 221. Simon, Richard. Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1695. Sinanoglou, Leah. “The Christ Child as Sacrifice: A Medieval Tradition and the Corpus Christi Plays.” Speculum 48, No. 3 (1973): 491 – 509. Sinner, Johann Rudolf. Catalogus Codicum Mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, annotationibus criticis illustratus 1. Berne: Ex officina typographica illustr. Reipublicae, 1760. Škegro, Ante. “Bilino Polje primjer jedne historiografske kontroverze” (Bilino Polje: An Example of A Historical Controversy). In Fenomen “Krstjani” u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni i Humu, edited by Ante Škegro, 351 – 370. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2005. Smith, Kathryn A. Art, Identity, and Devotion in Fourteenth-Century England: Three Women and Their Books of Hours. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Smith, Kathryn A. “Accident, Play and Invention: Three Infancy Miracles in the Holkham Bible Picture Book.” In Tributes to Jonathan J. G. Alexander: The Making and Meaning of Illuminated Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts, Art, and Architecture, edited by Susan L’Engle, and Gerald B. Guest, 357 – 69. London: Harvey Miller, 2006. Speranskij, Michail N. “Славянские апокрифические евангелиа” (Slavonic Apocryphal Gospels). Труды восьмого археологического съезда в Москве 1890 II. Москва, 1895. Speranskij, M. N. Южнорусские тексты апокрифического евангелия Фомы (Southern Russian Texts of the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas). Moscow, 1895. Kiev, 1899. Stanković, Vlada. “Comnenian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Context.” Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011): 47 – 73. Stewart, Eric. “Sending a boy to do a man’s job: Hegemonic masculinity and the ‘boy’ Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, No. 1 (2015): 1 – 9. Stow, Kenneth. Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Stowe, Calvin Ellis. Origin and History of the Books of the Bible. Hartford, Conn.: Hartford Pub. Co., 1868. Taylor, Andrew. Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Taylor, Anna. “Hagiography and Early Medieval History.” Religion Compass 7, No. 1 (2013): 1 – 14. Taylor, Joan Elizabeth. “Review: Stephen J. Davis, Christ Child: Cultural Memories of a Young Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).” Theology 118, No. 2 (2015): 128 – 129.

Secondary literature

307

Thilo, Johann Karl. Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti 1. Leipzig: Vogel, 1832. Tischendorf, Constantin von. Evangelia apocrypha, editio altera. Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1876. Tischendorf, Constantin von. De evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu: disquisitio historica critica. Den Haag: Thierry and Mensing, 1851. Tolmie, François. Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2012. Toomer, G. J. Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Tóth, Péter. “Way Out of the Tunnel? Three Hundred Years of Research on the Apocrypha: A Preliminary Approach.” In Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical, and Social Contexts, edited by Lucie Doležalová, and Tamás Visi, 45 – 84. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. Tropper, Amram. “The Economics of Jewish Childhood in Late Antiquity.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 189 – 233. Tsonkova, Svetlana. “Practical Texts in Difficult Situations: Bulgarian Medieval Charms as Apocrypha and Fachliteratur.” Incantatio 1 (2011): 25 – 35. Tuckett, Christopher. “Introduction: What is Early Christian Apocrypha?” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha, edited by Andrew Gregory, and Christopher Tuckett, 10 – 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Turner, Tom. Garden History: Philosophy and Design 2000 BC–2000 AD. New York: Spon Press, 2005. Unger, Dominic J., and John J. Dillon, tr. St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against the Heresies. New York: Newman Press, 1992. Upson-Saia, Kristi. “Holy Child or Holy Terror? Understanding Jesus’ Anger in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Church History 82, No. 1 (2013): 1 – 39. Van Aarde, Andries Gideon. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Allegory or Myth – Gnostic or Ebionite.” Verbum et ecclesia 26, No. 3 (2005): 826 – 850. Van Aarde, Andries Gideon. “The Ebionite Perspective in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” In The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early Christian Theology, edited by Jens Schröter, 611 – 626. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Van Den Ven, Paul. La légende de S. Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte. Louvain: Institut orientaliste de l’Université de Louvain, 1953. van Liere, Frans. An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. van Oyen, Geert. “Rereading the Rewriting of the Biblical Traditions in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Paidika).” In Infancy Gospels, edited by Claire Clivaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli, 482 – 505. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Varey, Simon. “Medieval and Renaissance Italy A. The Peninsula.” In Regional Cuisines of Medieval Europe: A Book of Essays, edited by Melitta Weiss Adamson, 85 – 112. New York: Routledge, 2002. Variot, L’Abbé Joseph. Les Évangiles apocryphes. Histoire littéraire, forme primitive, transformations. Paris: Berche et Tralin, éditeurs, 1878. Vaughan, Richard, and John Fines. A Handlist of Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Not Described by M.R. James. Cambridge: Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 1960.

