ARISTEAS. – Pseudonym of the author of the Letter
to Philocrates, which recounts the origin of the Greek biblical
version of the Septuagint (v.).
Some, however, such as B. Motzo, identify him with the
historian A. (2nd century B.C.), author of an *Iis; 'Ioudiov*,
of which a fragment remains in Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*,
9, 25 (PG 21, 728). The author of the “Letter of A.” is said to
be Greek, a contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphus and a participant
in the events he narrates; yet examination of the text reveals
him to be a Hellenistic Jew, later than the events recounted,
who assumed the name of the aforementioned historian. He
addresses pagans with the aim of Jewish propaganda.
Lud. de Vives was the first to recognize the apocryphal
nature of the letter (Comm. in Civ. Dei, 18, 42, Basel 1522).
The date of A. is uncertain: between the mid-3rd century B.C.
and the 1st century of the common era; the most probable
opinions fall into two camps, one placing it around 200 B.C.
(E. Schürer, H. B. Swete, L. H. Vincent, R. Tramontano) and
the other around 100 B.C. or shortly thereafter (P. Wendland,
H. Thackeray, B. Motzo, A. Momigliano; P. Riesler: 80–63 B.C.).
Apart from the many fantastical embellishments added and
expanded by later Jewish (Philo, Flavius Josephus) and Christian
(Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius,
Augustine) writers, the letter contains valuable information on
Palestinian topography, the history of Judaism in Palestine and
Egypt, and the origins of the “Septuagint.”
A. relates that the Greek version of the Bible, limited to the
Pentateuch, was completed in Alexandria at the behest of King
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246 B.C.) by 72 Jewish scholars,
sent by Eleazar, high priest of Jerusalem, to the island of Pharos,
at the instigation of the supposed Alexandrian librarian, Demetrius
of Phalerum.
When A. wrote, around 200 or 100 B.C., a translation of the
Pentateuch already existed, attributed to the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus and executed by multiple interpreters at the initiative
of the Jewish community in Alexandria, where Hebrew was generally
unknown. Before this version, which might be termed official,
there already existed a Greek version, perhaps only partial and little
known outside Jewish circles (Letter, §§ 30, 31, 313–16).
ANGELO P. ARISTENO, ALESSIO. – A Byzantine canonist of the
12th century, who wrote his *Commentaries on the Interpretation of
Canons* at the request of Emperor John II Comnenus (1118–43).
His importance, long overshadowed by the fame of the other two
Byzantine canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras, has been rightly
reclaimed, as A. predates Zonara’s work by at least fifteen years.
ARISTIDES, MARCianus. – One of the earliest Christian
apologists. According to Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, IV, 3, 3, and
*Chron.*, ad a. 2140), he was an Athenian philosopher who left
an *Apology* to Emperor Hadrian, still widely read in his own time.
St. Jerome, however, no longer knew it, for all he could say
(*De viris illustribus*, 20; *Epist.*, 70, 4) was a reworking of
Eusebius’ words. The work then remained unknown until 1878,
when the Mekhitarists of Venice published an Armenian fragment,
and in 1889 Rendel Harris discovered the complete Syriac version
in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It was then
established by I. Armitage Robinson that the Greek text had long
been known, forming, with minor variations, chapters 26–27 of the
*Life of Barlaam and Josaphat*. The Syriac version bears the
dedication: “To the Emperor Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus
Augustus Pius, Marcianus Aristides, Athenian philosopher.” The
second name, Marcianus, is generally to be regarded as authentic,
though it is still debated whether, for internal reasons, Eusebius
(op. cit.) and the Armenian version are correct in stating that the
work was dedicated to Emperor Hadrian. There is also debate as
to whether the more concise Greek text or the more expansive
Syriac is closer to the original, but the fragments recently recovered
from papyri generally support the latter.
The *Apology* first establishes the true concept of God: eternal,
perfect, immortal, omniscient, the Father of men and self-sufficient,
and demonstrates that neither barbarians, nor Greeks, nor Jews
have possessed Him, but only Christians (the fourth race), who
received their faith from Jesus, born of a Jewish virgin, killed by
the Jews, risen and ascended to heaven. Confirmation is found in
the admirable life of Christians, despite the slanders circulated
against them. Naturally, A. dwells especially on proving the
absurdity of the religions of the “three races” and the holiness of
Christian life. The *Apology* is notable for the simplicity and clarity
of its line of argument, which underscores the solidity of its reasoning,
even if it may seem original only because it is the first document of
its kind. Though the author is not a man of great culture or
literary skill, he is nonetheless engaging in his naïve confidence,
presenting his ideas with a force not only of truth but also of
considerable communicative power. He has been criticized for
restricting his theme and not expounding more fully on specifically
Christian doctrines; yet this would have been out of place in an
apology addressed to the emperor, and in any case A. was fully
justified in limiting his subject as he saw fit. Moreover, for his
purpose, what he offers is sufficient, and one cannot deny that the
point he develops is essential.
