| 89. Narrative of the Anointing of Jesus By a Woman. | ||||
AN occasion on which Jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat, is mentioned by all the evangelists (Matt. xxvl.6ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ft; Luke vii.36ff.; John xii.1ff.), but with some divergencies, the most important of which he between Luke and the other three. First, as to the chronology; Luke places the incident in the earlier period of the life of Jesus, before his departure from Galilee, while the other three assign it to the last week of his life; secondly, as to the character of the woman who anoints Jesus: she is, according to Luke, a woman who was a sinner, according to the two other Synoptics, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John, who is more precise, Mary of Bethany. From the second point of difference it follows, that in Luke the objection of the spectators turns on the admission of so infamous a person, in the other Gospels, on the wastefulness of the woman; from both, it follows, that Jesus in his defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman, as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in the latter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant presence of the poor. There are yet the minor differences, that the place in which the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by the two first and the fourth evangelists called Bethany, which according to John xi. 1, was a kwmh (town), by Luke a polij (city), without any more precise designation; further, that the objection, according to the three former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the entertainer. Hence the majority of commentators distinguish two anointings, of which one is narrated by Luke, the other by the three remaining evangelists. | ||||
But it must be asked, if the reconciliation of Luke with the other three evangelists is despaired of, whether the agreement of the latter amongst themselves is so decided, and whether we must not rather proceed, from the distinction of two anointings, to the distinction of {P.440} three, or even four? To four certainly it will scarcely extend; for Mark does not depart from Matthew, except in a few touches of his well-known dramatic manner; but between these two evangelists on the one side, and John on the other, there are differences which may fairly be compared with those between Luke and the rest. The first difference relates to the house in which the entertainment is said to have been given; according to the two first evangelists, it was the house of Simon the leper, a person elsewhere unnoticed; the fourth does not, it is true, expressly name the host, but since he mentions Martha as the person who waited on the guests, and her brother Lazarus as one of those who sat at meat, there is no doubt that he intended to indicate the house of the latter as the locality of the repast. Neither is the time of the occurrence precisely the same, for according to Matthew and Mark the scene takes place after the solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, only two days at the utmost before the Passover; according to John, on the other hand, before the entrance, as early as six days prior to the Passover. Further, the individual whom John states to be that Mary of Bethany so intimately united to Jesus, is only known to the two first evangelists as a woman, neither do they represent her as being, like Mary, in the house, and one of the host's family, but as coming, one knows not from where, to Jesus, while he reclined at table. Moreover the act of anointing is in the fourth gospel another than in the two first. In the latter, the woman pours her ointment of spikenard on the head of Jesus; in John, on the contrary, she anoints his feet, and dries them with her hair, a difference which gives the whole scene a new character. Lastly, the two Synoptics are not aware that it was Judas who gave utterance to the censure against the woman; Matthew attributing it to the disciples, Mark, to the spectators generally. | ||||
Thus between the narrative of John, and that of Matthew and Mark, there is scarcely less difference than between the account of these three collectively, and that of Luke: whoever supposes two distinct occurrences in the one case, must, to be consistent, do so in the other; and thus, with Origen hold, at least conditionally, that there were three separate anointings. So soon, however, as this consequence is more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how improbable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three times, each time at a feast, cadi time by a woman, that woman being always a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in each instance, have had to defend the act of the woman against the censures of the spectators. Above all, how is it to be conceived that after Jesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, had so de- {P.441} cidedly given his sanction to the honour rendered to him, the disciples, or one of them, should have persisted in censuring it? | ||||
