תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Mark xiv. 3. having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very Bethany. precious 7;

37

replied to the principal objections which have been proposed
by Lightfoot, Whiston, Whitby, Macknight, and others. Arch-
bishop Newcome has reviewed these arguments in a long note
on the subject.

Bishop Marsh is not satisfied with these arguments of Mi-
chaelis. He observes that Matt. xxvi. 2. and Mark xiv. 1. bring
their narrative down to the third day, and that the assembly of
the Chief Priests was certainly held three days before the Pas-
sover, when Judas betrayed Christ; but it does not therefore
follow, as Bishop Marsh supposes, that the Unction was on the
same day. St. Matthew connects the two events, in order to
point out the cause and the effect, without distinguishing the
precise time. St. Mark follows St. Matthew's plan, and for the

same reason.

The first day of unleavened bread is mentioned in its order, after the parenthetical narration of the causes of the betraying, and has no reference to the Unction. Bishop Marsh justly objects to Archbishop Newcome's order, but proposes the opinion, that the Unction took place on the Wednesday before the Passover. This learned theologian, however, does not rest this opinion upon the arguments generally made use of, but upon a supposed corruption of the original text of St. John. As the testimony, however, of all existing MSS. is against this opinion, Bishop Marsh conjectures that the corruption in question was made at so very early a period, that no manuscript extant has the original reading. It is at all times painful to be compelled to differ from an authority so eminent as Bishop Marsh; but it is impossible to approve of any emendation of the text of the New Testament, which increases instead of lessening difficulties; and is unsupported by the authority of one quotation, version, or MS. extant. The Scriptures must be treated with greater veneration.

Bishop Marsh, in his note (No. 9.) to this section of Michaelis, also endeavours to prove that the day on which Christ was betrayed was the day of the Unction. His arguments do not appear satisfactory. The question principally rests upon the precise meaning of the word TóTE, which Michaelis would render very soon after," and his annotator" immediately after."

66

The authority of Mr. Dick, in his Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, confirms me yet further in the conviction that the Unction at Bethany took place six days before the Passover. See Dick's Essay, p. 300, 301.

(a) Marsh's Michaelis, voi. iii. part i. p. 23. (b) Lightfoot has endeavoured to prove the same thing.

37 It is not exactly known of what this (vapdos wisiη) consisted which was poured upon the head of our Lord. The words occur but twice, Mark xiv. 3. There came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious, λ yvn ἔχουσα ἀλάβαςρον μύρε, νάρδε πιςικῆς πολυτελούς· and John xii. 3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, &c. ἡ ἐν Μαρία, λαβοῦσα λίτραν μύρου νάρδο πισικῆς που λυτίμε. Schleusner derives the word πιτικῆ from πίνω bibo ; and supposes that the ointment could be poured out as a liquid. He quotes, among other authorities, the same passage from Eschylus (a) as Heinsius does, to confirm his opinion. Others derive the word from risic, and suppose that it merely significs

Mat. xxvi.7. of very precious ointment,

John xii. 3. a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly,

Mark xiv.3. and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

Mat.xxvi.7. as he sate at meat.

John xii. 3. and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

[blocks in formation]

Mark xiv. 4. there were some that had indignation within themselves,
and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5. For it might have been sold for more than three hun-
dred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they
murmured against her.

Mat. xxvi.8. To what purpose is this waste?

John xii. 4.

