To begin with, Matthew and Mark render the story in essentially the same way, with Mark being a tad more detailed. They both start off by indicating that Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper. Mark in any case further details that Jesus was “reclining” (Mark 14:3). Both accounts then state that a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. But whereas Matthew simply said it was costly, Mark detailed that it was “costly, genuine, spikenard” (Ibid.) They both state that the woman poured the oil on his head – not his feet, as in Luke and John – but Mark adds that she broke the jar first (Ibid.) Mark then testifies that some people, very likely those who were similarly in Simon the Leper’s house, were indignant. Matthew specifically uses the word “disciples” in this regard (Matt. 26:8).
Matthew and Mark say the indignation was owing to their assertion that the ointment could have been sold, even though as has been previously stated there is discrepancy as to the exact cost of it. Both gospels assert that the proceeds of such a sale could be given to the poor. Mark in particular adds that the indignant people murmured at the woman. Both accounts state that Jesus came to the woman’s defense, insisting that her actions were good, and that she was preparing him for his burial. He also reminds her critics that the poor are around all the time, but he was not going to live long among them. And he prophesied that the woman’s deed would make her memory endure (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9). All of this ties in neatly with what has been said previously in this paper.
The statement by Jesus that the woman was preparing him for burial is typical. The gift of myrrh by one of the wise men at Jesus’ birth is of similar strain. Mary Magdalene also came to the tomb with ointments, which certain commentaries say was left over from what she poured over his feet earlier in Bethany, and which is justification that she was the woman that Mark, Matthew and Luke omitted to name, but which John did. And perhaps Jesus’ prophecy of ensuing notoriety for the woman underpins the presence of the story in all four gospels, in addition to the theories earlier floated in this paper.
Matthew and Mark say the indignation was owing to their assertion that the ointment could have been sold, even though as has been previously stated there is discrepancy as to the exact cost of it. Both gospels assert that the proceeds of such a sale could be given to the poor. Mark in particular adds that the indignant people murmured at the woman. Both accounts state that Jesus came to the woman’s defense, insisting that her actions were good, and that she was preparing him for his burial. He also reminds her critics that the poor are around all the time, but he was not going to live long among them. And he prophesied that the woman’s deed would make her memory endure (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9). All of this ties in neatly with what has been said previously in this paper.
The statement by Jesus that the woman was preparing him for burial is typical. The gift of myrrh by one of the wise men at Jesus’ birth is of similar strain. Mary Magdalene also came to the tomb with ointments, which certain commentaries say was left over from what she poured over his feet earlier in Bethany, and which is justification that she was the woman that Mark, Matthew and Luke omitted to name, but which John did. And perhaps Jesus’ prophecy of ensuing notoriety for the woman underpins the presence of the story in all four gospels, in addition to the theories earlier floated in this paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment