The evidence connecting the Appendix of Mark witli the name 'Aristo' is thus reduced to the statement 'inserted by an afterthouglit ' by tlie scribe John, A.D. <J89, over Mk le""^",
AETSTIOIS^ (ARTSTO)
ARISTTON (ARTSTO)
n:
■which he had attached, contrary to Syriac and Armenian tradition, to his text of the Gospel. Tliis, liowever, is unquestionably important, esjiecially if, as Conybeare maintains, ' it must have stood in the older copy transcriljed.' The statement has been generally received at its face value, but with ditterent identifications of ' the Elder Aristo.' Resch (' Ausserkanonische Paralleltexte,' TUx. 3, 1894, p. 449 ; Eng. tr. by Conybeare in Expos. 4th ser. X. [1894], pp. 226-232) regards Aristo of Pella as the only personality open to consideration as author of the Appendix. Hilgenfeld (Ztschr. f. wisscnscliaft. T/icul. xxxvii. 1894, p. 627) stands apparently alone in identifying the ' Aristion ' of Papias with Aristo of Pella, ' a notable contem- porary of Papias,' and refusing to the Aristo of the Eijmiadzin codex any signiticance beyond that of 'some Elder Aristo or other before c. 500 A.D., from whom a Syriac MS will have borrowed Mk lga-20 ' (regarded by Hilg. as the original ending). Other critics regard it as 'practically certain' that the Mark-Appendix is really taken from the authority referred to by Papias. Harnack sets the example of peremptorily refusing the sug- gestion of Resch {TU x. 2, p. 453 ff.), that this 'Elder Aristo' may be no other than Aristo of Pella, but gives no other reason than the date (c. 140) ; which, as he rightly says, is irreconcilable with the (disputed) phrase ol toO Kvptov nadijTai (Chron. i. p. 269; on the textual question, see above, §2). Zahn (Thcol. LitcratarU. 22nd Dec. 1893 [Eng. tr. by Conybeare in Expos. I.e.] regards it as a conclusive objection to Resch's identification that 'Aristo of Pella, who wrote his (?) Dinlocjue, of Jason and Papiscus after 135, and perhaps a good deal later, cannot be the author of a section (Mk 16"'-") which Tatian already read in his Mark at the latest in 170, and which Justin had already known so early as 150, though perhaps not (N.B.) as an integral part of Mark.' We may inquire later what authority the scribe John may have had for his insertion of the title.
5. Internal evidence of the Appendix. — The im- pression of Westcott and Hort (Gr. NT, ii. p. 51), corroborated by Conybeare (Expositor, 1893, p. 241 if.), that the Appendix to Mark is not the original full narrative, but an excerpt, constitutes the next step in the solution of our problem. In particular, a real contribution is made by Zahn (Geseh. Kan. ii. App. xiv. In, and Forsch. vi. § 3, p. 219) in the demonstration that Jerome (c. Pelag. ii. 15, ed. Vail. ii. 758) had access to it in a fuller, more original form; for he adds after v." ' Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes : Sa^culum istud ini- quitatis et incredulitatis substantia (cod. Vat. 1, 'sub Satana') est, quce (I. qui) non sinit per im- mundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem ; idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam' (cf. Ac 1'). Jerome's source for this material, whose Hebraistic expressions and point of view confirm its authenticity, becomes a question of importance. This source can scarcely have been the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, whoever its author ; for while Jerome was acquainted with this work (Com. on Gal 3", and Quwst. Heb. in lib. Goi., beginning), and while Celsus, who also used it, twice quotes the substance of Mk 16" (c. Cels. ii. 55 and 70), the nature of the work, so far as ascertainable, was not such as to admit material of this kind. Besides, we have seen that by all early authorities it is treated as anonymous. Zahn's supposition (Forsch. vi. p. 219) has stronger evidence in its favour, and still leaves room to account for the points of con- tact between the Appendix, the Dialogue, Celsus, and Jerome. According to Zahn, 'The ancient book in which Mk le"-'^ was extant independently of the Second Gospel, and whence it was drawn by transcribers of Mark, can only have been the
work of Papias, in which it was contained as a SiTiy-riats of Aristion (sic).' But Jerome, he holds, obtained his version indirectly, tlirough his teacher Apollinaris of Laodicea. This explanation has in its favour certain evidences adduced by Cony- beare (Expositor, Dec. 1895), to connect the can- cellation of Mk 16""-" in Armenian MSS witli knowledge derived from Pajrias of its true origin. In particular, the same Efmiadzin codex whicli attributes the Appendix to 'the Elder Aristo' has a version of the Pericope Adultera; (Jn 753-8" TR) independent of the received form, briefer, but with the explanatory comment after Jn 8" 'To declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones.' Echoes of this addition are traceable in Jerome (Pelag. ii. 17), in uncial U, and perhaps elsewhere. Moreover, Conybeare's con- tention that this 'represents the form in which Papias . . . gave the episode,' is strongly sup- ported by Eusebius' statement of what he found ill Papias ('a story about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel ac- cording to the Hebrews contains'). This applies to the Efmiadzin text only (' A certain woman was taken, in sins, against whom all bore witness,' etc. Cf. Eus. HE iii. 39). It has some further support in the express statement of Vartan (14th cent.) that this pericope was derived from Papias, though tliis may be merely dependent on Euseljius. Cony- beare's suggestion that the story will have been one of the 'traditions of the Elder John,' and for this reason have become attached in most texts to the Fourtli Gospel, is more probable than Zahn's attributing it to ' Aristion ' ; but see Blass, Phi- lology of the Gosjicls, p. 156, who thinks it was simply appended at the end of the Gospel canon.