[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.So Mark.See on Mark 14:3.Very precious (poluti>mou).Literally, of much value.Matthew hasbaruti>mou, of weighty value.Anointed.See on 11:2.Feet.The Synoptists mention only the pouring on the head.4.Simon s son.Omit.5.Three hundred pence (triakosi>wn dhnari>wn).Or three hundreddenarii.On the denarius, see on Matthew 20:2.Mark says more thanthree hundred pence.Three hundred denarii would be about fifty dollars,or twice that amount if we reckon according to the purchasing power.The poor (ptwcoi~v).See on Matthew 5:3.No article: to poor people.6.And had the bag, and bare what was put therein (kaiw, to tend.The word was also used for a coffin.Josephus applies1033it to the coffer in which the golden mice and emerods were preserved (1Samuel 6:11).In the Septuagint, of the chest which Joash had provided forreceiving contributions for the repairing of the Lord s house (2 Chronicles24:8).Rev.gives box, in margin.Bare (ejba>stazen).Carried away or purloined.This meaning is ratherimparted by the context than residing in the verb itself, i.e., according toNew Testament usage (see on 10:21).Unquestionably it has this meaningin later Greek, frequently in Josephus.39 Render, therefore, as Rev., tookaway.The rendering of the A.V.is tautological.7.Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this(a]fev aujth>n eijv thran tou~ ejntafiasmou~).This passagepresents great difficulty.According to the reading just given, the meaningis that Mary had kept the ointment, perhaps out of the store provided forLazarus burial, against the day of Christ s preparation for the tomb.Theword ejntafiasmou~is wrongly rendered burial.It means the preparationfor burial, the laying out, or embalmment.It is explained by 19:40, as thebinding in linen cloths with spices,  as the manner of the Jews isejntafia>zein to prepare for burial, not to bury.It is the Latin pollingere,to wash and prepare a corpse for the funeral pile.Hence the name of theservant to whom this duty was committed was pollinctor.He was a slaveof the libitinarius, or furnishing undertaker.Mary, then, has kept theointment in order to embalm Jesus with it on this day, as though He werealready dead.This is the sense of the Synoptists.Matthew (26:12) says,she did it with reference to my preparation for burial.Mark, sheanticipated to anoint.The reading of the Received Text is, however, disputed.The best textualcritics agree that the perfect, teth>rhken, she hath kept, was substitutedfor the original reading thrh>sh|, the aorist, she may keep, or may have kept,by some one who was trying to bring the text into harmony with Mark14:8; not understanding how she could keep for His burial that which shepoured out now.Some, however, urge the exact contrary, namely, that theperfect is the original reading, and that the aorist is a correction by criticswho were occupied with the notion that no man is embalmed before hisdeath, or who failed to see how the ointment could have been kept already,1034as it might naturally be supposed to have been just purchased.(So Godetand Field.)According to the corrected reading, i[na, in order that, is inserted aftera]fev aujthrhken, hath kept, is changedto thrh>sh|, may keep, and the whole is rendered, suffer her to keep itagainst the day of my burying.So Rev.But it is difficult to see why Christ should desire to have kept for Hisembalmment what had already been poured out upon Him.Some, asMeyer, assume that only a part of the ointment was poured out, and referaujto>, it, to the part remaining. Let her alone, that she may not give awayto the poor this ointment, of which she has just used a portion for theanointing of my feet, but preserve it for the day of my embalmming.Canon Westcott inclines to this view of the use of only a part.But theinference from the synoptic narratives can be only that the whole contentsof the flask were used, and the mention of the pound by John, and thecharge of waste are to the same effect.There is nothing whatever towarrant a contrary supposition.Others explain, suffer her to have kept it, or suffer that she may have keptit.So Westcott, who says:  The idiom by which a speaker throws himselfinto the past, and regards what is done as still a purpose, is common to alllanguages.Others, again, retain the meaning let her alone, and render i[na, in orderthat, with an ellipsis, thus:  Let her alone: (she hath not sold her treasure)in order that she might keep it, etc.The old rendering, as A.V., is the simplest, and gives a perfectly intelligibleand consistent sense.If, however, this must be rejected, it seems, on thewhole, best to adopt the marginal reading of the Rev., with the ellipticali[na: let her alone: it was that she might keep it.This preserves theprohibitory force of a]fev aujth>n, which is implied in Matthew 26:10, andis unquestionable in Mark 14:6.Compare Matthew 15:14; 19:14; 27:49.401035Note that the promise of the future repute of this act (Matthew 26:13;Mark 14:9) is omitted by the only Evangelist who records Mary s name inconnection with it.9.Much people (o]clov polua occurs only here in theNew Testament, and means palm branches, or, strictly, tops of the palmswhere the fruit is produced [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]