Couldn't these be different incidences at different times? In Mark and Matthew, the incidents are near Jesus' Passion and the end of the gospels, whereas in Luke and John, the incidents are in the middle of their works. Perhaps first time (Luke and John), the anointing is on the feet, whereas the second time the anointing is on the head.Diogenes the Cynic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:40 pmOk, so basically I'm just wondering what kind of work or speculation has gone into the following questions.
- Why does Luke change the anointing from the head to the feet? Is Luke uncomfortable with the anointing of the head because of its latently subversive political/regnal implications? Is he uncomfortable with a woman doing the anointing?
Luke also seems to address the issue of expenses, saying “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
- Why does Luke alone ignore the issue of the expense of the oil and change it into a lesson on slut shaming instead?
Luke doesn't seem to treat Lazarus as if he were only a parable. Luke says:
- Why does John want to tie the woman to Lazarus - a character of John's own invention (albeit appropriated from a parable in Luke)? Is John doing this to make further comment on the Parable of John and the Rich Man?
"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead."
The two incidents are anointing Jesus' feet in Lazarus' house, whom Jesus had raised, and anointing Jesus' head before Jesus' death.
The first anointing is an anointing for Jesus to travel and go on his mission, whereas the second is an anointing for his death. Jesus is the "anointed", the Christ. In Greek Orthodoxy, for example, IIRC the head, throat and hands are anointed in a healing ritual if the person has an illness. There is a ritual for healing with oil. Also when a person becomes a Christian, they are anointed with oil after baptism, in a ritual which is called "Chrismation".
I don't know how one would prove that it was not historical. I believe that the Old Testament prophecies do predict the Messiah's killing and it looks like Jesus was aware of this.
- What do you suppose Mark's purpose was in telling this story in the first place? It has to be at least partially invented because Jesus' self-awareness of his own death cannot be historical.
Mark could have him repeatedly make the prediction to emphasize it.It doesn't seem necessary merely as a means to have Jesus predict his own death. Mark has already had him do that in 9:31.
Maybe.Did he do it as a way to get Jesus literally anointed?
Sometimes Mark is not clear in the events he refers to - he appears to openly hide specifics, like the time when Jesus gives instructions to find a water carrier when he wants to get a guest room in Jerusalem. The back story with the water carrier appears hidden.Why bother with adding extraneous conflict to that? Is it a way to give Judas a motive for betrayal? Possibly, but it's interesting to note that Mark only says that "there were some [ἦσαν δέ τινες] who were indignant within themselves." He does not specify Judas, although he does have Judas, who he has never mentioned before and now only identifies as "one of the twelve," go to the priests to finger Jesus. If he had specifically wanted to prosecute Judas, it seems like he would put a little more on the front end.