Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (773 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.4Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
i
AN occasion on which Jesus was anointed by a woman as lie sat at meat, is mentioned by all the evangelists (Matt. xxvl. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ft.; Luke vii. 36 ff.; John xii. 1 ff.), but witli some divergencies, the most important of wliich lie between Luke and the other three.
First, as to tlie chronology; Luke places tlie incident in tlie earlier period of tlie life of Jesus, before his departure from Galileo, while the other three assign it to tlie last week of his life ; secondly, as to tlie character of tlie woman who anoints Jesus : she is, according to Luke, a voman wJw ‘icas a sinner, yvvfi afzap-UAo^ ; according to tlie two other synoptists, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John, who is more precise, Mary of Betliany. From tlie second point of difference it follows, tliat in Luke tlie objection of the spectators turns on tlie admission of so infamous a person, in tlie other gospels, on tlie wastefulness of tlie woman; from botli, it follows, tliat Jesus in his defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman, as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in tlie latter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant presence of tlie poor.
There are yet tlie minor differences, that tlie place in wliich the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by tlie two first and the fourth evangelists called Betliany (wliich according to John xi. 1, was a nwfiT] town), by Luke a 7-6/uc (city), without any more precise designation; further, tliat the objection, according to tlie three former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the entertainer. Hence tlie majority of commentators distinguish two anointings, of which one is narrated by Luke, the other by tlie three remaining evangelists.*
First, as to tlie chronology; Luke places tlie incident in tlie earlier period of tlie life of Jesus, before his departure from Galileo, while the other three assign it to tlie last week of his life ; secondly, as to tlie character of tlie woman who anoints Jesus : she is, according to Luke, a voman wJw ‘icas a sinner, yvvfi afzap-UAo^ ; according to tlie two other synoptists, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John, who is more precise, Mary of Betliany. From tlie second point of difference it follows, tliat in Luke tlie objection of the spectators turns on tlie admission of so infamous a person, in tlie other gospels, on tlie wastefulness of tlie woman; from botli, it follows, tliat Jesus in his defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman, as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in tlie latter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant presence of tlie poor.
There are yet tlie minor differences, that tlie place in wliich the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by tlie two first and the fourth evangelists called Betliany (wliich according to John xi. 1, was a nwfiT] town), by Luke a 7-6/uc (city), without any more precise designation; further, tliat the objection, according to tlie three former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the entertainer. Hence tlie majority of commentators distinguish two anointings, of which one is narrated by Luke, the other by tlie three remaining evangelists.*
But it must be asked, if tlie reconciliation of Luke with tlie other three evangelists is despaired of, whether the agreement of the latter amongst themselves is so decided, and whether we must not rather proceed, from the distinction of two anointings, to tlie distinction of
* Tims Paulus, expg. Hanclb. 1. B. S. 766 ; L. 3. 1, a, S. 293 ; Tholuck, Lucke, Olshausen. in loc.; Hase, L. J. §. ‘JG. Anin.
440 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
three, or even four ? To four certainly it will scarcely extend ; for Mark does not depart from Matthew, except in a few tonclies of his well-known dramatic manner; but between these two evangelists on the one side, and John on tlie other, there are differences which may fairly be compared with those between Luke and the rest. The first difference relates to tlie house in which tlie entertainment is said to have been given; according to the. two first evangelists, it was the house of Simon tlie leper, a person elsewhere unnoticed; tlie fourth does not, it is true, expressly name the liost, but since lie mentions Martha as tlie person wlio waited on tlie guests, and lier brother Lazarus as one of those who sat at meat, there is no doubt that he intended to indicate tlie house of the latter as the locality of tlie repast.* Neither is the time of the occurrence precisely tlie same, for according to Matthew and Mark tlie scene takes place after tlie solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, only two days at the utmost before the passovcr; according to John, on the other hand, before tlie entrance, as early as six days prior to tlie passover.f I’urther, the individual whom John states to be tliat Mary of Bctliany so intimately united to Jesus, is only known to the two first evangelists a a woman, yvvtj ,-f- neither do they represent her as being.