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

that the ointment was pure and unadulterated. With this opi-
nion Heinsius agrees, and defends the interpretation from the
Hellenistic interpretation of a verse in Isaiah xxxiii. 16. Et TS
εἰς νόσον πέσοι ἐκ ἦν ἀλέξημ ̓ οὐδὲν, εδὲ βρώσιμον ἐ χρισὸν, ἐδὲ
Tisoy (b). Others rejecting both these opinions, suppose that the
word is not Greek, but Latin, and that vάpdog TSK is the same
as nardus spicata hoc est ex spicus expressa, from w premo,
unde πιετή, by metathesis πιτική, as φελόνη for Penula. Sea-
liger reads the word Tsin, from Trioow contundo. Nonnus
keeps the word, as it is in St. John, and gives no explanation.
Lightfoot supposes the word to be derived from the Syriac
NP, and interprets the whole phrase to signify an aromatic
confection of nard, maste, or myrobalane. Hartung (c) is of
opinion that the ointment in question was brought from Opis, a
town near Babylon, whence spices and unguents were exported,
and that the true reading, therefore, ought to be bisins.
Lampe (d) and Cloppenburg, however, reject this interpreta-
tion, for the best of all reasons when the language of the New
Testament is under consideration, because the word is not to
be found in any manuscript or version extant; and the latter
derives the word from the name of Pista, a Persian city, men-
lioned by Eschylus, Τάδε μὲν περσῶν τῶν οἰχομένων ἑλλάδ ̓ ἐς
àiav Пisà кaλeirai, Persæ, line 1, 2. on which the Scholiast ob-
serves, ἀγνοῦσι δ' ὅτι πόλις ἐτι Περσῶν ἔσωθεν Πιτεῖρα καλουμένη,
ἣν συνκόψας ὁ ποιητὴς Πιτὰ ἔφη—the only objection to this opi-
nion is that nard does not grow in Persia. It might, however,
be imported from India, and manufactured there for the use of
the merchants. Abulfeda is quoted both by Lampe and Pfeiffer,
to prove that Pista was the metropolis of Caramania, a large
and flourishing city on the river Indus.

Pfeiffer, after reviewing these various opinions, comes to the
same conclusion as Luther and Kuinoel (Com. in Hist. lib. N.
T. in Mark xiv. 3.) that it signifies unadulterated, or pure, and
is derived from risic. He quotes Casaubon's observation, that
To signifies that which can be depended upon, or which
deserves confidence. Eusebius (demons. Evang. lib. viii.) calls
the wine of the Eucharist, κράμα πιτικὸν τῆς καινής διαθήκης.

(a) Heinsii exercitationes Sacræ, p 218. (b) Prom. vinct. Glasgow edit. imputed to Porson, line 478. (c) Apud Pfeiffer exoticorum N. T. locus xxii. at the end of the dubia vexata, p. 916. (d) Vide Lampe on John xii. 3. vol. ii, p. 825, note.

Bethany.

John xii. 5.

6.

Mark xiv.6.

7.

8.

Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, Bethany. and given to the poor?

This he said, not that he cared for the poor: but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could

John xii. 7. Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

Mt. xxvi.12.

9.

For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

Mark xiv. 8. she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

John xii. 9.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus.

MATT. XXVI. ver. 6. part of ver. 7, 8. and ver. 9, 10, 11. 13.

6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster boxand poured it on his head

8 they had indignation, saying,

9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 1 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

JOHN Xii. part of ver. 7. and ver. 8.

7 Then said Jesus

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

[blocks in formation]

Mat. xxi. 1. when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come

Near Jeru

Lu. xix. 29. when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the salem. mount called the Mount of Olives,

John xii. 12. much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

13.

Took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosannah, blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Mat. xxi. 1. then sent Jesus

Mark xi. 1. forth two of his disciples,

2.

And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you and as soon as ye be entered into it, Mat. xxi. 2. straightway ye shall find an ass tied,

Lu. xix. 30. and a colt tied

Mat. xxi. 2. with her,

Lu.xix. 30. whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

Mat. xxi. 2. unto me.

3. And if any man say ought unto you,

Lu. xix. 31.

Mark xi. 3.

Mat. xxi. 4.

Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Be-
cause the Lord hath need of him.

and straightway he will send him hither.

All this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

John xii. 14. as it is written,

15.

Fear not, daughter of Sion 38:

