ARISTO of Pella

ARISTO of Pella ARISTION 1st-2nd c., Disciple of the Lord, according to Papias in the prologue to his Explanations of the Lord’s Sayings see Eus., HE III 39,4; see also Jerome, Vir. ill. 18. The interpretation of the titles and functions of the various people listed by Papias as sources of his work, however, is disputed, although we know that Aristion was frequently mentioned in it see Eus., HE III 39,7. Papias may have thought that Aristion was still alive: the prologue speaks of him and of the presbyter John in the present, but of others in the past. In Eusebius’s citations and paraphrases of Papias, Aristion’s name is always associated with John’s HE III 39,4.5.7.14. It is doubtful that Aristion was the homonymous first bishop of Smyrna mentioned in Apos. Con. VII 46,8. The Roman Martyrology records Aristion on 22 February as the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. Isolated and unconfirmed early evidence attributes to Aristion the account of the miracle of Joseph Barsabbas the Just cited by Papias see Eus., HE III 39,9 and the ending of Mark’s gospel Mk 16:9-20: recent attributions to Aristion of the Johannine pericope on adultery Jn 8:1-10 or the letter to the Hebrews are both hypothetical and unfounded. ARISTO of Pella 2nd c.. Christian writer active in the mid 2nd c. Eusebius of Caesarea HE IV 6,3 cites him as a source for his account of the repression of the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba AD 132135 and the consequent interdiction of Jerusalem imposed by Hadrian on the Jews. In the 6th c. John of Scythopolis, in a scholium to ps.-Dionysius Myst. 1,3; see CPG 6852, cites a Dialogue dialexis between Papiscus and Jason, in which mention is made of the seven heavens; he attributes it to Aristo, in contrast with Clement of Alexandria, who attributed it to St. Luke. The reliability of John of Scythopolis’s attribution has been and is still debated, since the work, lost to us, is known as an anonymous writing in the testimonies of the pagan Celsus and Origen see Contra Cels. IV 52-53, who calls it a Dispute antilogia, and of the Christian Celsus, who translated the work into Latin perhaps in the 3rd c., probably in Africa. Among the ps.-Cyprianine writings there is a letter in which Celsus dedicated his translation to a bishop Vigilius see CPL 67: the translated work is called a scriptura concertationis Ad Vig. 8. Jerome, who read the work in the original Greek version and cites it as an altercatio, also did not know how to attribute authorship Quaest. Hebr. Gen. 1,1; Comm. in Gal. 3,14. The work can be located at the origins of Christian anti-Jewish apologetic literature, which particularly made use of the forms of dialogue. According to the evidence of the work’s translator, Celsus, the debate ended with the complete victory of Jason, a Jewish Christian, over Papiscus, a Jew of Alexandria, who was then converted and baptized. Against the disparaging criticism of the pagan Celsus, Origen acknowledged the scant value of the exegetical argumentation adopted in the dispute, but he also appreciated the Jew’s proud consciousness of the dignity of his convictions. The subject of the dispute was esp. the applicability of the OT prophecies about Christ to Jesus. Jerome was interested in the work because, with regard to Gen 1:1 and Deut 21:23, it provided further evidence of the difference of the Greek versions from the Hebrew biblical text. In support of the work’s anonymity, the hypothesis has been put forward that it reproduces the rapid transcription of a public discussion that perhaps occurred at Alexandria. The main argument in favor of a coincidence of the dispute with Aristo’s work referred to by Eusebius is based on the reuse of the historical data of the sending away of the Jews from Jerusalem in anti-Jewish polemical works see Tert., Ad Iud. 13,3-4, according to an apologetic and polemical model that Aristo would in fact have already experimented with. An alternative to this hypothesis is the proposal that recognizes in the source cited by Eusebius the author of a historical work; this is also suggested by Late Antique and Medieval evidence, such as Moses of Khorene, Hist. Arm. 2,60, and Nicephorus Callistus, Eccl. Hist. 3,24, although they depend on Eusebius. The information referred by the Chronicon Paschale to the year 134, according to which Aristo submitted an apology to Hadrian, is probably the result of a contamination of Eusebius’s information regarding Aristo and Eusebius, HE IV 3,3. CPG 1101; E. Schürer, Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesù Cristo 175 a.C.135 d.C. I, Brescia 1985, 68-71 orig. ed.: Edinburgh 1973; H. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen AdversusJudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld 1.-11. Jh., Frankfurt a. Main – Bern 4 1999, 180; J. Wehnert, Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen nach Pella – historisches Faktum oder theologische Konstruktion?: ZKG 102 19912 231- 255 esp. 254-255; G. Otranto, La Disputa tra Giasone e Papisco sul Cristo falsamente attribuita ad Aristone di Pella: VetChr 33 1996 337-351.Alexander the Great – LEARNING FROM ARISTOTLE travelquaz


ARISTO of Pella

The Radical Catholic: The Emperor Hadrian travelquaz

ARISTO of Pella

AMMONIUS – Travelquaz.Com ® travelquaz

ARISTO of Pella

Büyük İskender Aleksandros | TARİHE BAKIŞ travelquaz

ARISTO of Pella

Leave a Reply