like Mary, in tlie house, and one of tlie host’s family, but as coming, one knows not whence, to Jesus, wliile lie reclined at, table. Moreover tlie act of anointing is in tlie fourth gospel another than in tlie two first. In tlie latter, the woman pours her ointment of spikenard on the liead of Jesus; in John, on tlie contrary, slie anoints his feet, and dries them with her haii-4 a difference which gives tlie whole scene a new character. Lastly, tlie two synoptists are not aware tliat it was Judas wlio gave utterance to tlie censure against tlie woman ; Mattliew attributing it to tlie disciples, Mark, to tlie spectators generally. §
Thus between tlie narrative of John, and that of Matthew and Mark, there is scarcely less difference than between the account of tliese tliree collectively, and that of Luke: whoever supposes two distinct occurrences in tlie one case, must, to be consistent, do so in tlie other; and thus, witli Origen hold, at least conditionally, tliat there were three separate anointings.
So soon, however, as this consequence is more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how improbable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three times, eacli time at a feast, cadi time by a woman, that woman being always a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in eacli instance, have liad to defend tlie act of tlie woman against the censures of the spectators ‘.^ Above all, how is it to be conceived tliat after Jesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, liad so de
So soon, however, as this consequence is more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how improbable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three times, eacli time at a feast, cadi time by a woman, that woman being always a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in eacli instance, have liad to defend tlie act of tlie woman against the censures of the spectators ‘.^ Above all, how is it to be conceived tliat after Jesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, liad so de
* Tins diifcn’nce struck Origen, who has given a critical comparison of these four narratives, to which, in point of acumen, there is no parallel in more modern commentaries. See Ills in Muttlt. Coiaiiientarlor. series, Opp. ed. de la Kue, 3, S. 892 ft.
^ Origenes, lit sup.
I Ib.
§ Ib.
|| Ib.
§ Ib.
|| Ib.
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
cidedly given his sanction to the honour rendered to him, the disciples, or one of them, should have persisted in censurino- it ?*
These considerations oblige us to think of reductions, and it is the most natural to commence with tlie narratives of tlie two first synoptlsts and of John, for tliese agree not only in tlie place, Bethany, but also, generally, in tlie time of tlie event, the last week of the life of Jesus; above all, tlie censure and tlie reply are nearly the same on both sides. In connexion witli tliese similarities the differences lose their importance, partly from tlie improbability that an incident of tills kind should be repeated ; partly from the probability, tliat in tlie traditional propagation of the anecdote sucli divergencies should have insinuated themselves. But if in tills case the identity of tlie occurrences be admitted, in consideration of tlie similarities, and in spite of tlie dissimilarities; then, on tlie other hand, tlie divergencies peculiar to tlie narrative of Luke, can no longer hinder us from pronouncing it to be identical with tliat of tlie tliree other evangelists, provided tliat there appear to be only a few important points of resemblance between tlie two. And such really exist, for Luke now strikingly accords with Matthew and Mark, in opposition to John; now, witli tlie latter, in opposition to the former.Luke gives tlie entertainer the same name as the two first synoptists, namely, Simon, tlie only difference being, tliat the former calls him a p/iarisee, wliile the latter style him the leper.
Again, Luke agrees with tlie other synoptists in opposition to John, in representing tlie woman wlio anoints Jesus as a nameless individual, not belonging to tlie house; and further, in making lier appear witli a box of ointment, dM^aa-pov p.vpov, while Jolm speaks only of abound of ointment, Ai-pa iwpov, without specifying tlie vessel. On tlie other hand, Luke coincides in a remarkable manner witli John, and differs from tlie two other evangelists, as to tlie mode of tlie anointing.
Wliile, namely, according to the latter, the ointment is poured on tlie licad of Jesus, according to Luke, tlie woman, who zcas a sinner, as, according to John, Mary, anoints tlie feet of Jesus; and even tlie striking particular, tliat slie dried them with her hair,t is given by botli in nearly tlie same words; excepting tliat in Luke, where tlie woman is described as a sinner, it is added •that slie bathed tlie feet of Jesus with her tears, and kissed them.
Wliile, namely, according to the latter, the ointment is poured on tlie licad of Jesus, according to Luke, tlie woman, who zcas a sinner, as, according to John, Mary, anoints tlie feet of Jesus; and even tlie striking particular, tliat slie dried them with her hair,t is given by botli in nearly tlie same words; excepting tliat in Luke, where tlie woman is described as a sinner, it is added •that slie bathed tlie feet of Jesus with her tears, and kissed them.
