sister Martha, it is indisputably clear in my opinion that he refers to this present account of St. Luke-which speaks of a certain xúμn, or village-of two sisters, Martha and Mary, as belonging to it-and of something, affecting the personal history of them both, which transpired in it. Out of the Gospel of St. Luke, if we except what follows from the xi. to the xii. of St. John, no such persons, nor any such allusions to their history, are to be met with; nor, in the Gospel of St. Luke itself, in any passage but the present. And as St. John expected to make Lazarus better known, by referring his readers to the village of Martha and Mary, whose brother he was, so he expected to make Mary better known, by referring them to the performance of a memorable act, mentioned indeed by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not ascribed to any one by name, the unction of our Lord at Bethany; which unction he tells them was the act of Mary, the sister of this Lazarus, who was sick in which statement, I think it must be admitted, he refers as plainly to St. Matthew or to St. Mark, as in the former instance he referred to St. Luke. This part, then, of the Gospel of St. John, compared with St. Luke's, places it beyond a question that the Martha and the Mary of St. Luke were the two sisters of Lazarus -which otherwise could not have been inferred for certain. But it proves also that as Lazarus was not a native of Bethany, so neither was either of them; and, therefore, that the village, to which they all belonged, might still be some village in Galilee-and certainly was none of Judæa, near to Jerusalem. The history of the unction, too, which he afterwards records, compared in like manner with the account of St. Matthew, or St. Mark, enables us to resolve the remaining problem-if the family of Lazarus were not natives of Bethany, how any part, or all, of it, came to be living there. The supper, which was made for our Saviour, on the night of his arrival at Bethany, took place in the house of Martha-as may be inferred for the following reasons. I. Because it was manifestly intended out of gratitude for the recent miracle in behalf of Lazarus. II. Because Lazarus, her brother, was one of the guests. III. Because Martha herself ministered or waited-which she never could, or never would, have done, in any house but her own and Theophylact reasons upon this fact accordingly. Διὰ δὲ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἡ Μάρθα διηκόνει, ἐσήμανεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐ Th≤ n éσTlaσis 8. IV. Because Mary, the sister of Martha, anointed our Lord, on the same occasion, as he sat at meat. This act being judged of in reference to the usages of the time could properly have been the act of no one, except either the owner of the house, or one, who stood in some near relation to the owner: for it was designed on purpose to do honour to their guest, and it was as striking (though by no means an unusual mode) as any which could have been employed. And this circumstance alone (if there were no other reason to the same effect) would be sufficient to discriminate the present unction of Mary's in St. John, from the former unction recorded by St. Lukeh-that Mary's unction was entirely an expression of personal compliment, and for the sake of the patient-St. Luke's, an expression of penitence, and for the sake of the agent: Mary's had no object except to do honour to our Saviour, and to declare the two sisters' respect for their guest, or their gratitude to the preserver of their brother-St. Luke's was an earnest of the woman's contrition, a declaration that she believed our Saviour could forgive her sins, and only a more humble mode of entreating that he would. The entertainment, then, according to St. John, was doubtless given in the house of Martha. But, according to St. Matthew and St. Mark, it was given in the house of Simon, surnamed the Leper. If both these representations are true, it was given in the house of both-and, consequently, either what Theophylact asserts was the tradition in his time-Τὸν δὲ Σίμωνα τοῦτον τὸν Λεπρὸν φασί τινες καὶ παι τέρα εἶναι τοῦ Λαζάρου k_that Simon was the father of Lazarus, and, therefore, of Martha, becomes true of the relation g Comm. in Joh. xii. 733. h vii. 37-end. Mark xiv. 3. * In Matt. xxvi. 158. i Matt. xxvi. 6. between them, or, what is much more probable, Simon was the husband of Martha, and either of them might be called indifferently the owner of the house. As he is called the Leper, we must needs suppose that he had once been such; though we cannot suppose he was so still. Hence it is probable that our Saviour had cured him of his leprosy; and if he was the husband of Martha, that would be a sufficient foundation for the faith of himself, and of his family, in Christ; a faith, prior to the time of the subsequent miracle, and, therefore, not produced, however much it might be strengthened, by it. Now Simon himself, it is possible, might be a native of Bethany, and yet, notwithstanding, married to a native of