What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Review of Easter Enigma by John Wenham

I've been recently enjoying reading (partially re-reading) Easter Enigma by the late Anglican New Testament scholar John Wenham (1913-1996).

Easter Enigma is Wenham's conjectural harmonization of the four gospels' Easter accounts, taking each at face value and trying to make a plausible picture that fits them all together. In some cases Wenham even "handicaps" himself--for example, by treating the long ending of Mark as authentic and requiring his version to explain it.

I cannot recommend this slim book too highly. Readable and enjoyable but at the same time erudite, beautifully written, and most of all intensely sensible, Wenham's book is the antithesis of the majority of what passes for (even fairly "conservative") New Testament scholarship. If you are at all interested in the topics in question, get hold of this book and have a ball with it.

This is not to say that I agree with all of Wenham's conjectures. In particular, I think he is flat wrong to combine the three characters of Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke's gospel. In fact, I think these are three completely different women. Sometimes, too, his desire to make things vivid causes him to go farther than necessary--for example, in his conjecture that the family of John Mark (later the evangelist) owned the Garden of Gethsemane as well as the building with the upper room and were followers of Jesus during Jesus' earthly ministry. He also treats John Mark as the young man wrapped in the sheet in the garden, and of course he is not alone in this suggestion. It would have been interesting to discuss this conjecture with Wenham, for it is somewhat disconfirmed by Papias's account of Mark the evangelist, which states that Mark had never heard Jesus himself. One of Wenham's signature virtues as a scholar is the seriousness with which he takes the patristic evidence concerning gospel authorship.

I myself would probably keep the women together a bit more than Wenham does on Easter morning, separating Mary Magdalene from the others but not requiring (as Wenham does) the others to come back to Peter and John first to announce the empty tomb before some of them head off to find the other disciples, seeing Jesus on this second leg of their news-bearing journey. However, I should note that Wenham's way of harmonizing by splitting the women up into several groups does have the interesting result (which he doesn't mention) of explaining the absence in Luke of any appearances to women, especially given his conjecture that Joanna may have been Luke's source for the experiences of the women. If Joanna was not with the specific group that saw Jesus, and if Luke did not speak with Mary Magdalene, he may not have learned before writing his gospel of Jesus' appearances to women.

Any such disagreements or differences of preferred harmonization pale into insignificance compared with the beauty of Wenham's approach. It is truly a joy to read a scholar who is not messing about with skeptical (and silly) redactive and source critical theories and whose goal is to see if the accounts, taken as reliable and accurate individually, can be fitted together with a bit of intelligent imagination, just as reasonable people would do in secular matters. This is the kind of thing that we should be trying to do in dealing with sources that have shown themselves reliable in other respects and that present themselves as historically true (as the gospel authors do).

A great thing about reading Wenham is that one gets the feeling that he would have been fun to talk to, even about matters where one disagrees.

For example, I would like to know why he is so sure that the spices used in Jesus' burial were dry spices, given the eye-popping weight recorded. (Wenham translates it as something on the order of seventy pounds!) Given the light weight and consequent great volume of dry spices, it's hard to imagine that Nicodemus would have bought such a huge weight of dry spices to incorporate into the burial sheet(s). Some kind of denser ointment or oil seems indicated.

The book is full of little gems of information that I had not previously known. These are not perhaps properly characterized as undesigned coincidences but are nonetheless relevant to the realism and interlocking of the accounts. For example, Wenham notes that Luke says (23:49) that Jesus' "acquaintances and the women who accompanied him from Galilee" were at the crucifixion, and that the Greek for "acquaintances" is masculine. So we have both men and women at the cross. However, Wenham points out that Luke, who uses the word "disciples" in plenty of other places, does not do so here but rather uses a different word that could mean friends and/or relatives. This is consistent with the fact that of all Jesus' inner circle of disciples, the twelve, it appears that only John was actually at the cross. Presumably the "male acquaintances" group included Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and perhaps (though no gospel says so) Clopas, who may well have been the husband of "the other Mary" mentioned in several of the gospels at the cross. This is plausibly the Cleopas who met Jesus later on the Emmaus road. (Wenham theorizes that Clopas may have been a relative of Jesus, though his overall argument does not depend on this theory.) By way of increasing the similarity of Wenham's Greek point to an undesigned coincidence, I note that Luke does not have the explicit statement "they all forsook him and fled" in the garden the night before (that is found in John), though the absence of most of the other disciples from the later scenes of the Passion is probably implied by Luke's mentioning only Peter as following to the house of the high priest.

(Wenham notes, "In mentioning male acquaintances Luke mitigates the otherwise unrelieved baseness of the men, as he does also by pointing out that Joseph was a good man, who had not consented to the decision of the Sanhedrin." p. 62)

Wenham has a charming discussion (p. 78) of ancient Greek narrations of time and the relative absence of the pluperfect in ancient Greek sources. That is, they had a pluperfect but, he says, often used the simple past instead. This fact is extremely important when it comes to document harmonization (of secular documents as well), and I note that drawing attention to this point could not be further from the statement one hears all too often that the ancients didn't care about time or would change the time at which something happened for some literary reason. Those theories actually depend on a truly anachronistic habit of taking order of relating events, even those all very close in time (e.g., the events of Easter morning) as strongly implying order of occurrence, which is often not the case, and then insisting that the author changed the order because, being one of those ancient folk, he didn't care about accuracy in chronology if he could teach a "higher truth" or make things more interesting by fictionalizing the chronology. It makes much more sense, both historically and in terms of theoretical simplicity, to take order of narration (again, especially of events that all occur at around the same time) to be at most a weak indication of the author's intended chronological order of occurrence, one that is easily defeasible by contrary evidence. Wenham uses this insight well when he suggests that Matthew's mention of the earthquake and the terror of the guards in Matthew 28:2-4 could well be conceived in the pluperfect and therefore as having occurred before the arrival of the women at the tomb: There had been a great earthquake. The angel had descended and rolled away the stone. The guards had become as dead men, etc.

I'll close this review with a lovely and valuable quotation about harmonization from one of Wenham's appendices:

Forced harmonizing is worthless. The tendency today, however, is the opposite--to force the New Testament writings into disharmony, in order to emphasize their individuality. The current analytical approach to the gospels often has the effect of making scholars more and more uncertain at more and more points, till eventually their view of Jesus and his teaching is lost in haze. The harmonistic approach, on the other hand, enables one to ponder long and conscientiously over every detail of the narrative and to see how one account illuminates and modifies another. Gradually (without fudging) people and events take shape and grow in solidity and the scenes come to life in one's mind. Such study is beautifully constructive and helps to vindicate the presuppositions on which it is based. It is sad and strange when immense learning leads to little knowledge of the person studied. One thing is certain: Jesus was a concrete, complex and fascinating figure of history, and any method of study which fails to reveal him as such is working on the wrong lines. (p. 128)

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Comments (28)

Now that looks like a book worth reading. Thanks for the suggestion.