Thus, witliout doubt, we have here but one history under tliree various forms; and this seems to liave been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.
In this state of tlie case, tlie effort is to escape as cheaply as possible, and to save tlie divergencies of tlie several evangelists at least from tlie appearance of contradiction. First, witli regard to ‘the differences between the two first evangelists and the last, it lias been attempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition,
* Orig-i-nca and Sfhicirrniaclier. Winer, N. T. Grannn S. 1+0.
-f- Luke vii. ;S>S : rorr 7ru(5rtc a’i’Tov-Tal^ John xii. ;i: e^i^in^s ra^ ^pi^v avTy^ Tftitf
Sni~, -,:r i;fA I’/.T.rnSTLr f’-linni-FtTOtiaC 01-01’.
442 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
that the meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days before Easter; but tliat Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, lias no contradictory date; tliat rather lie lias no date at all; for though lie inserts the narrative of the meal and tlie anointing after tlic declaration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, GTI. pe-a 6vo fjpEpac; TO vda\a yiverai, this does not prove tliat lie intended to place it later as to time, for it is probable tliat he gave it this position simply because lie wished to note here, before coming to tlic betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which tlie traitor first embraced his black resolve, namely, tlic repast at wliicli lie was incensed by Mary’s prodigality, and embittered by tlie rebuke of Jesus.*
But in opposition to tills, modern criticism lias shown that, on the one hand, in tlie mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could lie nothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, tlie two first gospels do not name Judas as tlie party who censured tlie anointing, but tlie disciples or tlie bystanders generally: whereas, if they liad noted tills scene purely because it was the motive for tlie treachery of Judas, tlicy must have especially pointed out tlie manifestation of his feeling, f There remains, consequently, a chronological contradiction in flits instance between the two first synoptists and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits.^
It lias been attempted in a variety of ways to evade tlie farther difference as to tlie person of tlie host. As Matthew and Mark speak only of tlie house of Simon the leper, olida ^ifiuvog TOV ^e-pov some have distinguished tlie owner of tlie house, Simon, from tlic giver of the entertainment, wlio doubtless was Lazarus, and liave supposed tliat hence, in botli cases witliout error, tlie fourth evangelist mentions the latter, tlic two first synoptists tlie former. § But wlio would distinguish an entertainment by tlie name of tlie householder, if he were not in any way tlie giver of the entertainment ? Again, since John docs not expressly call Lazarus tlie host, but merely one of the avvavaiieifiKvuv {those sitting at the table), and since tlie inference that lie was the liost is drawn solely from tlie circumstance tliat his sister Martha served di^om; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha, either separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and have supposed tliat Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister :|] an hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile witli tlie narratives tlian the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information.
We come next to tlie divergency relative to the mode of anointing ; according to the two first evangelists, tlie ointment was poured on the licad of Jesus ; according to the fourth, on his feet. Tlie old, trivial mode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that botli the liead and the feet were anointed, lias recently been expanded into tlie conjecture tliat Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet
* Kuinul, Coinm. in Malth. p. G87. + Sieftert, tiber den Urspr. 8. 123 f. f K^I.
Comm. 2, S. 1:7.§ Yiil. Kuinul, ut sup. p. USS ; also Tholuck, S. 228.|| Paulua,
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
of Jesus (John), but that as slie accidentally broke tlie vessel (avvTpt’l/’aoa, Mark), tlie ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.).*
This attempt at reconciliation falls into tlic comic, for as we cannot imagine how a woman wlio was preparing to anoint tlie feet of Jesus could bring the vessel of ointment over Ins liead, we must suppose that tlie ointment spirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So tliat here also tlic contradiction remains, and not only between Matthew and John, where it is admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between tlie latter evangelist and Mark.
Other books
By Sun and Candlelight by Susan Sizemore
A Body in Berkeley Square by Ashley Gardner
Breakdown by Jack L. Pyke
Devil's Wind by Patricia Wentworth
MAGPIE by Reyes, M.A.
Falcon by Helen Macdonald
Tracked by Trouble (Bad Boys Need Love, Too #3) by Calinda B
Juego de damas by Mamen Sánchez
Lestat el vampiro by Anne Rice
The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer by Jennifer Lynch