308

Bibliography

Vincent of Beauvais. Speculum quadruplex sive Speculum maius: naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale 6.64 – 66 (1624); Reprint: Graz, 1964. Voicu, Sever J. “Notes sur l’histoire du texte de l’Histoire de l’enfance de Jésus.” Apocrypha 2 (1991): 119 – 132. Voicu, Sever J. “Verso il testo primitivo del Paidika tou Kuriou Ièsou ‘Racconti dell’infanzia del Signore Gesù.’” Apocrypha 9 (1998): 7 – 95. Voicu, Sever J. “Ways to Survival for the Infancy Apocrypha.” In Infancy Gospels, edited by Claire Clivaz, Andreas Dettwiler, Luc Edvillers, and Enrico Norelli, 401 – 417. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Voicu, Sever J. “La tradition latine des Paidika.” Bulletin de l’AELAC 14 (2004): 13 – 24. Voicu, Sever J. “Il nome cancellato: la trasmissione delle omelie di Severiano di Gabala.” Revue d’histoire des textes 1 (2006): 317 – 333. Vuolanto, Ville. “Family Relations and the Socialisation of Children in the Autobiographical Narratives of Late Antiquity.” In Approaches to the Byzantine Family, edited by Leslie Brubaker, and Shaun Tougher, 47 – 74. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. Vuong, Lily C. Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Walker, Alexander. Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873. Warner, George Frederic, and Julius Parnell Gilson. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections II. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1921. Wells, Scott. “Reichenau.” In Encyclopedia of Monasticism II, edited by William M. Johnston, 1070 – 1071. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. Wenzel, Siegfried. “Reflections on (New) Philology.” Speculum 65, No. 1 (1990): 11 – 18. Whitenton, Mike R. “The Moral Character Development of the Boy Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38, No. 2 (2015): 219 – 240. Wickham, Chris. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400 – 800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Wilkins, Nigel. Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Parker (Parker Library), Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Corpus Christi College, 1993. Woolgar, Christopher Michael. The Senses in Late Medieval England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Wright, C. E., and Ruth C. Wright, eds. The Diary of Humfrey Wanley 1715 – 1726 I–II. London: Bibliographical Society, 1966. Wright, C. E. Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1972. Wright, William. “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World.” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6 – 7 (1865): 108 – 160, 417 – 448. Wright, William. Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament, collected and edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, with an English translation and notes. London: Williams and Norgate, 1865. Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838 I-III. London: Longmans & Co, 1870 – 1872. Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Zhordania, Tedo. Opisanie rukopisei Tiflisskago cerkovnago muzeia I (Description of the Manuscripts of the Church Museum, Tbilisi). Tbilisi: Gutenberg, 1903.