I glanced at it in Amazon, and was favorably impressed.

In particular, I think he is flat wrong to combine the three characters of Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke's gospel.

I understand that there is a very long tradition (not capital T) to combine these. Not sure why, other than to avoid the mental hassle of keeping track of several women named Mary.

Which leads to a question: why were so many women at the time named Mary? Is there a known cultural cause? (Wenham actually discusses a related issue, later: why there are so many James and Judas guys running around.)

Not sure why, other than to avoid the mental hassle of keeping track of several women named Mary.

Wenham has an argument. I just don't think it's very good. He admits, even stresses, that his overall harmonization of the Easter accounts doesn't depend on it crucially. I think the issue was just a side hobby of his. Some of his arguments are

--The similarity of personality and the relationship to Jesus between Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene.
--The improbability of Mary of Bethany's being uninvolved in the passion and resurrection given the proximity of Bethany to Jerusalem and the fact that Jesus stayed at Bethany for several nights during Passion Week.
--The sudden and (Wenham argues) otherwise unexplained introduction of the women who followed Jesus at its specific moment in Luke 8, immediately following the anointing of Jesus by the sinner. Wenham explains this by the inclusion of Mary Magdalene in the list and by the idea that she began to travel with Jesus' followers at this time.
--The suitability of the town of Magdala for a woman's entering a life of prostitution.

And a few other things of this sort. I don't find it convincing, even as a cumulative case. Aside from all the other implausibilities (most of which Wenham attempts to answer), there is the sheer question of how a woman would have acquired *two* extremely costly boxes of ointment with which to anoint Jesus. Wenham (rightly, in my view) considers the anointing by the sinful woman in Luke 7 to be a different occasion from the anointing during Passion Week by Mary of Bethany recorded in several gospels (and attributed to Mary of Bethany by John). One can imagine two different women with two different costly boxes (possibly intended to be part of their dowries), and the second incident might even have been a "copycat" of the other, if the story of the first had been told abroad, but not (in my opinion) one woman with two such boxes.

Which leads to a question: why were so many women at the time named Mary? Is there a known cultural cause?

I don't know the reason, though others may have a better idea. It would have been a form of Miriam, the sister of Moses, but that doesn't really explain it. Why not Esther instead? (In some ways a more consistently good character than Miriam.) Or Ruth or even Sarah, the foremother of the whole Jewish people?

I will say that these things were often regional. The frequency of Mary would almost certainly have been different among Alexandrian Jews than among Palestinian Jews, and indeed the accuracy of name distribution in the gospels for that specific *region* as well as that time (confirmed by grave inscriptions, etc.) is one evidence of their earliness.

Lydia,
The improbability of Mary of Bethany's being uninvolved in the passion and resurrection given the proximity of Bethany to Jerusalem and the fact that Jesus stayed at Bethany for several nights during Passion Week.

Let me see if I understand your counterclaim. In the books of Matthew, Mark, and John a few days before Passover a woman anoints Jesus with a costly perfume to prepare him for his burial. Jesus then says, "I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." - identically phrased in both Mark and Matthew. Then for some inexplicable reason she is not present at the Crucifixion and she is not the first to see Jesus resurrected, even though it is clear she knew and accepted what the other disciples did not. How is it supposed to be the more probable interpretation of those events that Mary of Bethany disappears from the story immediately after her stature as the most devoted among the disciple is revealed?

Aside from all the other implausibilities (most of which Wenham attempts to answer), there is the sheer question of how a woman would have acquired *two* extremely costly boxes of ointment with which to anoint Jesus.

Mary of Bethany is presumably from a wealthy family. It is casually mentioned that Mary Magdalene has wealth but it isn't explained where she obtained it. The prostitute angle for Mary Magdalene has many of the qualities of an urban myth. The account in Luke has no type of connection to Passover (and is instead treated as a lesson on manners and forgiveness to the Pharisee host) and most likely involved a different woman entirely.

Let me see if I understand your counterclaim. In the books of Matthew, Mark, and John a few days before Passover a woman anoints Jesus with a costly perfume to prepare him for his burial...Then for some inexplicable reason she is not present at the Crucifixion and she is not the first to see Jesus resurrected, even though it is clear she knew and accepted what the other disciples did not.

[my emphasis]

There is no clear indication (so far as I know) that the Gospel writers meant that she herself explicitly intended for the anointing to be in preparation for Christ's burial. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that the woman was inspired to anoint his feet in honor and respect and love, but without an explicit sense of "for his impending death" - which then Jesus took the opportunity to develop further. (Consider, in reality what did the anointing actually ACCOMPLISH while he was still alive?)

Also, although Christ had told the apostles about his impending death and resurrection, it is far from clear how much further he shared that information. The Gospels regularly show Christ keeping some information limited to just the closest ones, sometimes just the apostles, and sometimes just Peter, James and John. Do we have clear evidence that many other disciples had received the information (whether they accepted it or not)? Even Jesus statement at Bethany with the woman there is not explicit that his death will be in a few days. He frequently says things in public that are guarded where he was more forthcoming with the apostles.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Christ intended and arranged that "the first to see Jesus resurrected" was to be the one who most fully believed in his resurrection.
Getting to see the resurrected Jesus wasn't a reward for belief, per se. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and Simeon didn't get to see it. Even the centurion didn't, and of him Jesus says "I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith."

Also, I don't believe there is any way to construct the accounts to indicate the Gospel writers showing Christ revealing himself to "the woman" unless she was one of the women who came to the tomb with spices - and the spices were to anoint him and this means they expected to find him dead.

The prostitute angle for Mary Magdalene has many of the qualities of an urban myth. The account in Luke has no type of connection to Passover (and is instead treated as a lesson on manners and forgiveness to the Pharisee host) and most likely involved a different woman entirely.

Well, Wenham doesn't think

a) that the account in Luke involves a completely different woman and

b) that the "prostitute" angle is an urban myth.

In Luke, the woman very probably *is* guilty of some sort of sexual sinner. I suppose she could be some other kind of "sinner," but the extreme disdain and her need for "much forgiveness" lean somewhat in the direction of some sort of sexual sin.

If one accepts that the woman in Luke 7 was a real person and had been involved in sexual sin (and there Wenham and I agree), and if one thinks she was Mary Magdalene (and there Wenham and I *disagree*), then that angle isn't an "urban myth" but simply a result of (probably erroneously) taking the "sinner" in Luke to be the same person as Mary Magdalene.

If one also (as Wenham does) takes her to be the same as Mary of Bethany in John 12, she'd have to have two different costly alabaster boxes of perfume. I myself am inclined to think that unlikely and hence to place pressure against the identification of all three people as the same one.

