John 12:7-8

“ Jesus therefore said to him: Let her alone; she has kept it for the day of my burial. 8. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. ”

We translate according to the reading of the T. R. which alone seems to us admissible. The imperative ἄφες is absolute: “ Let her alone (in peace); cease to disturb her by thy observations.” The reason is given afterwards. With the Alexandrian variant, ἄφες has for its object the following clause, either in the sense given by the Vulgate, Meyer, Baumlein, etc. “Let her keep this (αὐτό, the remainder of the ointment of which she had poured out only a part) to embalm me on the day of my death,” or in that given by Bengel, Lange, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil: “Allow her to have reserved this ointment for this day, which, by the act which she has done with respect to me, becomes, as it were, that of an anticipated burial.” This last sense is grammatically inadmissible. The expression ἀφιέναι ἵνα, to allow, necessarily refers to the future, not to the past. With that meaning, why not say quite simply: ἄφες αὐτὴν τετηρηκέναι ? How are we to understand that Weiss justifies so forced an explanation by asserting that there was no other way of expressing this idea? The meaning given by Meyer is still more impossible. By what right can we suppose that only a part of the ointment had been poured out; that there was a remainder, and that it is this remainder which is designated by αὐτό ?

Moreover, when thus understood, the words of Jesus no longer form an answer to the objection of Judas. The latter had not disputed Mary's right to keep the whole or a part of this ointment for the purpose of using it in the future on a more suitable occasion; quite the contrary; that which he charged against her was that she had wasted and not kept it. We must acknowledge therefore with Lucke and Hengstenberg, that, however this reading is interpreted, it offers no tolerable meaning. It is an unhappy correction from the hands of critics who thought that the embalming of a man did not take place before his death. The received reading, on the contrary, offers a simple and delicate sense. Jesus ascribes to the act of Mary precisely that which was wanting to the view of Judas, a purpose, a practical utility. “It is not for nothing, as thou chargest her, that she has poured out this ointment. She has to-day anticipated my embalming;” comp. Mark 14:8: “She has been beforehand in embalming my body for my burial;” in other terms: She has made this day the day of my funeral rites of which thou wilt soon give the signal. ᾿Ενταφιασμός : the embalming and, in general, the preparations for burial. The word τετήρηκεν, she has kept, is full of delicacy. It is as if there had been here on Mary's part a contrived plan and one in harmony with the utilitarianism on which the reproach of Judas rested.

Can John 12:8, which is wanting in D, have been introduced here by the copyists from the text of the two Synoptics, and can this manuscript alone be right as against all the other documents? It is more probable that it is one of those faulty omissions which are so frequent in D. The sense is: “If the poor are really the object of your solicitude, there will always be opportunity to exercise your liberality towards them; but my person will soon be taken away from the assiduous care of your love.” The first clause seems to contain an allusion to Deuteronomy 15:11. The present ἔχετε, you have, in the first clause, is owing to the πάντοτε, always, and the following present is introduced by the first.

Beyschlag correctly observes respecting this passage: “It is asserted that the fourth evangelist likes to depreciate the Twelve; but why then does he, and he alone, place all to the account of Judas?” It is further said: He has a special hatred to Judas. This is to affirm beyond question the authenticity of the Gospel; for what writer of the second century could have cherished a personal hatred against Judas? Let us also remark that the slight modifications which John introduces into the Synoptic narrative are perfectly insignificant from the standpoint of the idea of the Logos. They can only be explained by the more distinct knowledge which he has of the fact and by the more thoroughly historical character of the whole representation. We see, finally, how false is the idea of dependence with relation to the narrative of Mark, which Weizsacker attributes to the fourth evangelist, by reason of the three hundred denarii which are common to the two accounts and the coincidences in expressions (Untersuch, p. 290). The superiority of the narrative of John shows its independence.