Galilee; and, consequently, to one who might have possessions in Galilee. And if Martha, who seems to have been the oldest of the family of Lazarus, was married to a native of Bethany, it is nothing extraordinary that her sister and brother, both of them younger than herself, and all three united together, by the closest and tenderest ties of attachment, should be permanently resident there also with her, yet so as occasionally to visit Galilee. It was a maxim of Jewish law, Maritus non habet ullam possessionem in bonis uxoris suæ, nec uxor in bonis mariti; it was another maxim, Filii, filiæque, jus idem est in hæreditate. The first born received a double portion-the rest, of either sex, shared alike. This maxim, therefore, proves that Martha might have property of her own, though she had a brother, a sister, and a husband, all alive at the same time: the former proves in like manner that our Lord might as properly be said to be entertained in her house in Galilee, as in Simon's at Bethany. When Jesus quitted Jerusalem, to retire to Ephraim, the family of Lazarus might have left its vicinity also; for, after his resurrection, the safety of Lazarus would have been as much endangered by a personal continuance in Bethany, as our Lord's. And this conjecture, I think, is so far confirmed by the course of the subsequent history that, from John xii. 9-11. we may safely conclude Lazarus had not been in the neighbourhood, any more than Jesus, since the time of that miracle, until they both reappeared there, six days before the last Passover. It is possible that, when our Lord retired to Ephraim, the two sisters at least removed to Galilee; and knowing that Jesus was shortly to make his final circuit of that country, preparatory to visiting Jerusalem, might purposely have awaited his arri val in their native village; and, after entertaining him there, have accompanied him upon the rest of his journey. These, therefore, may be intended among others, as persons who had recently come up with him from Galileem; and who, even in that country, had followed after, and ministered unto, him. I cannot do better, then, than to conclude this Dissertation with some general observations. I. Though Lazarus also had accompanied his sisters into Galilee, there would still be no reason to suppose his name would be mentioned by St. Luke, in the account of an incident which had nothing at all to do with him. What, therefore, Epiphanius n asserts, ̓Αλλὰ καὶ ἐν παραδόσεσιν εὖρομεν ὅτι τριάκοντα ἐτῶν ἦν τότε ὁ Λάζαρος, ὅτε ἐγήγερται, μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἀναστῆναι αὐτὸν, ἄλλα τριάκοντα ἔτη ἔζησε—may be true or may be false, or partly the one and partly the otherbut it cannot, in the slightest degree, apply to the case in point. The silence of St. Luke about Lazarus here would have been a natural consequence, even though he had related his resurrection elsewhere. II. I have assumed that our Lord was now on his last progress; journeying from place to place, and, consequently, stopping only for the purpose of necessary refreshment, or of the discharge of the duties of his ministry, or of both. The circumstances of this little history prove all these things -his entering into a certain village, as he was on the road somewhither—his being entertained and his teaching both, m Mark xv. 41. Luke xxiii. 49. 55. n Adv. Hær. i. 652. in a certain house-and, therefore, they are all in perfect consistency with the supposition of a circuit already begun, and still going on; but not yet complete, much less concluded by its arrival at Jerusalem. III. Among the circumstances of peculiarity, which characterize the unction at Bethany, two only would require any particular illustration-one, the supposed value of the unguent in proportion to its quantity, the other, the peculiarity of the denomination, which is given to it. The quantity of the unguent was an alabaster box, or vase, full, estimated at a pound in weight; the propriety of which estimation is explained by the following passage from Epiphanius ° : ̓Αλάβαστρον μύρου βικίον μέν ἐστιν ὑέλινον, χωροῦν λίτραν ἐλαίου· τὸ δὲ μέτρον ἐστὶ ξέστου τὸ ἥμισυ· ἀλάβαστρον δὲ κέκληται διὰ τὸ εὔθρυπτον. Βoxes of this material were especially appropriated for the reception of unguents *. Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris, odores in oleoHunc aliqui lapidem alabastriten vocant, quem cavant ad vasa unguentaria; quoniam optime servare incorrupta dicitur P. Αλάβαστρον, ἄγγος μύρου, μὴ ἔχον λαβὰς, λίθινον 9. Ἔπειτ ̓ ἀλάβαστος εὐθέως ἥξει μύρου. Athenæi Deipnos. vi. 94. Οὐ γὰρ ἐμυρίζετ ̓ ἐξ ἀλαβάστου, πρᾶγμά τι Ibid. xv. 44. Tradite, nudantes rejecta veste papillas, :: Catulli Coma Berenices. 81. * In shape, the alabaster vase was round, and tapering from the bottom to the top whence Pliny, (ix. 35.) Alabastrorum figura, in pleniorem orbem desinentes. Sometimes the receptacles of unguents were conchs, or shells, if they happened to be naturally strung with pearls. Cohærentes videmus (sc. margaritas) in conchis, hac dote unguenta circumferentibus. Ibid. |