I agree with Tony that being the first to see Jesus wasn't particularly a reward for faith. Mary Magdalene is completely convinced that some unsympathetic person has taken Jesus' body away. She is too overwrought even to take in the fact that the angels are supposed to be bringing good news. Jesus comes to her and comforts her. It's a wonderful scene, one of the greatest in all of Scripture, but it arises not out of her faith but out of her grief and love and Jesus' loving response to them.

Speaking of book reviews, your book was reviewed in Christianity Today!

Tony,
There is no clear indication (so far as I know) that the Gospel writers meant that she herself explicitly intended for the anointing to be in preparation for Christ's burial. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that the woman was inspired to anoint his feet in honor and respect and love, but without an explicit sense of "for his impending death" - which then Jesus took the opportunity to develop further.

First, Mark and Matthew both place the anointing on the head of Jesus, where one would wear a crown contrasted to the more common foot washing for honored guests. Second, when Jesus does speak about her motivation there is no objection from Mary about his description as a preparation for burial. Third, if it was simply an act of honor and respect and love there would be no reason to memorialize her for eternity the way Jesus did. Memorializing her action as meaning one thing if that was not her actual motivation would not have been an "opportunity to develop further", it would have been false.

Also, although Christ had told the apostles about his impending death and resurrection, it is far from clear how much further he shared that information.

It is clear that the family of Lazarus was very important and close to Jesus. Martha is the first person in the Gospels to connect Messiah and Son of God together in reference to Jesus. The tears of Mary and those who were consoling her over the death of Lazarus deeply moved and troubled Jesus, apparently enough to cause him to weep as well.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Christ intended and arranged that "the first to see Jesus resurrected" was to be the one who most fully believed in his resurrection.

There could be a reason if Jesus (correctly) knew his male disciples would need some time and preparation in order to believe.

Getting to see the resurrected Jesus wasn't a reward for belief, per se. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and Simeon didn't get to see it.

The Harrowing of Hell disagrees with your interpretation.

Step2, if you think Mary Magdalene somehow knew ahead of time that Jesus was going to rise again, you have major problems with the story itself. What is so moving about the very scene where Jesus appears to Mary is that she *didn't* believe he had risen. She asks the "gardener" to tell her where he has taken the body. She is weeping because she is so sad that someone has taken away his body.

The Harrowing of Hell disagrees with your interpretation.

Good point, Step2. Still, they didn't see Jesus in the flesh resurrected, they saw him before the Resurrection.

Martha is the first person in the Gospels to connect Messiah and Son of God together in reference to Jesus.

It is not utterly clear when the raising of Lazarus from the dead occurred in comparison with Simon confession of Jesus as the Son of God, (and get's his name changed to Peter), but the internal evidence suggests Lazarus' raising was not long before the crucifixion. In any case, when Peter confesses, Jesus responds "For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven", whereas if it had been already declared by Martha, this statement would be odd, if not absurd.

Memorializing her action as meaning one thing if that was not her actual motivation would not have been an "opportunity to develop further", it would have been false.

Of course not. God often works through multiple layers of meaning in events, and with inspirations. If God inspired her to anoint Jesus out of love, that inspiration of love need not be specific for one purpose only and exclusive of any additional layers of meaning. Whatever specific purpose SHE had in mind, we don't know because she does not say. She does not contradict Jesus, (but then naturally she would not given his authority), but his words might have been as much revelation to her as to the rest. She might not have had a distinct awareness of the full purpose God had in mind, any more than the servants and head waiter at Cana knew clearly what Jesus had in mind when they were inspired to obey Mary's order "Do whatever he tells you", and when He told them to fill the jugs.

In any case, even if she was aware he was about to die, there had been no revelation that Jesus would be buried in a hurry, with no time for the usual burial preparation, such that the "preparation" (such as it is) must needs be done before death. Even if doing so would not have been considered utterly outrageous and even an insult.

Tony,
In any case, when Peter confesses, Jesus responds "For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven", whereas if it had been already declared by Martha, this statement would be odd, if not absurd.

I misread a claim which was limited to the Gospel of John. My sincerest apology.

She does not contradict Jesus, (but then naturally she would not given his authority), but his words might have been as much revelation to her as to the rest.

Or his words were in fact her true intent. I don't understand why that is so difficult to accept. I'm asking you to trust that Jesus knew and accurately stated Mary's intent.

In any case, even if she was aware he was about to die, there had been no revelation that Jesus would be buried in a hurry, with no time for the usual burial preparation, such that the "preparation" (such as it is) must needs be done before death.

There was no such revelation known to the writers of the gospels.

Even if doing so would not have been considered utterly outrageous and even an insult.

Well, the male disciples were outraged, although for the wrong reason. Jesus considered it praiseworthy in perpetuity.

Or his words were in fact her true intent. I don't understand why that is so difficult to accept. I'm asking you to trust that Jesus knew and accurately stated Mary's intent.
There was no such revelation [that his burial would be in a hurry] known to the writers of the gospels.

Step2, you've managed to confuse me. Help me out here. Let's go back to the house in Bethany, and in comes Mary with the costly oils to anoint Jesus. What is going through her head?

A: He is going to die soon, maybe just a few days. We will need burial oils. I will buy some and set them aside, so that when he dies, I am ready.

No, that doesn't work, it doesn't explain her using them BEFORE he dies.

B: "He is going to die soon. If I don't anoint him now, I'll never get the chance to do so."

No, that doesn't work. She would have expected to use them "very soon", after he dies.

So, what process of thinking are you considering that represents her own reason for her to expressly buy burial oils and to use them on Jesus before he dies, without recognition that his burial would be hurried?

Tony,
So, what process of thinking are you considering that represents her own reason for her to expressly buy burial oils and to use them on Jesus before he dies, without recognition that his burial would be hurried?

I did not assume Mary didn't have such a recognition. Without delving into heterodox theories, under the orthodox view Jesus is the second person of the omniscient Trinity. Therefore there is no reason, none whatsoever, that Jesus would not have absolute detailed knowledge of his bodily death and burial as a part of his fulfillment of his divine role. Based on that, the relevant question is who Jesus shared this specific knowledge with.

Ah, now I get it. Jesus knew it (to which I agree 100%), and he might have shared it with Mary.

True.

Let me return to your prior comment for a sec:

There was no such revelation [that his burial would be in a hurry] known to the writers of the gospels.

Let's adjust that: there was no such revelation THAT THEY SHARED WITH US. They might not have chosen to write it up. There was lots they didn't say.

However, the apostles (and through them the other gospel writers) had lots and lots of time to go back and verify things like what a person knew, when they knew it, and what specifically they had in mind when they did or said X. They sometimes interject the accounts with intentions that they probably verified this way. They could have done so with Mary: "say, Mary, did you know even then that His burial would be in a hurry? When did He tell you that?"