The same applies to the Syriac text (and version) in *Texts and Studies*, I, 11, Cambridge 1893, where a new edition of the Greek text also appears (moreover in *PG* 96, 1108). Critical editions by R. Seebers, Leipzig 1894, and J. Geffcken, *Zwei griechische Apologeten*, 1907. There is also an Armenian homily on Lk. 23:42ff., certainly apocryphal, and another Armenian fragment “ex epistula Aristidis.” Some (I. P. Beeck, *Bogoslovske Smotra*, Zagreb 1931, pp. 1–16) even consider ARISTIDES the author of the Letter to Diognetus. Besides the authors cited, see also A. Puech, *Les Apologistes grecs du IIe siècle*, Paris 1912, pp. 35ff.; id., “The Apology of ARISTIDES,” in *The Harvard Theological Review*, 1937, pp. 233–47; G. Lazzati, *Ellenismo e Cristianesimo. Il primo capitolo dell’Apologia di ARISTIDES*, in *La Scuola Cattolica*, 1938, pp. 35–51; I. Giordani, *La prima polemica cristiana*, 2nd ed., Brescia 1943, pp. 125ff.; B. Altaner, *Patrologia*, Italian trans., 2nd ed., Turin 1944, p. 67; A. Casamassa, *Gli apologisti greci*, Rome 1944, pp. 31–48; M. Pellegrino, *Gli apologisti greci del II secolo*, ibid. 1947, pp. 25–39.
Antonio Ferrua.
ARISTION, Saint. — Disciple of the Lord. Papias, in the preface to his *Exegesis of the Lord’s Words*, says that he wished to transmit what he had heard and learned from the “elders” (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* III, 39, 3) or from the hearers of the “elders” (39, 4), and therefore he inquired about what the “disciples of the Lord” (the apostles) had said and about what ARISTION and the “elder” John, disciples of the Lord, said. The problem of ARISTION is closely linked to the famous question of the “elder” John. Papias is concerned with the oral doctrine of the Church, both because the living voice is for him superior to books (39, 4) and because of the needs of anti-Gnostic polemic (39, 3). He therefore lists the guarantors of oral tradition in the Church in three groups: 1) elders, 2) hearers of the elders whom he had occasion to hear, and 3) the disciples of the Lord, ARISTION and the “elder” John. According to the context, ARISTION and the “elder” John must have been direct disciples of the Lord who were still alive in Papias’s time. The system of oral tradition in Papias—apostles, elders, hearers of the elders, and alongside them “the disciples of the Lord” (ARISTION and the “elder” John)—suggests analogies in the transmission of oral tradition among the Jews. On the one hand there is the series of first transmitters (the “elders” probably correspond to the *’Aboth*; cf. Heb. 11:2), and beside them stand the witnesses (*‘edut*) who confirm the truth of the oral tradition (on witnesses in Jewish tradition cf. Jos. Ranft, *Der Ursprung des katholischen Traditionsprinzips*, Würzburg 1931, pp. 15ff.). Accepting, therefore, the viewpoint of Irenaeus and not that of Eusebius regarding the text of Papias, ARISTION would be a disciple of Jesus and not an “elder” in the series of transmitters, contemporary with the “elder” John in Asia Minor.
In the *Constitutiones apostolorum*, VII, 46, 8 a certain Ariston (not Aristion) is mentioned as the first bishop of Smyrna, whereas according to Irenaeus (*Adv. Haer.* III, 3, 4) and Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.* III, 36, 1), Polycarp was the first bishop of Smyrna. The author of this chapter knew Eusebius, who distinguished two Johns in Ephesus (46, 7), and saw in ARISTION, as Eusebius did, an “elder,” who therefore becomes for him a bishop; but the attribution of Smyrna as the see of Ariston may not be an invention. Papias often (Eusebius, *loc. cit.*, III, 39, 7) mentioned in his work the “traditions” he had heard from ARISTION concerning the Lord’s discourses.
The Armenian manuscript 229 (10th century) of Egimazion (photographic reproduction by F. Mader, Paris 1920; cf. also Eb. Nestle–E. von Dobschütz, *Einführung in das Neue Testament*, pl. 19) attributes the conclusion of the Gospel of Mark (16:9–20) to the elder Ariston (the name as in *Constit. apostol.* VII, 46, 8), perhaps on the basis of the mention of the miracle of the poisoned drink (Mk. 16:18), which, as a miracle of Joseph Barsabbas “the Just,” was recounted by Papias and attributed to ARISTION by a manuscript of Rufinus’s *Historia ecclesiastica* (cf. F. X. Funk, *Patres apostolici*, I, Tübingen 1901, p. 353 n.). This is the conjecture of a scholar who, with Eusebius, sees in ARISTION an “elder” and not a disciple of Jesus. Against this conjecture cf. B. H. Streeter, *The Four Gospels*, London 1936, pp. 344ff. Th. Zahn attributes to ARISTION, besides Mk. 16:14–16, the pericope of the adulteress in Jn. 8:1–11, while J. Chapman, based on analogies with Mk. 16:9–20, makes ARISTION the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.