Before examining other explanations, we will just mention the attempts which have been made to get over two minor difficulties: (1) the dis- crepancy as to the anointing of feet or head ; (2) the nature of the locality where the sinful woman lived. As to (1), some have compared Ps
* The reading of the best MSS, ἀφ᾽ ὃς εἰσῆλθον, in Lk 74, seems to contradict the words ἐσιγνοῦσα ori χατάκεωται in v.37, which imply that it was the knowledge of His being seated at table which led her to seek the house herself. This is an argument in favour of the reading εἰσῆλθεν, which is witnessed to by
several of the most ancient versions. The reading εἰσῆλθον is perhaps a repetition from v.44,
MARY 28)
133?, where the precious ointment is said to have run from Aaron’s head down to the skirts of his clothing ; but (even if the correct tr is ‘collar’ instead of ‘skirts’), this could only happen in the case of one who was standing and not reclining at table. Others have assumed two anointings, first of the head and then of the feet, the former of which they think may have been omitted by John as being generally known. This does not seem probable. The writer’s own view of the matter is given below. As to (2), the ἁμαρτωλός is said to have been ‘in the city’ (7é\e, Lk 737), but Bethany is described as a κώμη (Lk 10%, Jn 114). To this it is replied that there is no reason why Bethany should not be regarded as a suburb of Jerusalem.
We will now examine the view which has been most generally held in the Latin Church, viz. that Luke describes a different scene from that in the other Gospels, but that the woman is the same. This gets rid of some difficulties, but is open to the objections stated above, as to multiplying what appears to be a unique occurrence. According toit, we are to suppose that the sister of Martha had at one time lived a vicious life, but had been con- science-stricken by some word of the Saviour, and, hearing that He was in Simon’s house, had felt her- self constrained to seek Him there, and received from His lips the word of forgiveness and blessing. If we allow an interval of two years, it is, of course, not such a flagrant impossibility for the sinner to have changed into the saint; and the quiet weep- ing of the one is not unlike the quiet sitting of the other at the feet of Jesus. Some have thought, too, that the remarkable reticence as regards the family at Bethany, which characterizes the Synoptic Gospels, might be explained by the wish not to eall attention to a history which would bring dis- credit on the early life of a leading member of the Church. But if this danger of scandal still existed when the Gospels were written, how much more strongly must it have been felt some 30 years before, when the memory of the past was still fresh, and the Jews were on the watch for any- thing which might raise a prejudice against the prophet whom they sought to kill. Is it possible that they could have crowded to Bethany to express their sympathy and esteem for one who had so lately done such dishonour to the name of Israel ? The difficulty as to the recurrence of the name Simon is perhaps fairly met by calling to mind its frequency at the time: we find no fewer than 9 different Simons in the NT. This led to its often having some distinctive appellation attached, e.g. Simon ‘Zelotes,’ Simon ‘ Peter,’ and here Simon ‘the Leper.’
The third view is that most generally entertained among Protestant divines, viz. that there were two anointings—one of the feet by the penitent sinner of Galilee, the other of the head and feet by a totally different person, the saintly Mary of Bethany. It has been objected to this that the way in which the latter is described in Jn 113 ‘ Mary was she who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair,’ must refer to some previous occurrence; but the object of the evan- gelist is simply to introduce Mary to his readers by referring to an action which was in itself famous, though it had not been connected with her name in the earlier Gospels, Just in the same way Judas Iscariot is distinguished, in the earliest list of the apostles, by the addition ‘which also betrayed him.’ There remains the serious objection already stated : Could John have used these words to describe Mary, if he knew that they were equally true of another woman? Could our Lord
| have promised world-wide fame to her action, if the same thing had been already done by another in much more trying circumstances?
MARY
lt appears to the present writer that the easiest way in which we can escape these difficulties is by supposing that the story told by St. Luke cannot, in its original form, have contained any reference to anointing. In that case the final words of v.* kal ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ and the whole of v.“ must be regarded as later developments. It is easy to understand their being added under the idea that the words recorded by Matthew and Mark, ‘ where- soever this gospel is preached in the whole world, there shall also this that she hath done be told for a memorial of her,’ required that the act of anoint- ing should appear in each separate Gospel. If we do not feel ourselves at liberty to make such a supposition, we must find some other means of accounting for the high commendation bestowed on Mary. It cannot have been simply for anoint- ing, but for anointing with the precious spikenard in the prospect of the Lord’s death. In any case it seems probable that the anointing with the common ointment, of which Luke speaks, was something of an afterthought. It is hardly likely that one in such extreme agitation of mind would have planned such an action beforehand. How could she know that she might not be forestalled by Simon? It will be noticed, too, that the anointing follows, not, as in John, precedes the wiping of the feet with her hair. If the details are correctly given, we may conjecture that she happened to be carrying a flask of myrrh, and, finding that the Lord’s feet had been unwashed and left unanointed, had been seized by a sudden impulse to anoint them.