These considerations oblige us to think of reductions, and it is the most natural to commence with the narratives of the two first synoptlsts and of John, for these agree not only in the place, Bethany, but also, generally, in the time of the event, the last week of the life of Jesus; above all, the censure and the reply are nearly the same on both sides. In connection with these similarities the differences lose their importance, partly from the improbability that an incident of this kind should be repeated; partly from the probability, that in the traditional propagation of the story such divergencies should have insinuated themselves. But if in this case the identity of the occurrences be admitted, in consideration of the similarities, and in spite of the dissimilarities; then, on the other hand, the divergencies peculiar to the narrative of Luke, can no longer hinder us from pronouncing it to be identical with that of the three other evangelists, provided that there appear to be only a few important points of resemblance between the two. And such really exist, for Luke now strikingly accords with Matthew and Mark, in opposition to John; now, with the latter, in opposition to the former. Luke gives the entertainer the same name as the two first Synoptics, namely, Simon, the only difference being, that the former calls him a pharisee, while the latter style him the leper. Again, Luke agrees with the other Synoptics in opposition to John, in representing the woman who anoints Jesus as a nameless individual, not belonging to the house; and further, in making her appear with a box of ointment, while John speaks only of a pound of ointment, without specifying the vessel. On the other hand, Luke coincides in a remarkable manner with John, and differs from the two other evangelists, as to the mode of the anointing. While, namely, according to the latter, the ointment is poured on the head of Jesus, according to Luke, the woman, who was a sinner, as, according to John, Mary, anoints the feet of Jesus; and even the striking particular, that she dried them with her hair, is given by both in nearly the same words; excepting that in Luke, where the woman is described as a sinner, it is added that she bathed the feet of Jesus with her tears, and kissed them. Thus, without doubt, we have here but one history under three various forms; and this seems to have been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher. | ||||
In this state of the case, the effort is to escape as cheaply as possible, and to save the divergencies of the several evangelists at least from the appearance of contradiction. First, with regard to 'the differences between the two first evangelists and the last, it has been attempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition, {P.442} that the meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days before Easter; but that Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, has no contradictory date; that rather he has no date at all; for though he inserts the narrative of the meal and the anointing after the declaration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, this does not prove that he intended to place it later as to time, for it is probable that he gave it this position simply because he wished to note here, before coming to the betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which the traitor first embraced his black resolve, namely, the repast at which he was incensed by Mary's prodigality, and embittered by the rebuke of Jesus. But in opposition to this, modern criticism has shown that, on the one hand, in the mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could he nothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, the two first Gospels do not name Judas as the party who censured the anointing, but the disciples or the bystanders generally: whereas, if they had noted this scene purely because it was the motive for the treachery of Judas, they must have especially pointed out the manifestation of his feeling. There remains, consequently, a chronological contradiction in this instance between the two first Synoptics and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits. | ||||
It has been attempted in a variety of ways to evade the further difference as to the person of the host. As Matthew and Mark speak only of the house of Simon the leper, some have distinguished the owner of the house, Simon, from the giver of the entertainment, who doubtless was Lazarus, and have supposed that hence, in both cases without error, the fourth evangelist mentions the latter, the two first Synoptics the former.But who would distinguish an entertainment by the name of the householder, if he were not in any way the giver of the entertainment? Again, since John does not expressly call Lazarus the host, but merely one of those sitting at the table), and since the inference that he was the host is drawn solely from the circumstance that his sister Martha served; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha, either separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and have supposed that Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister, an hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile with the narratives than the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information. | ||||
We come next to the divergency relative to the mode of anointing; according to the two first evangelists, the ointment was poured on the head of Jesus; according to the fourth, on his feet. The old, trivial mode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that both the head and the feet were anointed, has recently been expanded into the conjecture that Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet {P.443} of Jesus (John), but that as she accidentally broke the vessel (suntriyasa Mark), the ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.). This attempt at reconciliation falls into the comic, for as we cannot imagine how a woman who was preparing to anoint the feet of Jesus could bring the vessel of ointment over his head, we must suppose that the ointment spirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So that here also the contradiction remains, and not only between Matthew and John, where it is admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between the latter evangelist and Mark. | ||||