But they didn't choose to write about that, either. Like, for example, they didn't choose to tell us if they went back to Mary (Jesus' mother) and ask her "say, at the wedding feast at Cana, what did you think would happen when you told the servants 'do whatever He tells you'? Did you think He was going to make a bunch of wine miraculously? Had you some premonition or revelation about it?" We don't know.

It is perfectly legitimate, I think, to work out various possible answers to these kinds of questions. In the process, we are likely to come to a much better understanding of the gospels, and to gradually rule out ones that, while they are theoretically possible, seem less probable given human motivations. It seems to me that you have given one possible interpretation of the Bethany passage, and I have proposed another. I don't see how yours fits at all well with Mary's behavior on Easter Sunday, if she (unlike the apostles) fully believed Christ would be raised up that day.

I am not suggesting that Jesus was mis-stating Mary's motive, but explaining an additional layer of meaning to her action - beyond her explicit motive but consistent with it - that was what GOD had in mind all along in inspiring her to anoint Jesus. Moses probably didn't know explicitly that the lambs used at the first Paschal sacrifice were intended to be a figure of Christ - but such a layer of meaning was sure God's intention, and was consistent with what Moses's explicit intentions were. It's not like Moses would correct us and say "no, that's not what the lambs meant."

Tony,
Let's adjust that: there was no such revelation THAT THEY SHARED WITH US.

You could, but unlike Lydia who is looking for undesigned coincidences I am looking for undesigned discrepancies. I consider this passage to be one of those, a puzzle piece which doesn't fit with the larger picture. If we take seriously the idea the gospel writers were intentionally omitting relevant information then skepticism should be the default approach towards most everything they wrote. Furthermore, the reaction of the male disciples was at least as strange as anything Mary did. All types of alarm bells should have gone off when Jesus said she was preparing him for burial.

I don't see how yours fits at all well with Mary's behavior on Easter Sunday, if she (unlike the apostles) fully believed Christ would be raised up that day.

I would say again it hinges on specific knowledge. Once more under the orthodox view, the belief considered generally would cause her to expect something very different from what she saw and heard. Nothing about the raising of Lazarus was similar to her experience at the tomb of Jesus. Unless she was given detailed knowledge her behavior was quite normal.

I am not suggesting that Jesus was mis-stating Mary's motive, but explaining an additional layer of meaning to her action - beyond her explicit motive but consistent with it - that was what GOD had in mind all along in inspiring her to anoint Jesus.

I disagree with this transcending/subverting of her motive and agency. Her action would not be praiseworthy in perpetuity if the reason given was not central to her intent. That reason cannot be accidental or incidental. Otherwise we can superimpose all sorts of inspirations that are consistent yet 'beyond' someone's intent and claim those are the real motives.

I would say again it hinges on specific knowledge. Once more under the orthodox view, the belief considered generally would cause her to expect something very different from what she saw and heard. Nothing about the raising of Lazarus was similar to her experience at the tomb of Jesus. Unless she was given detailed knowledge her behavior was quite normal.

Step2, I tried several times to understand what you are saying here, and I just can't. Are you saying Mary expected Jesus to be risen on the 3rd day? That she did not expect it? Some third option that I am unable to contrive?

If we take seriously the idea the gospel writers were intentionally omitting relevant information then skepticism should be the default approach towards most everything they wrote.

All eyewitness accounts involve the "intentionally omitting" of some material. It is impossible to give a totally complete account of anything. To decide that it is intentionally omitting "relevant" information would require something over and above the mere fact that they omitted information.

My take on revelation is that God so inspired the writers that they included everything that God wanted included. Hence nothing was omitted so as to drop relevant information - not if it was relevant to God's intention, anyway. (That's the standard Catholic teaching, by the way, not my personal opinion that I cooked up myself.) Lots of non-Catholics views on the Bible are, of course, quite different. You may engage theories that there was relevant information that was suppressed so as to "cook" an appearance of the events a certain way that was not straight up truth, but please forgive me if I don't follow you into that territory.

THE ANOINTING STORIES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS RAISE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE HISTORICITY OF THE RAISING OF LAZARUS STORY IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

According to the Gospels Jesus was anointed with (or received) perfume numerous times in his life. Are all the tales true? Are any of them symbolic, legendary? At his birth Jesus allegedly received a visit from an unknown number of wealthy star gazers (was it two? three? more than three? Matthew does not say) who traveled far to deliver gifts of “frankincense and myrrh” (not to mention an unknown quantity of “gold”), at least thatʼs what the Gospel of Matthew states, none of the other Gospels happen to mention such a tale.

During his adulthood Jesus encountered expensive perfume again when women began anointing him with it. There is one story of the anointing of the adult Jesus in each Gospel. One was sufficient for the purposes of each Gospel author. To try and combine the anointing stories of all four Gospels into a single “life of Jesus” is to ignore the differences between each, and would add up to three separate tales: One found in Mark and Matthew which are in substantial agreement, another in Luke that disagrees with Mark/Matthew, and a third tale in John that features elements of the tales in Mark and Luke but also disagrees with them, giving us a total of three separate anointing stories. So was Jesus anointed three times? Or did the story change over time?

The failure of attempts to harmonize such stories reminds me of similar attempts made by conservative Christians to harmonize stories of “Peterʼs three denials of Jesus” that are found in all four Gospels (a total of twelve denials). The circumstances of each denial disagree as to where, when, and, in response to whom. Some of the individual denials are easier to harmonize with those in other Gospels, some less easy to harmonize. But disagreements between denials were so blatant in some cases that one conservative Christian insisted Peter must have denied Jesus as many times as there are unharmonizable incidents in all four Gospels. That Christian had convinced himself that Peter may have denied Jesus more than three times, maybe six or more times, so long as he could find a way to retain the historical truth of every divinely inspired detail in his Bible and read the Gospels like a single story—instead of four separate stories, including some that changed over time. He continued to argue that his solution of multiplying the total number of denials was the most reasonable, regardless of the fact that each Gospel by itself agrees with the others that Jesus only mentioned three denials by Peter.

Below are the tales of the anointings of Jesus. The tales in Mark and Matthew are probably the earliest and they parallel each other so closely as to suggest a common literary source. They also agree that perfume was poured on Jesusʼ head:

Mark 14:3,8 (NIV) 'While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head…to prepare for my burial.'

Matthew 26:6-7,12 (NIV) 'While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table…to prepare me for burial.'

By the time Lukeʼs Gospel was composed the story seems to have changed. It is no longer Jesusʼ head that is anointed with expensive perfume but his feet, by a female sinner who first washes them with her tears and wipes them with her hair, and Luke places the anointing in an early chapter of Jesusʼ ministry, so early that Jesus is shown dining with a Pharisee:

Luke 7:36-38 (NIV) 'When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Phariseeʼs house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Phariseeʼs house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.'

