386 Clarence Russell Williams, 



tradition, since it cannot be proved tliat this rubric was contained 

 in a fifth century exemplar of the codex, is not necessarily either 

 ancient or authentic. 

 Zahn declared that : 



" Conybeare has quite rightly rejected the idea of Ariston of Pella. 

 It is quite true that Moses of Chorene had plenty of fables to relate 

 about him (II. 60), and we could not avoid thinking of him, if 

 Langlois (Coll. of Arm. Hist., I. 391 ; II. 110, n. 3) were right in 

 ascribing to Moses the statement that Ariston was secretary of the 

 Bishop Mark, of Jerusalem, in the time of Hadrian. 



"If that were so, the completer of the Second Gospel must have 

 been identified with the secretary of the Evangelist Mark, and also 

 have received the name Ariston." (Conybeare's trans. Ex. Sept. 

 1894, p. 222.) 



Zahn declares, however that Langlois is mistaken, and that Moses 

 of Chorene means that Ariston was the secretary of Hadrian. Prof. 

 Bacon states that Moses means that Ariston was the secretary of 

 Ardaces. These three views prove sufficiently that at this point the 

 testimon}' of Moses of Chorene is ambiguous. 



If modern scholars find difficulty in interpreting this testimony 

 it is quite possible that a scribe of the tenth century might find equal 

 difficulty. If Langlois could suppose that Ariston was secretary of 

 Bishop Mark of Jerusalem, according to Moses of Chorene, so might 

 this scribe who would of course be familiar ^^'ith the writings of this 

 great Armenian historian. That the scribe should further confuse 

 the Bishop Mark of Jerusalem, in the time of Hadrian with the 

 Evangelist Mark is by no means impossible. That he did make 

 these blunders, has been argued by Prof. Bacon, ("Against the Au- 

 thorship of the Last Verses of Mark," The Expositor, VI Series 1905, 

 pp. 401—412 and Hasting's Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 

 Vol.^ I, "Aristo.") 



To suppose that the Gospel according to Mark was finished by this 

 secretary, is, as Prof. Bacon suggests, quite a natural inference. That 

 this was the inference not of an ancient authority, but of the scribe 

 who wrote this codex in 989 A.D. seems far more probable than the 

 supposition that it is to be traced back to " a learned man of the fourth 

 or fifth century," in view of the fact that we have as yet found no 

 duplication of this rubric in any Armenian or Syriac MS. It is quite 

 possible that its omission from Armenian MSS of later date than our 

 codex is due to a recognition either of its late date, or of its precarious 

 foundation, or both. 



It is but just to say that the author's doubts concerning the anti- 