The two divergencies relative to the person of the woman who anoints Jesus, and to the party who blames her, were thought to be the most readily explained. That what John ascribes to Judas singly, Matthew and Mark refer to all the disciples or spectators, was believed to be simply accounted for by the supposition that while the rest manifested their disapprobation by gestures only, Judas vented his in words. We grant that the word elegon, (they said) preceded as it is in Mark, by the words "being indignant within themselves," and followed, as in Matthew, by the words "but Jesus knowing," does not necessarily imply that all the disciples gave audible expression to their feelings; as, however, the two first evangelists immediately after this meal narrate the betrayal by Judas, they would certainly have named the traitor on the above occasion, had he, to their knowledge, made himself conspicuous in connection with the covetous blame which the woman's liberality drew forth. That John particularizes the woman, whose name is not given by the Synoptics, as Mary of Bethany, is, in the ordinary view, only an example how the fourth evangelist supplies the omissions of his predecessors. But as the two first Synoptics attach so much importance to the deed of the woman, that they make Jesus predict the perpetuation of her memory on account of it-a particular which John has notthey would assuredly have also given her name had they known it; so that in any case we may conclude thus much; they knew not who the woman was, still less did they conceive her to be Mary of Bethany. | ||||
Thus if the identity only of the last evangelist's narrative with that of the two first be acknowledged, it must be confessed that we have, on the one side or the other, an account which is inaccurate, {P.444} and disfigured by tradition. It is, however, not only between these, but also between Luke and his fellow evangelists collectively, that they who suppose only one incident to be the foundation of their narratives, seek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction. Schleiermacher, whose highest authority is John, but who will on no account renounce Luke, comes in this instance, when the two so widely diverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from which he must have thought that he could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he has not evaded it, as he does others of a similar kind, by the supposition of two fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself constrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke's informant could not in this case have been an eye witness; from which minor divergencies, as for instance those relative to the locality, are to be explained. On the other hand, the apparently important differences that, according to Luke, the woman is a sinner, according to John, Mary of Bethany; that according to the former, the host, according to the latter, the disciples, make objections; and that the reply of Jesus is in the respective narrations totally different these, in Schleiermacher's opinion, have their foundation in the fact that. the occurrence may be regarded from two points of view. The one aspect of the occurrence is the murmuring of the disciples, and this is given by Matthew; the other, namely, the relations of Jesus with the pharisaic host, is exhibited by Luke; and John confirms both representations. The most decided impediment to the reconciliation of Luke with the other evangelists, his designation of the woman as a sinner, Schleiermacher invalidates, by calling it a false inference of the narrator from the address of Jesus to Mary, "Your sins are forgiven." This Jesus might say to Mary in allusion to some error, unknown to us, but such as the purest are liable to, without compromising her reputation with the spectators, who were well acquainted with her character; and it was only the narrator who erroneously concluded from the above words of Jesus, and from his further discourse, that the woman concerned was a sinner in the ordinary sense of the word, from which he has incorrectly amplified the thoughts of the host, v. 39. It is not, however, simply of sins, but of many sins, that Jesus speaks in relation to the woman; and if this also be an addition of the narrator, to be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with the character of Mary of Bethany, then has the entire speech of Jesus from v. 40-48, which turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and much, been falsified or misrepresented by the evangelist: and on the side of Luke especially, it is in vain to attempt to harmonize the discordant narratives. | ||||
If, then, the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition that several of them have undergone important traditional modifications: the question is, which of them is the nearest to the {P.445} original fact? That modern critics should unanimously decide in favour of John, cannot surprise us after our previous observations; and as little can the nature of the reasoning by which their judgment is supported. The narrative of John, say they, (reasoninw in a circle.) being that of an eye witness, must be at once supposed the true one, and this conclusion is sometimea rested for greater security on the false premiss, that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator is the more accurate reporter-the eye witness. The breaking of the box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is readily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John's statement of the quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration? and ought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to this disproportionale consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary's love, to be rather referred to the evangelist's imagination, which would then also have the entire credit of the circumstance, that the house was filled vnth the odozir of the ointment? It is worthy of notice, that the estimate of the value of the perfume at 300 denarii, is given by John and Mark alone; as also at the miraculous feeding of the multitude, it is these two evangelists who rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If Mark only had this close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced, at least by Schleiermacher, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What then is it that, in the actual state of the case, prevents the utterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but the prejudice in-favour of the fourth gospel? Even the anointing of the head, which is attested by two of the Synoptics, is, because John mentions the feet instead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the position of Jesus at a meal whereas the anointing of the feet with precious oil was far less usual; and this the most recent commentator on the fourth gospel admits. | ||||
But peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye-witness John, because he has rescued from oblivion the names, both of the anointing woman, and of the censorious disciple. It has been supposed that the Synoptics did in fact know the name of the woman, but withheld it from the apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to the family of Lazarus, while John, writing later, was under no such restraint if but this expedient rests on mere assumptions. Our former conclusion therefore subsists, namely, that the earlier evangelists knew nothing of the name of the woman; and the question arises, how was this possible? Jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to the deed of the woman, the tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also, and if this were identical with the known and oft repeated name of Mary of Bethany, it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed and the name could be lost in {P.446} tradition, and the woman who anointed Jesus become nameless. It is perhaps still more incomprehensible, supposing the covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really uttered by him who proved the betrayer, that this should be forgotten in tradition, and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples generally. When a fact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown, or even when the person being known, the fact does not obviously accord with his general character, it is natural that the name should be lost in tradition; but when the narrated word or work of a person agrees so entirely with his known character, as does the covetous and hypocritical blame in question with the character of the traitor, it is difficult to suppose that the legend would sever it from his name. Moreover, the story in which this blame occurs, verges so nearly on the moment of the betrayal, (especially according to the position given to it by the two first evangelists,) that had the blame really proceeded from Judas, the two facts would have been almost inevitably associated. Indeed, even if that expression of latent cupidity had not really belonged to Judas, there must have been a temptation eventually to ascribe it to him, as a help to the delineation of his character, and to the explanation of his subsequent treachery. Thus the case is reversed, and the question is whether, instead of praising John that he has preserved to us this precise information, we ought not rather to give our approbation to the Synoptics, that they have abstained from so natural but unhistorical a combination. We can arrive at no other conclusion with respect to the designation of the woman who annoints Jesus as Mary of Bethany. On the one hand, it is inconceivable that the deed, if originally hers, should be separated from her celebrated name; on the other, the legend, in the course of its development, might naturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with Jesus had, according to the third and fourth Gospels, early obtained great celebrity in the primitive Church, an act of devoted love towards him, which originally belonged to another and less known person. | ||||
But from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard the narratives of Matthew and Mark, who give no name to the woman, rather than that of John, who distinguishes her as Mary of Bethany, as the parent stem of the group of stories before us. | ||||
Our position of the identity of all the four narratives must, to be tenable, enable us also to explain how Luke's representation of the facts could arise. Now, supposing the narrative of John to be the nearest to the truth, it is not a little surprising that in the legend, the anointing woman should doubly descend from the highly honoured Mary, sister of Lazarus, to an unknown, nameless individual, and thence even to a notorious sinner; it appears far more natural to give the intermediate position to the indifferent statement of the Synoptics, out of whose equivocal nameless woman might equally be made, either in an ascending scale, a Mary; or, in a descending one, a sinner. {P.447} | ||||
The possibility of the first transformation has been already shown: it must next be asked, where could be an inducement, without historical grounds, gradually to invest the anointincr w'oman with the character of a sinner? In the narrative itself our only clue is a feature which the two first Synoptics have not, but which John has in common with Luke; namely that the v.'oman anointed the feet of Jesus. To the fourth evangelist, this tribute of feeling appeared in accordance with the sensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom he elsewhere also (xi. 32), represents as falling at the feet of Jesus; but by another it might be taken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition; an idea which might favour the conception of the woman as a sinner.- Might favour, we say, not cause: for a cause; we must search elsewhere, | ||||