In all three of the earliest Gospels the woman who anoints Jesusʼ head or feet is not named. But by the time the Gospel of John was composed a name had been allocated to the “anointress” (if I may coin a term), “Mary.” The author even says this was the same “Mary” whom Luke had mentioned in his separate tale of the “two sisters,” one of whom “sat” at Jesusʼ feet listening to him (Luke 10:38-42). But in the Gospel of John this Mary is no longer the one in Luke who merely “sat” at Jesusʼ feet and drew sighs from her sister who wished to scold her for sitting inertly on the floor and leaving her sister with all the kitchen work. Instead, the “Mary” in the Gospel of John is active, dramatically so, for she is depicted as anointing Jesusʼ feet and wiping them with her hair, resembling Lukeʼs anointing story about the unnamed female sinner in the home of the Pharisee. The Gospel of John adds that the whole house was filled with the aroma after about a “pint” of perfume was poured on Jesusʼ feet, so I guess there was no skimping on the perfume per John—nor does John skimp on the perfume in yet another anointing episode found only in that Gospel, but before proceeding to that episode here is the story of Johnʼs “Mary”:

John 12:1-3 (NIV) 'Six days before the Passover [Note: Jesus dies five days later in this Gospel, on the day before Passover], Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesusʼ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard [Note: “pure nard” is an unusual and precise phrase that appears in Markʼs earlier version and some commentators suggest that the author of the Gospel of John was acquainted with the tales in both Mark and Luke, combining elements of both to form a third tale], an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesusʼ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. [Note how this resembles the tale in Luke, but the order in which the perfume is applied and the feet wiped is reversed. In Luke Jesusʼ feet are washed (with tears, something John does not mention) and wiped with hair, and only then is the perfume applied. But in John the perfume is applied and the feet are wiped with hair. So in John, Maryʼs hair is full of perfume, but in Luke the womanʼs hair smelled only of the dirt on Jesusʼ feet. The tale in John differs in this and other respects from earlier anointing tales but also demonstrates some knowledge of the story in Mark and Luke.] And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.'

Also, in the Gospel of John not only did the feet of Jesus receive about a pint of perfume, but five days later the same Gospel says Jesusʼ lifeless body was wrapped with “seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes.”

But wait, thereʼs another perfume story I have not mentioned, but we must return to the earliest Gospel, Mark, to find it. That Gospel says that after Jesus died some women “saw” where Jesus had been laid and they returned to the tomb a day and a half later carrying “spice” with which they planned to anoint the body. Probably not “seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes” as in John, and which was not said to have come from those ladies. But comparing Mark with John and attempting to combine the two stories one might wonder how the ladies who saw where Jesus had been laid also failed to note the odor of seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloe, an odor that probably followed Jesusʼ body into the tomb or filled the air around it. I would have thought women had better senses of smell, or if they saw Jesusʼ body being hoisted into the tomb they might have at least seen how Jesusʼ body gained 75 pounds of bulky wrappings after he died and that men were straining to maneuver it into the tomb, even on a stretcher, or if the body was not anointed until after it was laid flat in the tomb then perhaps the woman might have seen large jars of spice and wrappings being carried into the tomb. Instead, the early tale in Mark of the hastily buried (and unanointed) body of Jesus, and the tale in John of the heavily anointed body of Jesus simply pass in the night, each going in their own direction without connecting at all.

Of course the differences between the story of Mark and John pose little difficulty once one accepts that the story in Mark is a completely different tale from Johnʼs. Mark imagined Jesus being buried hastily leaving no time for anointing. While John has Jesus laid out in style, seventy five pounds worth of style. The Gospel of Matthew introduces another take on the tale in Mark because in Matthew there is no mention of the women having “spice” and a desire to anoint Jesusʼ body, instead they come to “see” the tomb. Why does Matthew alter the reason why the woman arrive Sunday morning? Because in Matthew the tomb is sealed and guarded (a story found only in Matthew and no where else). So the women would have had no chance of getting near Jesusʼ body let alone “spice” it up, so Matthew says the woman only came to “see” the tomb. Itʼs obvious at this point that different Gospel writers told different stories and changed them to fit with whatever else they wrote.

Returning to the depiction in the Gospel of John, of Jesus having about a pint of perfume poured on his feet by Mary such that the whole house smelled of it, and five days later Jesusʼ body being wrapped with seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloe, one might wonder if there is any mention in John of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume after having arisen a day and a half later and shown himself to a woman and to the apostles. But there is none.

Nor is there mention of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume in any of the earlier Gospels. Of course Mark and Matthew, presumably the earliest two Gospels, feature no “seventy-five pound” anointing of “myrrh and aloes” of Jesusʼ body as in John, and they agree that an announcement was made at the empty tomb that Jesus had gone before the apostles to Galilee (“There you will see him”), so, it would take a while to reach Galilee before the apostles would even be near Jesus. Itʼs only in later Gospels (Luke and John) that there is no long delay before the apostles get to see the resurrected Jesus, for neither of those Gospels mention Jesus going ahead to Galilee to be seen there, but instead they have Jesus appearing in Jerusalem on the same day heʼs allegedly resurrected. So Jesus gets to meet the apostles sooner in Luke and John than in the earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew. But no mention of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume in either Luke or John.

You can also see how the tale of Jesusʼs burial became more aggrandized over time from Mark to Matt, Lk, John:

“When you look at Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, the story of the burial of Jesus, knowing that Mark is the basis for Matthew and Luke and that possibly (this is debated in scholarship) they may be the source for John, you watch the bodyʼs burial get steadily better. Itʼs a hasty hurried burial in Mark. By the time Matthew and Luke read Mark and develop the story itʼs a burial in a tomb in which nobody else has been laid and theyʼre explaining to you why Joseph of Arimathea was able to be a counselor for Jesus but not against him on Thursday night as it were. The story is developing, and by the time you get to Johnʼs account the burial of Jesus is – I wouldnʼt even say royal – itʼs transcendental, thereʼs so many spices used they would have filled almost the entire tomb, itʼs a magnificent burial, itʼs the burial of the son of God when you get to John. What happens is that as a historian when I retroject that trajectory of a burial that keeps getting better and better, and ask what was there in the beginning, it doesnʼt look very good. It looks like all they might have had in the beginning was a hope that maybe some pious non-Christian, a Jew, out of respect for the Jewish law of Deuteronomy, would have buried Jesusʼ body (instead of letting the Romans do what they usually did with the people they crucified, which was to toss the bodies in a common grave). But if a Jew asked Pilate for the body and gave it a burial that immediately raises the issue that the writers of the Gospels also must have seen, namely wouldnʼt Joseph also have buried the two robbers, presumably fellow Jews, who were with Jesus? And wouldnʼt there at least be three in the tomb? Would it be a public tomb for criminals? Then how would we know which was Jesusʼ body? And so you can see the Gospel writers, I think, grappling with the difficulties of trying to have Jesus rescued from a common grave – a story whose original I donʼt think is historical and which grew in the telling over time. I think it is their fervent hope, their best hope, that somebody took care of the body of Jesus.”
— John Dominic Crossan as heard on “Jesus and Crucifixion, a Historical View,” Fresh Air from WHYY, Mar. 20, 2008 (with some edits)

RELATED TO THE ANOINTING STORY IS THE STORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS Letʼs look at the story of Lazarus beginning with the story of Lazarusʼs alleged sisters, ‘Mary and Martha,’ and how ‘Mary sat at Jesusʼs feet,’ ‘anointed them’ with perfume, and ‘wiped them with her hair’ in the town of ‘Bethany.’ (John 12) Stories similar to that anointing story are found in the earlier three Gospels:

Mark 14:3 -- An unnamed woman anointed Jesusʼs head in Bethany at the house of Simon the Leper.

