Discussion recommenced with the rise of the Reformation in the treatise of Faber Stapulensis de Maria Magdalena, which was somewhat feebly answered by Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and condemned by the Sorbonne in 1521, on the ground that Faber departed ‘ab universali Ecclesiw ritu
* See the translation in vol. of Ante-Nicene Library pub. 1897, and Hemphill’s Diatessaron, 1888, also Lightfoot on Super- natural Kelijion, Essay ix., and articles on Tatian and Victor of Capua in Dict. Christian Biography.
t This version by Victor is wrongly described by Faillon and Migne (Patrologia, vol. 64) as the Diatessaron of Ammonius.
$ But John speaks of νάρδος wierixy, and the word μύρον seems to be used generally of any sort of ointment.
§ On this identification see No. v. below.
MARY 283
unicam Magdalenam in suo officio asserentis,’ and that he deprived the Church of her chief type of the penitent sinner; also that there would be no certain truth, if each, at his own caprice, might reject accepted tradition. Later Roman Catholics, however, have not been unanimous: Estius, Tille- mont, and others denying the identity, while Maldonatus,* Lamy,t and the Bollandists} have argued with reason and moderation in its favour. Indeed, the reaction against the old view prevailed more in France than in England, going so far that, in a whole series of dioceses with Paris at their head, new editions of the Breviary were issued in the 17th cent. without those portions of the office of St. Mary Magdalene which referred to Lk 7 and to the sister of Lazarus.§ Dupin, Mabillon, Bossuet, and Fleury are mentioned as favouring the newer view.
Meanwhile the Menology of the Greek Church assigns three distinct days for celebrating the memory of the sister of Martha, the Magdalene, and the ἁρεαρτωλός. And Theophylact, writing in the 11th cent., says in his comment on Mt 26 that some hold that there were three, others that there were two only, who anointed the Lord; that Simon the leper was father of Lazarus, and that he is the man who showed the disciples a room ready furnished for the last supper. In his commentary on Mk 14 and Lk 7 he declares himself in favour of the view that there were three anointings—one by the rep» of Lk, one by the sister of Lazarus six days before the passover, one in the house of Simon the leper two days before the passover.
It has been already stated that the view most commonly entertained in the Reformed Churches has been that the sinner of Lk is distinct from the sister of Lazarus, and both distinct from the Magdalene. The two former are, however, confused by Grotius and by many of the recent German theologians, as Schleiermacher, Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Keim, as well as by the orthodox Hengstenberg. In the Anglican Church the medisval view was followed by Bishop Andrews, who speaks of ‘Mary Magdalene anointing Christ three several times one after the other,’ and being permitted to see two angels, one at the head the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain, because she had herself anointed His head and anointed His feet; by Donne, who identifies the sister of Lazarus with the Magdalene (Sermons, 25 and 80); by Jer. Taylor (iii. 248, Heb.), ‘Mary Magdalene having been reproved by Judas for spending ointment upon Jesus’ feet, it being so unaccustomed and large profusion, thought now to speak her love once more and trouble nobody, and therefore she poured ointment on His sacred head’; and in late years by Dr. Pusey. ||
Having thus examined the general question of the anointings of Jesus, it remains for us to con- sider more particularly the motive ascribed by our Lord Himself for the anointing by the sister of Lazarus. This is given with slight variations: in Mt 26” ‘In that she poured this ointment on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial’ (πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με), Mk 14° ‘She hath done what she could: she hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying’ (προέλαβεν μυρίσαι τὸ σῶμά μου els τὸν ἐνταφιασμόν) ; Jn 127 ‘Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying,’ or (marg.) ‘ Let her alone : it was that she might keep it’ (ἄφες αὐτὴν Ἵ ἵνα els τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό ; several MSS, including A, read τετήρηκεν, omitting ἵνα). The meaning of the word ἐνταφιασμός is explained in Jn 19*- 40. where we are told that Nicodemus brought ‘a mixture of myrrh and aloes about 100 pound weight, and wound the body in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury’ (ἐνταφιάζειν). The general sense seems to be piven most ΟΡ in Mark’s words. ‘She hath
one what she could’ is an answer to the assertion
that she ought to have spent her money other-
wise, viz. in distributing to the poor. We are to understand, apparently, that this was not the work for which she was fitted: she probably did not possess the practical business habits which would enable her to decide as to the best way of helping the poor. But wisdom is justified of all her children. What she had, what the grace of
* Comment. in Evang. Matt. 2€.
t ‘De unica Maria’ in Harmon, Evang. p. 636 ff.
$ Acta Sanctorum, July 22.