384 Clarence Russell Williams, 



"In a I2l]i century Bodk-ian Codex of Rufinus' Latin version 

 of the Ecclesiastical History this story is mentioned in the margin 

 against the name of Aristion (in p. 136. 31), from which we may 

 suppose that the schoUast of Rufinus regarded the story as in a pe- 

 cuhar manner due to or suggested by Aristion. ... It is unlikely 

 that Aristion himself in his 'hv{{'(''cr;zic told the story in illustration 

 of verse 18, of which he was the author, and that Papias only copied 

 it from him. But the scholiast of Rufinus may have known that 

 these twelve verses were Aristion 's, and on that account have con- 

 nected with Aristion's name a story so aptly illustrative of one of 

 the verses in question." (Ex. Oct. 1893 pp. 246, 250.) 

 This seemed strong confirmation for the identification of the Ariston 

 of the rubric with Aristion, the authority of Papias, to Conybeare, 

 and also to Zahn, who, confining the narrative from Aristion in these 

 twelve verses to vs. 14—18 held that Papias wrote down the narratives 

 of Aristion, and that the Armenian title is due tothe fact that Papias 

 attributed this section of his narrative to Aristion, as was known by 

 the person who compiled the longer ending. (Ex. Sept. 1894 p. 224.) 

 But this, the strongest support to the theory, has failed, since this 

 scholion is "a very ragged and late bit of writing" (Conybeare) and 

 the inference from it is a mistaken one, as is shown by Prof. J. Vernon 

 Bartlet, who, requested by Prof. Bacon to transcribe this gloss in the 

 Rufinus codex, "with special regard for its location on the page," 

 sent him the following explanation, recently published (Bacon in The 

 Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. xxx, Part I, 1911, p. 105). 

 "My notes on the Bodleian MS. of Rufinus, which I examined 

 (MSS. 2. and Miscell. 294, once in the monastery of Eberbach) are to 

 this effect. The scholion is really simply one of a number of margi- 

 nal notes, indicating the contents, which occur throughout the MS. 

 Conybeare noticed that the ' scholion ' ' Quod Justus qui et Barsabas 

 venenum biberit nihilque ex hoc triste pertulerit' stood ' in the margin 

 over against the name of Aristion ' and inferred that this showed 

 consciousness that this story was 'due to or suggested by Aristion.' 

 "But the position 'over against' Aristion is a mere accident, due 

 to the fact that there is no room on the inner margin of the Ms. 

 (which is written in 2 columns), where it should come, for the 

 marginal note to be inserted. Hence it comes opposite the name 

 of Aristion, which though a good deal earlier in the text, is in fact 

 parallel (to the matter in question) in the other colunm. There are 

 similar cases which I have observed elsewhere. Thus the inference 

 was a mistake of Conybeare's, and the observation is of no historical 

 value." 