Luke 7:37-38 -- An unnamed sinner anointed Jesusʼs feet and wiped them with her hair in Nain at the house of a Pharisee.

Luke 10:38-39 -- Mary, the sister of Martha, listened at Jesusʼs feet in an unnamed town at her house.

Now consider this: Did you ever get confused about similar events like those listed above? Say, in a Sunday School discussion, you mixed up the name of the town where the woman anointed Jesusʼs ‘head’ with the name of the town where the woman anointed Jesusʼs ‘feet.’ Was it Nain or Bethany? Or you confused the woman who ‘listened’ at Jesusʼs feet with the woman who ‘anointed’ Jesusʼs feet? The unnamed sinner lady in Nain, became, until you looked it up, Mary, sister of Martha? Well, something like that appears to have happened in the minds of Christians before the Gospel of John was composed, the last written of the four Gospels. By that time, similar persons and events from the earlier Gospels had become amalgamated in peopleʼs minds. In John 12:3, Mary, the woman who simply ‘listened’ at Jesusʼs feet is now also anointing them and wiping them with her hair. Thus the unnamed woman of the town of Nain became amalgamated in peopleʼs minds with ‘Mary, Marthaʼs sister.’ And the unnamed town where Mary lived became amalgamated with the town where the woman who anointed Jesusʼs ‘head’ lived, ‘Bethany.’ And Mary used expensive ‘spikenard ointment’ on them, as the lady in Mark (and possibly Luke) did. Only this time is it not at Simon the Leperʼs house, nor at the house of a Pharisee, but at ‘Maryʼs house.’

What does the above discussion have to do with the ‘resurrection of Lazarus’ story? Well, it shows how the Gospel of John amalgamates things from earlier Gospels. And only the Gospel of John depicts Lazarus as a real person. Luke mentions a real Mary and Martha, but says nothing about them having a brother, nor in which town they lived. So the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to have amalgamated Mary and Martha, the town of Bethany, and the ‘Lazarus’ from a parable in the Gospel of Luke — a parable in which a poor beggar named ‘Lazarus’ dies and goes to ‘Abrahamʼs bosom,’ while a rich man suffering in nearby ‘Hades’ sees Lazarus and pleads with Abraham to ‘send Lazarus to my Fatherʼs house, to warn my brothers, so they may repent [and avoid going to Hades],’ to which the answer was, “nor will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.”

Think about it. A ‘Lazarus’ who dies and someone who hopes Lazarus will be ‘raised from the dead’ to ‘persuade others’ ‘to repent.’ But such persuasion is predicted not to work. Where does that appear outside of Luke?

Why in John. Johnʼs ‘Lazarus’ is now a concrete person, the ‘brother’ of Mary and Martha from Luke. (Nor is this Lazarus a poor ‘beggar,’ since heʼs rich enough to have his own tomb and live in a house with his ‘sisters.’) He is ‘raised from the dead’ — a parable come true. And, as predicted in the parable, such a miracle fails to persuade those who refuse to listen to Moses and the prophets, namely the Pharisees: “Many therefore of the Jews, who had come to Mary and beheld what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done.” The Pharisees refuse to repent, and even decide, after hearing of this great miracle, to seize Jesus and have him executed. What a coincidence! Two ‘Lazaruses,’ one in Luke and one in John, both die, both illustrate that “even though he be raised from the dead, they will not be persuaded,” in fact, ‘Lazarusʼs resurrection’ in the Gospel of John elicits even a stronger negative response!

Not surprisingly, when you include a miracle found in none of the other Gospels, and make it the focal point for the Phariseesʼs decision to plot to take Jesus's life, you have to do something with the overturning of the tables episode which seemed so incendiary in all three synoptic Gospels, along with Jesus's subsequent public denunciations against the Pharisees in the temple. Instead, the author(s) of the Gospel of John have Jesus enter Jerusalem for the final time and don't mention him overturning tables or publicly preaching against the Pharisees in the temple prior to his arrest and execution, instead they have Jesus enter Jerusalem in chapter 12, and speak and pray with his at length prior to being arrested and executed. In the Gospel of John the table-turning episode appears at the beginning of Jesus's ministry rather than at its end, perhaps to emphasize the stunning resurrection of Lazarus miracle found only in John, and make that the incendiary catalyst.

The question remains, did the ‘raising of Lazarus’ actually take place or might the story have been a later invention, based on an amalgamation of information and names found in earlier Gospels? The moving of Jesusʼs ‘table-turning’ episode from the end of the earlier Gospels to the beginning of the Gospel of John adds to the force of such a question, since the author(s) of John seem heavily focused on making the raising of Lazarus (a miracle not found in any other Gospel), the primary reason why the Pharisees plotted to take Jesus's life:

John 11:45 'Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done... 48 “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” 49 Then... Caiaphas... spoke up, ... 50 “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”... 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his [Jesusʼ] life.'

STORIES OF JESUS RAISING PEOPLE FROM THE DEAD GROW MORE PUBLIC AND MORE IMPRESSIVE FROM MARK TO MATTHEW AND LUKE, AND FINALLY JOHN WITH THE RAISING OF LAZARUS, RAISED PUBLICLY AFTER FOUR DAYS OF BEING BURIED AND STINKING

In Mk Jesus is asked to HEAL someoneʼs daughter who is “at the point of dying,” he arrives and people are mourning, saying she has died and Jesus clears the room and raises her in the company of her immediate family and some disciples.

In Matthew the tale is repeated, though when Jesus is first asked to come he is told that the child has ALREADY “died,” not being merely “at the point of dying” as in Mark.

In Luke the tale is repeated, but Luke now adds a second resurrection miracle tale not seen in their Mark or Matthew. The tale of a child who was not merely “raised” inside a private home, such a miracle being seen by only a few, but in this new tale, Jesus raises a child who is ON THE WAY TO THE CEMETERY, and this child is raised publicly. So this new resurrection miracle is grander than any that appeared in Mk and Mt.