Index Aasgaard, Reidar 1, 4, 11, 13, 26 f., 32, 35– 38, 42, 56, 102, 105 f., 162, 170 f., 205, 215, 236 f., 239, 256 Anne, mother of Mary 52, 60, 63, 68, 69, 70, 107, 109 f., 185 Aquinas, Thomas 8 Augustine 44, 60, 62, 74, 108 Bartlett, Robert 72, 180 Baun, Jane 4, 9, 14, 20, 72, 78 Bernard of Clairvaux 177 Bethlehem 139, 146 Betsworth, Sharon 3, 37 f., 42, 166, 171, 194 Beyers, Rita 8, 26, 28–30, 36 f., 59–62, 69, 72, 91, 188, 239 f. Birnbaum, David 77 f., 80 Bobbio, monastery 44, 47, 93 Boff, Leonardo 178, 185 Bogomils 78 f., 82, 221, 223, 226 Bosnian Church 221, 226 Bouras, Charalambos 218 f. Bulgaria 76–81, 94 f., 98, 196, 198 f., 223, 226, 228, 230, 234 Burke, Tony 3–5, 7 f., 10–13, 26–38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 56, 58 f., 61–63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74 f., 84, 87 f., 90, 92 f., 96 f., 104– 106, 111, 116, 118, 123, 125, 127, 150, 159, 169 f., 173, 181, 188, 197, 203, 205, 209, 226, 236–240, 256, 261, 266 Cana of Galilee 7 Capernaum 139 Cerquiglini, Bernard 16 Christ Church, Canterbury 69, 94 Chrysostom, John 7, 51 f., 57–60, 64, 66 f., 71, 82 f., 85–88, 114, 116 Cistercians 70, 109, 168, 177, 195, 225, 229, 233 Colonial studies 15 Curta, Florin 216 f., 220 Cyprus 32, 51, 56–58, 66, 94, 214, 225

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752786-009

Davis, Stephen 1, 3, 35, 37–39, 101 f., 188 f., 195, 197, 199, 205, 214, 218 Deir Al-Surian, monastery 47 f., 93 Delatte, Armand 33, 36, 236 f. Dinkova-Bruun, Greti 17 f., 21, 95 Doležalová, Lucie 6, 17–19, 41 Driscoll, Matthew 16 Dušan, Tzar of Serbia 221 Dzon, Mary 8 f., 14, 29 f., 36 f., 39, 61, 69, 91, 94, 98 f., 166 f., 177, 231, 240 Ehrman, Bart 1 f., 4–6, 17, 38, 69, 72, 84, 101 Elliott, James Keith 1, 6 f., 29 f., 36, 61, 63, 73, 75, 84, 97, 126, 184, 188, 205, 231, 240 Esbroeck, Michel van 8, 32, 35, 53–55, 239 Fine, John 79 f., 221 Foster, Paul 2, 194 f., 200 Galilee 110, 195 Geary, Patrick 164, 178 Genette, Gérard 22–25, 104, 127 Genre 12, 19 f., 40–43, 91, 99, 229, 231 Gero, Stephen 1, 26 f., 37, 95, 101 f., 104 f., 115, 118, 126, 129, 142, 144, 146–148, 205, 239 Gijsel, Jan 26, 28–31, 36 f., 40, 59–63, 68– 72, 74 f., 89–91, 110, 130, 169, 239 f. Gippert, Jost 53 f. Glessner, Justin 178 Horn, Cornelia 1, 10, 48–50, 127, 166, 170 f., 179, 193, 199, 203. Hurtado, Larry W. 6, 95, 101 f. Iconoclasm 176 f., 215, 224, 233 Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (Irenaeus of Lyons) 1, 3, 5–7 Ivan Alexander, Bulgarian ruler 77–80

