Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (862 page)

Here it has been thought possible to reconcile the difference between Mark and Luke in relation to the time of the purchase of the spices, by drawing over one of the two narrators to the side of the other. It appeared the most easy to accommodate Mark to Luke by the supposition of an
enallage temporum;
his verb

* Vol. II. § 80.

† Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.
h
g
o
r
a
s
a
n
, they bought,
used in connexion with the day after the sabbath, being taken as the pluperfect, and understood to imply, in accordance with the statement of Luke, that the women had the spices in readiness from the evening of the burial.
^*
But against this reconciliation it has already been remarked with triumphant indignation by the Fragmentist, that the aorist, standing between a determination of time and the statement of an object, cannot possibly signify anything else than what happened at that time in relation to that object, and thus the words
h
g
o
r
a
s
a
n
a
r
w
m
a
t
a
, they bought sweet spices,
placed between
d
i
a
g
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
u
t
o
u
s
a
b
b
a
t
o
u
The sabbath being past,
and
i
n
a
e
l
q
o
u
s
a
i
a
l
e
i
y
w
s
i
n
a
u
t
o
n
, that they might come and anoint him,
can only signify a purchase made after the sabbath had elapsed.
^†
Hence Michaelis, who undertook to vindicate the histories of the burial and resurrection from the charge of contradiction urged by the Fragmentist, betook himself to the opposite measure, and sought to conform Luke to Mark. When Luke writes:
u
p
o
s
t
r
e
y
a
s
a
i
d
e
h
t
o
i
m
a
s
a
n
a
r
w
m
a
t
a
k
a
i
m
u
r
a
, and they returned, and bought sweet spices and ointments,
he does not, we are told, mean that they had made this purchase immediately after their return, and consequently on the evening of the burial: on the contrary, by the addition
k
a
i
t
o
m
e
n
s
a
b
b
a
t
o
v
h
s
u
c
a
s
a
n
k
a
t
a
t
h
n
e
n
t
o
l
h
n
, and rested the sabbath day, according to the commandment,
he himself gives us to understand that it did not happen until the sabbath was past, since between their return from the grave and the commencement of the sabbath at six in the evening, there was no time left for the purchase.
^‡
But when Luke places his
h
t
o
i
m
a
s
a
n
(they prepared)
between
u
p
o
s
t
r
e
y
a
s
a
i
(being returned)
and
h
s
u
c
a
s
a
n
(they rested),
this can as little signify something occurring after the rest of the sabbath, as in Mark the similarly placed word
h
g
o
r
a
s
a
n
can signify something which had happened before the sabbath. Hence more recent theologians have perceived that each of these two Evangelists must be allowed to retain the direct sense of his words; nevertheless they have believed it possible to free both the one and the other from the appearance of error by the supposition that the spices prepared before the sabbath were not sufficient, and that the women, agreeably to Mark’s statement, really bought an additional stock after the sabbath.
^§
But there must have been an enormous requirement of spices if first the hundred pounds weight contributed by Nicodemus had not sufficed, and on this account the women on the evening before the sabbath had laid ready more spices, and then these too were found insufficient, so that they had to buy yet more on the morning after the sabbath.

Thus however, in consistency, it is necessary to solve the second

* Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.

† See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’s viertem Beitrag zur Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences also Lessing’s Duplik.

‡ Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.

§ Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721
.
contradiction which exists between the two intermediate Evangelists unitedly and the fourth, namely, that according to the latter Jesus was embalmed with a hundred weight of ointment before being laid in the grave, while according to the former the embalming was deferred until after the sabbath. But as far as the quantity was concerned, the hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes were more than enough: that which was wanting, and had to be supplied after the sabbath, could only relate to the manner,
i.e.
that the spices had not yet been applied to the body in the right way — because the process had been interrupted by the arrival of the sabbath.
^*
But, if we listen to John, the interment of Jesus on the evening of his death was performed
k
a
q
w
V
e
q
o
V
e
s
t
i
t
o
i
V
I
o
u
d
a
i
o
i
V
e
n
t
a
f
i
a
z
e
i
n
, as the manner of the Jews is to bury,
i.e.
rite,
in due form, the corpse being wound in the
linen clothes
o
q
o
n
i
a
with the spices
m
e
t
a
t
w
n
a
r
w
m
a
t
w
n
(v. 40), which constituted the whole of Jewish embalming, so that according to John nothing was wanting in relation to the manner ;
^†
not to mention that if the women, as Mark and Luke state, bought fresh spices and placed them in readiness, the embalming of Nicodemus must have been defective as to quantity also. Thus in the burial of Jesus as narrated by John nothing objective was wanting: nevertheless, it has been maintained that subjectively, as regarded the women, it had not been performed, i.e. they were ignorant that Jesus had already been embalmed by Nicodemus and Joseph.
^‡
One is astonished that such a position can be advanced, since the synoptists expressly state that the women were present at the interment of Jesus, and beheld, not merely the place (
p
o
u
t
i
q
e
t
a
i
,
Mark), but also the manner in which he was interred (
w
V
e
t
e
q
h
, Luke).

There is a third divergency relative to this point between Matthew and the rest of the Evangelists, in so far as the former mentions no embalming either before or after the sabbath. This divergency, as it consists merely in the silence of one narrator, has been hitherto little regarded, and even the Fragmentist admits that the wrapping of the body in a clean linen cloth, mentioned by Matthew, involves also the Jewish method of embalming. But in this instance there might easily be drawn an argument
ex silentio.
When we read in the narrative of the anointing at Bethany the declaration of Jesus, that the woman by this deed had anointed his body for burial (Matt. xxvi. 12 parall.): this has indeed its significance in all the narratives, but a peculiarly striking one in Matthew, according to whose subsequent narrative no anointing took place at the burial of Jesus,
^§
and this fact appears to be the only sufficient explanation of the special importance which the Evangelical tradition attached to the action of the woman. if he who was revered as the Messiah did not, under the pressure of unfavourable circumstances, receive at