In Lk 234-58 we are told generally that the women which came from Galilee stood afar off at the crucifixion and followed Joseph to the tomb to see how the body was laid, and prepared spices and ointments, which they brought at early dawn on the first day. Entering into the tomb they saw two men in dazzling apparel, who asked them why they sought the living among the dead. ‘ Re- member the words he spake unto you in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be crucified, and the third day rise from the dead. And they remembered his words, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.’ From 241) we learn that Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James were among the number of these women.
John (1935) tells us that there were standing by the cross, His mother and His mother’s sister (identified with Salome, see article on BRETHREN OF THE LorD), Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Comparing this with Mk 15%, we naturally conclude that Mary of Clopas must be the same as Mary of James. All we know of Clopas is derived from Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. HZ iii. 11), who tells us that he was brother of the reputed father of our Lord, and that Symeon the second bishop of Jerusalem was his son. Whether ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ means wife or (as Jerome suggests) daughter of Clopas is uncertain. Lightfoot (cited in the above-named article) holds that there is no ground for identifying the name Clopas with Alpheus, and that the Peshitta version and Jerome may be right in regarding it as another form of Cleopas. If Mary was daughter of Clopas, she may have been wife of Alpheus, and her son James may be the Jerome,
apostle known as the son of Alpheus. however, maintains that Mary of Cleophas, the aunt of the Lord, is a different person from the mother of James (see Ep. ad Hedibiam cited by
Lightfoot, Gal. p. 260). John of Thessalonica and other Fathers (quoted by Faillon, i. p. 150) strangely identify the mother of James with the mother of the Lord, thinking that her presence at the crucifixion could not have been passed over without mention by the Synoptists.
iv. MARY, SISTER OF MARTHA.—It is only in the last two Gospels that her name oceurs. Luke (10 55:2). after narrating the return of the Seventy, says vaguely that, ‘as they went on their way, Jesus entered into a certain village: and a certain woman, named Martha, received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.’ When Martha complained that she was left to serve alone, Jesus answered that, whereas she was anxious and troubled about many things, her sister had chosen the good part, which should not be taken from her. In Jn 11 we find the two sisters living with their brother Lazarus in a village named Bethany ; and all three are said to have been beloved by the Lord. Jesus, on His last journey to Jerusalem, receives tidings of the sickness of Lazarus, and, when He reaches Bethany, finds that he had been dead four days. The behaviour of the sisters is such as we might expect from Luke’s narrative. Martha goes out to meet Him; but Mary sits still in the house, till she receives a message that the Master called for her. Then rising quickly, she came where He was, and fell down at this feet. Both meet Him, however, with the same words of sorrowful reproach: ‘If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.’ It would seem that, though Martha was apparently the elder sister, Mary was for some reason held in greater con-
sideration. In ν.}9 we are told that many of the Jews had come to comfort Martha and Mary ; but, while nothing is said of their accompanying Martha, we read in v.*! that the Jews, who were in the house with Mary, when they saw that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, think- ing that she was going to the grave to weep there ; and in v.* it is said that many of the Jews that came to Mary believed on Jesus.
In the chapter which follows we have the story of the anointing of the feet of Jesus. Each evangelist tells us of an anointing of the Lord by a woman, whilst He was reclining as a guest at a hospitable entertainment; and there has been much discussion as to how often He was anointed, and (supposing Him to have been anointed more than once) whether the anointing was by one and the same woman. Speaking generally, it will be seen from the con- spectus given on next page that Matthew and Mark are in agreement, and that Luke’s account differs widely from theirs, whilst John’s is inde- pendent of either, yet presenting points of contact, now with the one, now with the other. We will consider these differences in order.
(1) As to time and place: if we may judge from the context, the anointing described by Luke took place in Galilee while the Baptist was in prison ; that described by the other evangelists took place in Bethany shortly before the crucifixion. (2) As to the host: Luke names Simon the Pharisee, the other Synoptists Simon the leper, while John is indefinite, merely stating that after the raising of Lazarus ‘ they made him a feast, at which Lazarus sat at meat, and Martha served.’ (3) As to the action: whilst the first two Gospels speak of the head being anointed with precious ointment, Luke says that the feet of Christ were first wet with the tears of the woman standing behind Him, and then wiped with her hair and anointed; John says nothing of her tears, but agrees in the statement that it was the feet which she anointed and wiped with her hair. (4) As to who or what the woman was, the first two Gospels tell us nothing beyond the fact of her pouring the ointment on the head of Jesus; Luke says that she was a sinner in the city, and that Jesus said of her, ‘her sins which are many are forgiven, for she loved much’; John tells us that she was the beloved and honoured sister of Martha and Lazarus. (5) As to the criticism sii upon the action: Mark speaks vaguely of some who were indignant at the waste of money, saying to themselves, ‘this ointment iene have been sold for more than 300 denarii and given to the poor’; Matthew puts this censure in the mouth of the disciples; John ascribes it to Judas, who bore the bag; while Luke reports quite a different criticism made by a different person, Simon the Pharisee, who becomes suspicious of Christ’s pretensions as a prophet, on the ground that He had failed to read the character of the woman who touched Him. (6) As to our Lord’s justification of the woman : this, of course, is differ- ent in the two cases, since it has to meet two distinct charges. The Pharisee is answered by the