In the fourth Gospel, John, the grandest resurrection miracle is found, someone raised not privately in a house, and not on the way to being buried, but someone already buried, for a few days, and that resurrection is the most public of all, and becomes the reason the Pharisees seek Jesusʼ own death due to how people were reacting to this very public resurrection, which also was apparently near Jerusalem, nearer Jerusalem than the others in the earlier Gospels if I recall.

Note also that Jesusʼs miracles of raising children in Mark/Matthew/Luke, resemble reworked versions of miracles of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, sometimes even copying the exact Greek phrases and settings as one can read when one compares the miracle tales in the Greek O.T. (the Septuagint) with the Gospel miracle tales involving Jesus.

Tony,
Some third option that I am unable to contrive?

1. Mary's only knowledge of a resurrection was that of Lazarus.
2. That event would have been the basis of her expectations for Jesus unless given specific contrary details.
3. Her experience at the tomb of Jesus was not similar in any significant way to the raising of Lazarus.
4. Therefore her belief, combined with her past experience, misled her expectations.

To decide that it is intentionally omitting "relevant" information would require something over and above the mere fact that they omitted information.

I think you admitted it was relevant when you described Mary's preparation of Jesus for burial as "utterly outrageous and even an insult" under the assumption she was not informed by Jesus.

1. Mary's only knowledge of a resurrection was that of Lazarus. 2. That event would have been the basis of her expectations for Jesus unless given specific contrary details. 3. Her experience at the tomb of Jesus was not similar in any significant way to the raising of Lazarus. 4. Therefore her belief, combined with her past experience, misled her expectations.

Her actual experience at the tomb is completely irrelevant to whether she expected to find Jesus resurrected. If she did, taking the spices is unexplainable. If she did not expect it, and that's why she brought the spices, why then was preparing Christ for burial before he was dead appropriate?

I think you admitted it was relevant when you described Mary's preparation of Jesus for burial as "utterly outrageous and even an insult" under the assumption she was not informed by Jesus.

Your just begging the question in that. Or, to be more precise, you're just pointing out that your hypothesis is not readily compatible with mine, and mine is not readily compatible with yours. But assuming that relevant information was suppressed, on the basis of your hypothesis, is no better than hypothesizing no need for there to be missing information on the notion that Jesus' words revealed new information even to Mary.

In any case, whether Mary clearly understood and believed that Jesus would be dead in a few days or not, none of that begins to explain the appropriateness (as you seem to be inclined to consider it) of preparing a living person for burial. How would you feel if a funeral home worker started trim your hair and putting make-up on your face and so on (not to mention embalming you) - before you were dead? If she knew he was going to die in a few days, her anointing him before death still makes no sense.

Mr Babinski, I won't bother to address all the details of your comment, but one point is worth highlighting. You say that stories about Jesus being anointed serve a symbolic or theological purpose. You then assume - although you don't actually spell it out - that if a story about Jesus has a symbolic meaning, then it has been invented. You are not alone in doing this, of course. It might be said that you, and others like you, are applying the criteria of inauthenticity. You are “able” to detect false stories about Jesus by looking to see whether they serve a symbolic purpose.

Another of the criteria of inauthenticity is the criterion of mythical parallels. If something that happened to Jesus vaguely resembles a story in mythology, then, supposedly, it must be fiction. I would now like to tell you a parable.

One day a man called Ed saw that a story about Jesus had a symbolic meaning. Ed then got in his time machine, travelled 2000 years back in time to Galilee and tracked down Jesus. After some careful research, Ed was able to determine that the story with the symbolic meaning never happened. Ed then carried out the same procedure with numerous other stories. By this stage Ed was convinced that he had a reliable criterion of inauthenticity.

I hope that the problem is clear. No method for “detecting” false stories about Jesus has ever been tested. But we would never guess that from the confidence with which some people apply these “criteria”.

I usually don't bother to answer Ed Babinski, as it is a waste of time. His biases are so huge that they blot out the sun and are just not worth replying to. In discussing a culture in which heavily spiced perfumes actually were pretty important, it's flat silly to insinuate that multiple stories involving heavily spiced perfumes of different kinds must contain inventions because, I dunno, there couldn't have been that much perfume around and people using it to honor someone in different times and contexts. Or something.

For the record, I think there were two women who anointed Jesus. One was earlier in his ministry, recorded in Luke 7. The other was during Passion week, recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John. John apparently remembered that it was Mary the sister of Lazarus who did this. Obviously, telling more than one story about stuff Mary did doesn't cast any of them into doubt. (Duh.) This doesn't resolve the question about what day the latter occurred on, but it's pretty clearly the same incident during Passion week.

Tony,
Her actual experience at the tomb is completely irrelevant to whether she expected to find Jesus resurrected. If she did, taking the spices is unexplainable.

1. Only Luke records a group of women preparing and then bringing spices and ointments, Mary included among them. It is not stated the extent, if any, to which Mary was involved in the preparation or carrying. Even if she was significantly involved it doesn't require that Mary expected to find Jesus dead, it only means she went along with their activity as a means to visit the tomb and confirm her expectation.
2. Mark and John both record Mary being alone in her encounter at the tomb with no mention of spices or ointments. Matthew records Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb with another woman named Mary, again with no mention of spices or ointments.

How would you feel if a funeral home worker started trim your hair and putting make-up on your face and so on (not to mention embalming you) - before you were dead? If she knew he was going to die in a few days, her anointing him before death still makes no sense.

If I had told the person I was going to die without a proper burial I would feel grateful. If a homeless person is certain they will not be properly buried, someone buying an expensive suit for them when they are on their deathbed is a touching personal honor. If a soldier is convinced he is being sent into a death trap, an act to prepare him for death before he leaves is a tribute to his life and imminent sacrifice. More importantly I don't see how your claim doesn't thoroughly undermine your own argument. If Mary's act for the reason stated by Jesus was inappropriate, it remains inappropriate even if it was inspired by God.

More importantly I don't see how your claim doesn't thoroughly undermine your own argument. If Mary's act for the reason stated by Jesus was inappropriate, it remains inappropriate even if it was inspired by God.

I assume for my position merely that anointing someone with oil would have been a sign of love and affection. The more costly the oil, the greater the sign.

Mark and John both record Mary being alone in her encounter at the tomb

Not quite accurate: Mark clearly indicates Mary was not alone, and explicitly mentions spices bought Saturday.

Saturday evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went out and purchased burial spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on Sunday morning,[a] just at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3 On the way they were asking each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”
Even if she was significantly involved it doesn't require that Mary expected to find Jesus dead, it only means she went along with their activity as a means to visit the tomb and confirm her expectation.

That's possible, true. But it is less plausible that she would have gone out Saturday night, before the morning visit to the tomb, just to be with the women the next morning, without objecting about the need for spices. So, your point here is possible but improbable, as I see it.