38 This prediction of Zechariah, four hundred years before the event, announced to the people of Israel, that the king of Jerusalem, contrary to the universal custom of his own, and of every other nation, should enter into his royal city, without any outward pomp and splendour-that he should ride upon the humblest of animals-Himself the meekest and lowliest of men, yet the Saviour of his people, and, as such, be received by them with the loudest rejoicings and acclamatious. We are assured, by the Prophet Malachi also, that the Messiah should certainly visit the second temple at Jerusalem. Let me now, then, appeal to the Jew who receives the Old Testament, and entreat him to search the records of the history of his fathers, and there find if any Prophet, Priest, or King, or Ruler of Israel, before the destruction of the second temple, ever entered into Jerusalem, as Jesus of Nazareth is here represented to have done; and which of all these rulers of Israel united so many of their ancient prophecies in his own person. Of all the long train of Persian, Grecian, Roman, or Jewish rulers, to whom can we apply the prophecy of Zechariah, and assert that he rode into Jerusalem humble, royal, and a Saviour, visiting and appearing in their temple. Ezra was in their city when the prophecy was delivered (a). The successor of the Persian conqueror was reposing in his palace. Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, attended by the captains and cavalry of the king of Persia, (Nehem. ii. 9.) When he arose privately in the night, he was accompanied by few only of his train, and though he rode, it was not in the manner described by the prophet (b); and of this his second entrance nothing is recorded (c).

Did the governors of Syria, under the Persian sovereigns of

Mat. xxi. 5.

salem.

Tell ye the daughter of Sion, behold, thy King cometh Near Jeruunto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass.

Judea, visit Jerusalem in such lowly state? Was theprophecy
fulfilled in Bagoses, when he espoused the cause of the usurper of
the high priesthood, and imposed a fine upon the priests for every
offering that was brought to the temple? Did any Persian em-
peror ever enter Jerusalem; or can it be supposed that the
prophet alluded to any officer who bore an inferior title (d)? If
it be imagined that Zechariah predicted the conquest of the
Grecian conqueror, when he met the high priest Jaddua, and
venerated, amidst the astonishment of his attendants, the name
of Jehovah, glittering on his tiara (e)-Alexander was at the
head of his army, neither meek, nor poor, nor humble (ƒ).
Do the pages of history unfold any similar event, which oc-
curred in the lives of either of the Ptolemies? whether of Lagus,
who entered the city on the sabbath, as an enemy and a con-
queror, and took away many thousands of the people as his
prisoners? or of Philadelphus, who reversed the decree, and
restored them to their own country? or of Ptolemy Philopator,
who marked the wretched Jews with the ivy-leaf, in honour of
Bacchus, and sacrilegiously attempted to enter the sanctuary?
can we trace a similitude between these men and the King of
Israel, at whose coming the daughter of Zion was invited to
rejoice greatly?

Let us turn our attention to another dynasty, and search
among them also for this meek and humble Saviour, and King
of Israel. Did Antiochus the great protect the people? It is
true that they welcomed, with acclamations, his army and their
elephants, but where do we read that this king entered Je-
rusalem on a colt, the foal of an ass? Did Seleucus Philo-
pator fulfil the prediction, when he sent Heliodorus to plunder
the temple: or was his brother, the cruel oppressor, the savage
murderer, and the foulest idolater, of all the enemies of Israel,
more meek and humble, when he profaned the temple, and
slaughtered the people on the sabbath? If we look to the
history of the Maccabean family, we may still proceed in vain
to find one among them whose characteristics, as a leader of
Israel, correspond with this prediction of the prophet. Mat-
tathias excited the people to resistance in defence of their re-
ligion. Judas entered Jerusalem in triumph, purified the
temple, and dedicated it again to the worship of Jehovah; as a
religious and devout man, he perhaps might be called meek and
humble, but where is it recorded that he entered into Jerusa-
lem sitting upon a colt, the foal of an ass? Shall we apply the
prediction to the idolatrous Bacchides, who captured the holy
city, and murdered the zealous Maccabee? or to any of the
sons of the Asmonæan family, the pious Simon-his warlike son
-the weak and profligate Aristobulus, who first assumed the
diadem, and surnamed himself the king of the Jews; or of his
fierce and cruel brother Alexander Jannæus? If it is possible
not to turn in disgust from the unnatural contests of this
man's sons, we might enquire if either of these were the meek
and holy King of Irael, before or after the Romans entered
Jerusalem on the sabbath, and assisted the royal Jew to slaugh-
ter his countrymen on that holy day? Pompey, who spared the
gold of the temple, and Crassus who followed him, and de-
spoiled it: Gabinius, and Cæsar, and Antipater, with all the
mingled tribe of Parthian, Roman, and Jewish contenders,
who next crowd the scene, may be considered as alike falling

« הקודםהמשך »