310

Index

James, brother of Jesus 13, 105, 108, 113, 115, 117, 129, 138 f., 143 f., 149, 156 f., 183 f., 203 f., 220, 224 Jenkins, Philip 4, 7, 9, 11 f., 29 f., 36, 61, 73, 184, 240 Jericho 138, 195 Jerome 45, 60–62, 68–72, 74 f., 90 f., 96 f., 107, 109, 184, 230 Jews 48, 68–70, 73, 78 f., 84–86, 107, 110 f., 115, 119 f., 122–124, 131, 140, 143 f., 146 f., 151, 153, 159, 169, 187, 195, 209–215, 225, 232–234 Joachim, father of Mary 52, 60, 63, 70, 74 f., 110 John of Damascus 83, 86, 89 f., 112, 115, 159 Joseph, father of Jesus 2 f., 9, 13, 28, 46, 66, 68, 71, 90, 97, 105, 107–110, 112, 115 f., 118, 120–126, 128–130, 134–142, 144–147, 149–154, 156–159, 162–169, 172–175, 177–185, 190, 192, 194 f., 197, 199, 201, 207, 209 f., 213, 215 f., 220, 222, 224 f., 232–234 Kalavrezou, Ioli

176

Laiou, Angeliki 65, 217 Levi, teacher of Jesus 138, 194, 199 Loveč, Bulgaria 76–78, 80, 94 Martin-Hisard, Bernadette 53, 55 Mary, mother of Jesus (Theotokos) 2, 6, 9, 28–30, 36 f., 47–50, 61, 63 f., 66–68, 70–73, 75 f., 85 f., 90 f., 96 f., 99, 109– 111, 115, 130, 136, 138–141, 147, 155, 157 f., 163–170, 172, 176–178, 181–185, 192, 194 f., 199, 209–213, 220, 224 f., 230–234, 240 Maximus the Confessor 8 Melikset-Bek, Levon 51, 53, 55 f. Miltenova, Anissava 79 f., 83, 98 Miscellany (miscellanies) 17–19, 21, 41, 70, 77, 80, 88 f., 91, 95, 229 f. – Primary miscellany (miscellanies) 21, 41, 95, 230 – Secondary miscellany (miscellanies) 21, 41, 95, 230

Mravaltavi 53 f. Müller, Diana 19 Narratology 22 f., 103 f., 157, 229. Naumov, Aleksander 98 Nazareth 138, 178, 247 New (Material) Philology 1, 12, 15–17, 22, 25, 39, 41, 103, 157, 161, 229, 240 Nichols, Stephen 16–19, 41 Notre-Dame de Cîteaux, Abbey 70, 94, 109, 168, 210 Palimpsest 7, 20, 24, 27 f., 31, 37, 40 f., 43– 49, 64, 73, 75, 93, 95–97, 166, 168, 231, 240 Parhali, monastery 54 f., 94 Paul, the Apostle 4, 20, 51, 82 Philippart, Guy 28, 37, 44–47, 166, 240 Plato 4, 20 Pleše, Zlatko 1 f., 4, 38, 69, 84, 101 Reichenau, monastery 60, 94, 210 Restall, Matthew 15 Rosén, Thomas 6 f., 34, 36, 76, 98, 239 Rubin, Miri 73, 168, 211 f. Sheingorn, Pamela 29 f., 37 f., 42, 61, 83, 101 f., 166 Shoemaker, Stephen 49 f., 176 f. Sigalos, Lefteris 216 f., 219 St. Gerasimos in Palestine, monastery 57 St. Nicholas (Vuneš), near Ljubanci, monastery 81–83, 94 St. Nikolaos in Akrotiri, monastery 57, 94 St. Sabas in Palestine, monastery 57 Tao-Klarjeti, region 35, 54, 94 Taylor, Andrew 18, 41 Tischendorf, Constantin von 13, 28 f., 31, 36, 105 f., 120, 236, 240 Transtextuality 23 f. Upson-Saia, Kristi

208

Vatopediou monastery, Mount Athos Vavla, village in Cyprus 56 f. Vetus Latina 45 f.

33, 83

Index

Voicu, Sever 1, 4, 9, 27, 37, 56, 58, 63, 126, 159, 164–166, 168 f. Vulgate 45

Wenzel, Siegfried 16–19, 41 Wickham, Chris 216, 218 Zacheus, teacher of Jesus 121, 136–138, 165, 194, 199, 210, 213, 245 f., 252

311