Matthew records Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb with another woman named Mary, again with no mention of spices or ointments.

Matthew and John do not mention spices. Mark and Luke do. If one can harmonize the 4 accounts by suggesting that Matthew and John left the spices out as not germane to the points they were making, it does not create any problems. Certainly nothing in Matt and John's accounts are strongly indicative that they came empty-handed.

If a soldier is convinced he is being sent into a death trap, an act to prepare him for death before he leaves is a tribute to his life and imminent sacrifice.

Depends on what you mean "prepare him for death". If it means preparing his soul so he can meet his maker - definitely. (Though that's really preparation for dying, not for burial.) If it means washing him off, combing his hair, etc as preparation for funeral - that's kind of pointless before the battle, isn't it?

If I had told the person I was going to die without a proper burial I would feel grateful.

Doesn't it depend on the level of intrusiveness and just plain incompatibility with not being dead that the preparation involves? You wouldn't appreciate them asking the embalmer to do a pre-emptive embalming, for example. So, we need to ask: to what extent was the kind of anointing Mary did just like what would have been done for a person not dead, and to what extent was it just exactly the sort of thing that was only suited to a dead person. (Presumably, using 75 pounds of spices and a burial cloth over the whole body would have been even more a sign of belief in Christ's death - but perhaps not quite the thing, eh?)

We don't know, do we? Which means we can try on a few options for size to see if they fit. But in order to do it up right, we would need more information (than I have, that is) about what oils were used (both for the living and for the dead) and WHY. For example, if the oil and spices were mainly to prevent the odor of corruption to overwhelm (spices, for example, to slow it down), then using them at all would have been pointless for someone whom you expected to rise up on the 3rd day, right?

Tony,
I assume for my position merely that anointing someone with oil would have been a sign of love and affection. The more costly the oil, the greater the sign.

It seemed to me like you were saying that God inspired Mary to do it for the reason Jesus stated, even if that reason was unbeknownst to her. I can't tell if you are backtracking on that or what. Secondly, it isn't clear why a sign of love and affection would, on its own, be worthy of memorializing her for eternity. Even if her affection was extraordinary compared to the others, if her anointing was not strongly connected to the mission of Jesus then why would he treat it as if it deserved to be?

Mark clearly indicates Mary was not alone, and explicitly mentions spices bought Saturday.

My mistake. I was reading from when she encountered Jesus.

Depends on what you mean "prepare him for death". If it means preparing his soul so he can meet his maker - definitely. (Though that's really preparation for dying, not for burial.)

For my purpose of showing she knew and accepted Jesus was about to die, something similar to Last Rites is sufficient.

If it means washing him off, combing his hair, etc as preparation for funeral - that's kind of pointless before the battle, isn't it?

If they are done as a sacramental rite I would say they are not pointless.

Secondly, it isn't clear why a sign of love and affection would, on its own, be worthy of memorializing her for eternity.

Jesus does not say that her act is "worthy" of being memorialized forever, he says that it WILL be remembered. In fact, it was remembered and written down at least in part precisely because Jesus made a point of the event, saying it will be remembered. If he had not made issue of it being remembered, would the gospel writers have thought to include it? Note something a little jarring about it if it was "worthy" of being memorialized forever: Matthew and Mark don't even give her name. All we have to describe her is "a woman". It's not even as much as the noted centurion whose faith Jesus praised - there at least we have his profession. It was left to John, 40 or so years later, to record that Mary did it.

It was now two days before Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The leading priests and the teachers of religious law were still looking for an opportunity to capture Jesus secretly and kill him. 2 “But not during the Passover celebration,” they agreed, “or the people may riot.”

3 Meanwhile, Jesus was in Bethany at the home of Simon, a man who had previously had leprosy. While he was eating,[a] a woman came in with a beautiful alabaster jar of expensive perfume made from essence of nard. She broke open the jar and poured the perfume over his head.

4 Some of those at the table were indignant. “Why waste such expensive perfume?” they asked. 5 “It could have been sold for a year’s wages[b] and the money given to the poor!” So they scolded her harshly.

6 But Jesus replied, “Leave her alone. Why criticize her for doing such a good thing to me? 7 You will always have the poor among you, and you can help them whenever you want to. But you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could and has anointed my body for burial ahead of time. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the Good News is preached throughout the world, this woman’s deed will be remembered and discussed.”

Note something else: those at the table were not indignant at her doing something that was specific to burial rites. That's not their objection. So we can legitimately understand her action as something that might have been done for any living person greatly loved.

If you want to take it a step further, when Jesus says "But you will not always have me. She has done what she could" we can attribute to Mary a recognition that Jesus will not always be there, that he will be taken away at some point, and that if she were ever going to show her great love and affection, she better get it in before the window closes. It needn't even be a recognition that whatever will take him away (i.e. his death) is impending in just a few days, just not delayed forever. Could have been many moons distant still.

When Jesus says "She has done what she could and has anointed by body for burial ahead of time" this might well indicate what Mary had in mind explicitly, but if the outward action itself might have done even for someone alive and well and headed to a long life, she does not give us (or those present) any words or indications that her thoughts are concerned with his burial. We would not have known it BUT for Jesus' words (if that's what he meant). So all we have to go on is how Jesus characterizes her behavior, and that's ambiguous as I have repeatedly been saying. Yes, it CAN be taken to mean "my burial is precisely what Mary had in mind" but it can also be taken to mean "you all can now take this to be 'for my burial' because I am hereby letting you all know something new: my burial is not going to be the ordinary affair." Since Mary was not explicit, and her actions are ambiguous, and Jesus' words are ambiguous, we have to try to "fill in the blanks" to see which sense works best overall. I am going to go with: the gospel writers included everything that God intended to be in the gospels, because that's the sense of inspired that protects the authority of the Scriptures to reveal correctly to us.

If they are done as a sacramental rite I would say they are not pointless.

Fair enough. I would like to know more detail about how oils were used both for the living and the dead.

Tony,
From what I could find, fragrant oils were generally not used by Jewish men as cologne although it wasn't forbidden. In any case a pint of pure spikenard would be an overpowering amount for such a purpose. In the context of anointing, oil was symbolic of an elevation in legal or spiritual status, for example when applied to kings and priests. Interestingly, the purification of a recovered leper with oil was considered symbolic of a restoration to life. Spikenard was used to perfume the dead body in the ancient world per Homer's Iliad but it isn't clear if this was practiced by the Jews. It was also one of eleven ingredients used at the altar of incense in the Temple.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spikenard

Thanks, Step2, that's the kind of information I meant. Only in even more detail, should anyone have it. Especially, if it was used in burial practices by those Palestinian Jews at that time, and if so, what particular purpose / symbolism was in their minds in using it?

I had wondered whether that oil was used for anointing kings. Did Jesus ever actually get anointed in sign of his kingship?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.