While Jerome had already called attention to the fact that Aristeas speaks only of the Law as having been translated by the 72 interpreters, in later times it became customary to consider the whole Greek OT as the work of the ' Septuagint.' Philo seems to follow a somewhat different tradi- tion, and mentions that in his days the Jews of Alexandria kept an annual festival in honour of the spot where the light of this translation first shone forth, thanking God for an old but ever new benefit. He is sure that God heard the prayer of the translators ' that the greater part of mankind, or even the whole of it, may profit by their work, when men shall use philosophical and excellent ordinances for remlating their lives.'
On the use made of the Greek OT in the NT see Swete, pp. 381-405, ' Quotations from the LXX in the NT.' That Jesus Himself was acquainted with it would seem to follow from the quotation in Mt 15^= Mk 7'. For the words (iaTT|v 5^ aipovral /if are the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew '.ipi cnx-n:, which rendering rests on a confusing of the first word with Mh; (noticed already by Grotius). But it is doubtful whether we are entitled to ex- pect in our Greek Gospels such a verbatim rejiort of the words of Jesus.
On the influence of the Septuagint on the spread of the Gospel, cf. (in addition to older works like Grinfield, Oikonomos, etc.) Alfred Deissmann, 'Die Hellenisierung des semitischen JNIonotheismus,' Leipzig, 1903 (reprinted from Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische Altcrtum, 1903).
LtTERATURE.— The Letter of Aristeas was first published in Latin (Rome, 1471 fol.) in the famous Latin Bible of Sueynheim and Fannartz; first edition of the Greek text b,\' Simon Schard, Basle, 1561 ; all subsequent editions suyierseded by that of (Mendelssohn-) Wendland (Lipsiae, Teubner, 1900), and that of H. St. J. Thackeray in H. B. Swete's Introduction to the OT in Greek (Cambridge, 1900, 2nd ed. 1902). English translations by J. Done, 1633 and 1685; Lewis, 1715; Whiston (Authentic Records, i. 423-584), 1727 ; recently by Thackeray (JQlt xv., April 190.3). Compare, further, Abrahams, ' Recent Criticism on the Letter of Ansteas" (ib. xiv. 321-342); iht- works on the Septuagint (Swete, I.e.; Nestle in Hastings' OB iv.); Kried- lander, Geschichte der jUdiichen Apologetik (.Znrwh, I'.iOiJ).
Eb. Nestle.
ARISTION (ARISTO). — One of the principal authorities from whom Papias derived (written?) 'narratives of the sayings of the Lord' {tu>i> toO Kvpiov X&ywf Siriyriaeis ; cl Lk 1'), and (indirectly) oral traditions.
1. Importance and Difficulty of Identification. — According to Eusebius (HE iii. 39), Papias of Hier- apolis in his five books of Interpretations (var. I. Interpretation) o/ the Lord's Oracles ' referred fre- quently by name ' to ' Aristion and the Elder John ' as his authorities. From the Preface {wpool/j.ioi') Eusebius cited the following sentence to prove that IreniEus had misunderstooa Papias in taking him to refer to the Apostle John as his authority, whereas the ' John ' in question was not the ' dis- ciple of the Lord,' but a comparatively obscure ' Elder.' We abridge the sentence, but give the relevant variants : el 5^ tov Kal irapriKokovQriKws tls Tots TpKT^VTipOlS l\8oi, TOVS TWK TTpea^irripuiv iviKpivov Xo-yoi'S' Ti 'kvSpiai t) ri lUrpos u-rrtv . , . ij ns irtpos
ARISTION (ARISTO)
ARISTION (ARISTO)
115
TUiv rod Kvpiov fxad-qTuitf^ are ApLffriuv /cat 6 wpea^uTepo' 'loidvvrji oi ToO Kvplov iiaSriTai Xiyoiviv.
For 'Apiffftc^v Syr. and Arm. read 'Apto-Tu-^, and omit the clause »; Toy Kupio'j pLx9-/iTKi \iyoutrtv. Arm. hy compensation rendering ' Aristo and John the Elders.' Nicephorus (,UE ii. 46, but not iii. 20) inakes the same omission. Rufinus renders ceterique di^cipuli dicebant. Jerome changes the tense {lofivicbantur). Four Greek MSS and Niceph. (iii. 20) omit ol
Deferring the question of the significance of the variant reading.s, it is apparent that ' Aristion and the Elder John' are in several ways placed in con- trast with the gronp of ' disciples of the Lord ' men- tioned immediately before, by whom Papias cer- tainly means the twelve Apostles, enumerating seven (including James the Lord's brother ; cf. Gal 219 2^), from Andrew to 'John (author of the Revelation) and AL-itthew' (autlior of the Logia). The designation nae-qral instead of air6aTo\oi. is em- ployed because the function in consideration is that of transmitting iJ.a6iiij.aTa. — the precepts {4vTo\ai) learned from tlie Lord. The disciples (including James) of the Lord Himself are the first generation of tracUtores. The group next mentioned, 'Aris- tion and the Elder John,' are distinguished ex- pressly and implicitly as belonging to a .subsequent generation.
(1) As Eusebius points out, the John spoken of in connexion with Aristion is (a) ' mentioned after an interval,' (b) 'classed with others outside the number of the Aiiostles,' (c) has 'Aristion men- tioned before him,' (d) is 'distinctly called an Elder' (in contrast with the Jolin mentioned just before, who is called a ' disciple of the Lord '). No- where in the context should the term ' Elder ' be taken as = 'Apostle.'
(2) A distinction not referred to by Eusebius, but at least equally important, is the contrast of tense (disregarded by Rulinus and Jerome), whereby Papias makes it apparent that at the time of his inquiries the Apostles, including John, were dead ; whereas Aristion and the Elder John were living. He ' used to inquire of those who came his way what had been said (rt tlTr^v) by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples ; as well as what was hcinri said (arc Xiyoimv) by Aristion and the Elder John.' Hence, as an authority of note, and a trans- mitter of Gospel traditions earlier than tlie time of Papias' writing (A. D. 145-160), Aristion is a witness of the first importance for the history of Gospel tradition. On the other hand, great difficulty and dispute are caused by the descriptive clause attached in most texts to his name and that of John the Elder, because it is identical Avith that by which the Apostles are appropriately designated as tmdi- torcs of the first generation ; whereas the distinc- tions already noted, especially the contrast of tense Ti elirei'S.Te Xiyovuiv, make it certain that Papias did not regard Aristion and the Elder John as be- longing to this group. For Lightfoot's proposal {Essays OH Sup. Ed. p. 150, n. 3) to regard \^yov(7iv as I a historical present introduced for the sake of variety,' is confessedly advanced only to escape the ' chronological difficulty ' of supjiosing two 'disciples of the Lord' still living at the time of Papias' inquiries. It is certainly inadmissible.