* This view is taken by Ephraem Syrus, Paulinus, Victor of Capua in his Diatessaron (see quotations in Faillon, i. 37, 146), Grotius, Strauss, and the rationalistic interpreters generally, and also by Hengstenberg.
+ See art. on ANOINTING, where reference is made to tian
monuments, as bearing witness to the practice of anointing the head of the guest at a feast, cf. also Ps 235 457.
οὖν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Ἄφες αὐτήν, ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ τηρήσῃ αὐ- τὸ. τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυ- τῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε.
καὶ τὼ πόδ᾽ ἀλείφῃ καὶ προσκύψασα φιλήσῃ), where the daughter is represented as washing, anointing, and kissing the feet of her father, when he comes home from his day’s work. Still this does not furnish a precedent for the hair being used to wipe the feet ; and it must be remembered, on the other side, that in proportion as we diminish the rarity of the act, we find it more difficult to account for the value set upon it by our Lord, and the importance ascribed to it by St. John.
We turn now to consider how it has been attempted to harmonize the different narratives by those who believe that only one event is recorded. The most elaborate attempt is that made by Hengstenberg,* who replies to (1) the first difficulty above stated, that Luke’s context is determined here, not by the order of events, but by the connexion of thought; since the contrast between the Pharisees and the publicans, in vy.”% , and the description of Christ as the Friend of publicans and sinners, in v.44, naturally lead on to the story of the sinful woman at the house of the Pharisee. This, we think, must be conceded. As to (2), if we are to identify Simon the Pharisee with Simon ‘the leper,’ we must understand the latter title to refer not to his present condition ; for in that case he could not himself have entertained guests, as he does in Luke. Some have thought that he may have been previously healed of his leprosy by Jesus. But this is not at all suggested by the words addressed to him in Luke, nor does it seem consistent with his ungracious behaviour. There is less force in the argument that the injurious title ‘leper’ would not have been re.
* Comm. on St. John, Eng. tr. pp. 1-33, 78-89.
MARY
tained in the case of one who had been cured of his leprosy.
Lastly, is it likely that so pronounced a Pharisee as the Simon of Luke would have entertained Jesus at so late a period in His career, when the Pharisees had already resolved upon His death ? or, on the other hand, that one who was so much impressed with the raising of Lazarus as to preside at a banquet given in honour of the occasion, should have shown so little respect for the prophet whom he professed to be honouring ?
The other incidents of the supper may be treated together. It is said that the discrepancies in the two accounts are due merely to the diflerent points of view taken by the narrators. The anointing gave rise to both conversations—that with Simon and that with the disciples. Luke seizes the point of her repentance, the other evangelists that of her lavish expenditure. But surely this is psychologically impossible.
Let us examine a little more closely the story in Luke. A notorious sinner, learning that Jesus is sitting at meat in the house of a certain Phari- see, makes up her mind to follow Him there. She enters the house, and immediately takes up her stand behind the Lord.* It is evident that some- thing must have happened to make her loathe the life she had been fying, and feel that her only hope of escaping from it was to take refuge wit Him whose words, spoken to the scornful Pharisees, may have been brought to her ears: ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repent- ance.’ As she stands behind Him she wipes away with her hair the penitential tears which fall fast upon His feet. Then, as the agony of shame is
adually conquered by the sense of the Saviour’s orgiving love, she kneels and kisses His feet and anoints them with the ointment she had brought with her. She has no thought, no eye, for any- thing but Him. For a while no notice is taken, but at last words of comfort come, addressed first to another, ‘ Her sins, her many sins are forgiven, for she loved much’; and then directly to herself, ‘Thy faith hath saved thee. Goin peace.’ How and it be possible for her after this to have stayed on and listened to the reproaches of Judas eal the others, or how could they have ventured to find fault where their Lord had already given His blessing? Turn now to the other side of the story, if we are to piece it out from what we read of Mary. Is it possible that she who had long ago made the good choice, who was now living quietly with her brother and sister, all three noted as especially dear to Christ ; she whose house had been chosen by Him for His temporary home before the end came, and who had lately been brought into such intimate contact with Him when He raised her brother from the dead,—is it possible that she should be spoken of as a notorious sinner, who was forcing herself into His company? No! If we want to make one consistent story out of the four narratives, our only course is to suppose with Strauss that the underlying fact has been much falsified by tradition, especially in the case of Luke, who has, he thinks, mixed up with it the story of the woman taken in adultery.