ristian writers is, as a rule, uncritical. Difficulties are not felt. They are much more anxious to extract a useful moral from their text by means of some forced allegory, than to ascertain the precise meaning of the words as they were understood by the speaker and hearers, or to get a clear conception of the actual facts referred to. Hence they are often careless of distinctions, and, like children, apt to mistake resemblance for identity. It is only when there is some special call for the attention of the writer, as when he is engaged on a commentary or a harmony of the Gospels, that we can attach much weight to any critical judgment. This is seen in the references to the present question. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the woman who was still a sinner bri the alabaster box of ointment, which she thought the best of her possessions, to anoint the feet of the Lord, and then wiping away with her hair the superfluous ointment, whilst she pou’ on His feet the libation of her tears. These things, he says,
* Mt 2117, Mk 111-0, Lk 2137,
t There is no reason to suppose that the date given in Mk 141 extends to the following verses. The phrase xa) ὄντος αὐτοῦ of the third verse is well explained by Dr. Abbott as meaning, ‘And here let me state something which happened while Jesus was still in Bethany, which should be mentioned here to pre- pare the reader for the betrayal which follows.’ So in Mk 1488 xai ὄντος means, ‘And here let me say that Peter had been some time ago in the court exposed to temptation, acd this must be mentioned here, because now comes his fall’
MARY
symbolize both the preaching of the 1 and the passion of the Lord (Ped. i. 61, p. 205). Te: ian more distinctly identifies the two anointings in the words, ‘ Peccatrici feminw etiam corporis sui contactum permittit, lavanti lacrimis pedes ejus et crinibus detergenti et sugpenio sepulturam ipsius inauguranti’ (Pudic, x, On the other hand, Tatian, towards the end of the 2nd cent., in his Diatessaron,* which was for many years the only form of the Gos known in Mesopotamia, separates the story in Lk from that in the other evangelists, and shows that he distinguishes the sinner from Mary by pace the visit to Martha and Mary before the anointing.
ictor of Capua, who published a Latin revised version of the Diatessaron some 800 years later, mixed up Luke’s anointing with that which took place at Bethany, to suit the view which had then become popular in the Western Church.t Origen is the first distinctly to grapple with the ditliculties of the question. In his commentary on Mt (§ Τ7), after stating the points of agreement in the four accounts, he proceeds to argue against the prevailing view that the actor was in every case the same, on the ground that according to Matthew and Mark it was the head of Jesus which was anointed with = ointment, while, according to the other evangelists,}
is feet were anointed with myrrh(!); (2) that it is incredible that M: the sister of Martha, who chose the better part and was beloved by Jesus, could be spoken of as a sinner; © that the sinner in Luke does not venture to approach the
ead of Jesus, but waters His feet with penitential Lears, whereas there are no tears and no sinner in John. He then goes on to say that some will perhaps argue that the actor in each re ae is different ; but he thinks it enough to distinguish three different actors ; and he adds further reasons for holding that the nameless woman in the first two Gospels is not the same as the sister of Martha, the supper being at a different time and a different place. He meets the objection that the disciples could not have repeated their complaint of the waste of so much valuable ointment, by making a distinction between the honest indignation of the others and the veiled covetousness of Judas; and concludes with an allegorical interpretation of the three anointings. Elsewhere he seems to accept the view that there were only two anointings (cf. Hom. in Ca 112 ‘scio Lucam de peccatrice, Mattheum vero et Johannem et Marcum non de peccatrice illa dixisse . . . cujus nomen quoque Johannes inseruit,’ also on Ca 13 ‘si quid peccatrix habuit, ad pedes referendum est; si quid ea que non erat peccatrix, ad caput’). Chrysostom also makes only two anointings, but, strangely enough, he holds that one of these is narrated only by John, the other by the three Synoptists. Accordingly, he considers that the indignation of the disciples and the com- forting words of the Lord have reference to the πόρνν; γυνή of Luke, who is encouraged to come to Jesus by the thought that he did not disdain to eat in the house of a leper (Comm. in Matt. 80). In his 62nd homily on John he says that the sister of Martha is not ἡ πόρνη ἡ ἐν τῷ Ματθαίω οὐδὴ ἡ iv τῷ Aouxe « ἐκεῖναι μὲν γὰρ πόρναι... πολλῶν γέμουσαι κακῶν: αὕτη δὲ καὶ σιμνὴ καὶ σπουδαία. Ambrose (Exp. in Lue. 6) is inclined to think that one woman only was concerned in the anointing, but in the end leaves it an open question: ‘potest non em esse, ne sibi contrarium evangelistw dixisse videantur: potest etiam questio meriti temporis diversitate dissolvi, ut adhuc illa peccatrix sit, jam ista perfectior.’ So Augustine, speaking of the anointing in Matthew (de Cons. Evang. 2. 154), says, ‘Lucas quamvis simile factum commemoret, nomenque conveniat ejus apud quem convivabatur dominus . . . tamen potius credibile est alium fuisse illum Simonem, non leprosum in cujus domo hoc in Bethania gerebatur. Nam nec Lucas in Bethania rem gestam dicit. . . . Nihil itaque aliud intellegendum arbitror nisi non quidem aliam fuisse mulierem qu peccatrix tune accessit ad pedes Jesu et osculata est et lavit lacrimis .. . sed eandem Mariam bis hoc fecisse’ (so too 'ract. in Joh. 49). Jerome, on the other hand, distinguishes between the two women (Comm. in Matt. 262), ‘Nemo putet eandem esse qua super caput effudit unguentum et qu® super pedes. Ila enim et lacrimis lavat et crinibus tergit et manifesto meretrix appellatur. De hac autem nihil tale scriptum est.’ Gregory the Great finally decided the question for the Latin Church by identifying the peccatriz first with the sister of Martha, and then with the Magdalene § (Hom. 33 in Evang.), *hanc, quam Lucas peccatricem, Johannes Mariam nominat, illam esse Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem demonia ejecta fuisse testatur. Et quid per septem demonia nisi universa vitia designantur?’ Hom. 8, ‘venit Maria Magdalene post multas maculas culpe ad pedes Redemptoris nostri,’ ib. 25. This was the ay accepted opinion in the West from the beginning of the 7th to the 16th cent. as testified to by the office in the Breviary for July 22.