The Anointing Women

[TimCallahan]

Mark seems to me to be the only gospel writer out of the four
who is trying to give a strictly historical account,
while the others add bits to make theological points.
So, as to which one really happened,
I would say the version in Mark.

You might want to read Dennis MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark before you accord this pericope any level of historicity

 

[Ethnikos]

You might want to read Dennis MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark before you accord this pericope any level of historicity

You mentioned that earlier and I read some reviews of it that I found online.
I haven't bought the book yet.
Some people seemed to think that there wasn't much to it.

 

[TimCallahan]

You mentioned that earlier and I read some reviews of it that I found online.
I haven't bought the book yet.
Some people seemed to think that there wasn't much to it.

The book gives reasonable explanations for two stories in Mark that, otherwise, are inexplicable. These are, Jesus cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season and the young man present at the arrest of Jesus, who is only wearing a linen cloth. When the authorities grab the cloth, he runs away naked.

MacDonald points out that at the palace of the king of Phaeatia, in the Odyssey, there is an orchard, a gift of the gods, in which fruit trees bear fruit all year round. The fig tree in Mark is a symbol of the Temple. As such, as a gift of God, it should always bear fruit, not just sometimes. Cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season was too disturbing for Matthew, who not only speeded up the withering of the tree, but left out that it was not season for figs. Luke leaves the incident out altogether.

Likewise, the naked young man at the arrest of Jesus is left out by the other gospels. One explanation of the naked young man is that he was there for some sort of baptismal rite, as alluded to in the Secret Gospel of Mark. Unfortunately, the passage in question and, indeed, the whole of Secret Mark is rather dubious, being based on an eighteenth century copy of a letter authored (supposedly) by Clement of Alexandria. There's a debate raging over its authenticity.

MacDonald's theory is that the naked young man represents the soul of one as yet unburied. He bases this on the naked soul of the youngest of Odysseus' crew, who had died accidentally on Circe's isle. He is naked among the other ghosts when Odysseus meets him in the underworld, because he hasn't been given a decent burial. MacDonald sees the naked young man at the arrest of Jesus as representing the initial fate of Jesus after crucifixion, his body abused and, as yet, unburied.

 

[Brainache]

Hi Tim, I've recently been having a bit of back-and-forth with Dave FOC over in the Historical Jesus thread about the authorship of Mark. Do you put much stock in the Church tradition that g-Mark got his gospel from the sermons of Peter?

Are these symbolic passages indicative either way for that idea? Although I guess if these are based on Homeric tropes, g-Mark probably added those bits for dramatic effect. I mean, you can't turn a set of sermons into a biography without using some artistic license...

 

[TimCallahan]

Hi Tim, I've recently been having a bit of back-and-forth with Dave FOC over in the Historical Jesus thread about the authorship of Mark. Do you put much stock in the Church tradition that g-Mark got his gospel from the sermons of Peter?

Are these symbolic passages indicative either way for that idea? Although I guess if these are based on Homeric tropes, g-Mark probably added those bits for dramatic effect. I mean, you can't turn a set of sermons into a biography without using some artistic license...

No, I don't see them as having anything to do with Peter. Let's remember that the gospels were written in Greek by Greek speakers, for Greek speakers. When they copy material from the Jewish scriptures word for word, or nearly so, they use the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), the translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek.

Mark's knowledge of the geography of both Galilee and Judea is shaky, as is his grasp of Jewish law. When he has Jesus quote Ps. 22:1 as his last words on the cross ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"), he mistakenly has Jesus speak Aramaic instead of Hebrew (Mk. 15:34):

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"

Matthew corrects Mark's incorrect use of Eloi for "My God", which is Aramaic, and renders the verse in proper Hebrew, changing "My God," to Eli (Mt. 27:46):

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"

So, it would appear that the author of Matthew did at least know Hebrew. However, both Mark and Matthew seem to think that those watching the Crucifixion didn't know either Hebrew or Aramaic (Mk. 15:35 and Mt. 27:47):

And some of those bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah."

And some of those bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Elijah."

It would seem unlikely that Peter, to whatever degree he's historical, would have known Jewish law and the geography of Galilee.

The passages I quoted above, BTW, are part of the many reasons why Matthew is assumed to have copied the shared material from Mark, rather than the other way around.:Had Mark copied this material from Matthew, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to render Matthew's Hebrew, Eli, as the Aramaic, Eloi; while Matthew would, naturally correct Mark's improper rendering of Ps. 22:1.

 

[Brainache]

No, I don't see them as having anything to do with Peter. Let's remember that the gospels were written in Greek by Greek speakers, for Greek speakers. When they copy material from the Jewish scriptures word for word, or nearly so, they use the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), the translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek.

Mark's knowledge of the geography of both Galilee and Judea is shaky, as is his grasp of Jewish law. When he has Jesus quote Ps. 22:1 as his last words on the cross ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"), he mistakenly has Jesus speak Aramaic instead of Hebrew (Mk. 15:34):

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"

Why is that a mistake? I thought that Hebrew was pretty much only a liturgical language at the time and that most Jews in Jerusalem spoke Greek and/or Aramaic...

Matthew corrects Mark's incorrect use of Eloi for "My God", which is Aramaic, and renders the verse in proper Hebrew, changing "My God," to Eli (Mt. 27:46):

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"

So, it would appear that the author of Matthew did at least know Hebrew. However, both Mark and Matthew seem to think that those watching the Crucifixion didn't know either Hebrew or Aramaic (Mk. 15:35 and Mt. 27:47):

And some of those bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah."

And some of those bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Elijah."

Because the Urban Jews in Jerusalem had been speaking Greek for a few hundred years, maybe?

It would seem unlikely that Peter, to whatever degree he's historical, would have known Jewish law and the geography of Galilee.

I'm guessing you left out a "not" in there somewhere, in which case I agree, but is there any reason why g-Mark has to know all of that stuff?

The passages I quoted above, BTW, are part of the many reasons why Matthew is assumed to have copied the shared material from Mark, rather than the other way around.:Had Mark copied this material from Matthew, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to render Matthew's Hebrew, Eli, as the Aramaic, Eloi; while Matthew would, naturally correct Mark's improper rendering of Ps. 22:1.

So, I guess the idea that Mat. wasn't a copy of Mark, but a separate instance of a record of the same Oral Tradition that was used by Mark, is a non-starter.

 

[Greediguts]

I don't know how historical they were, but I can't be the only one hoping these birds were pointy...

Steve Martin is the Messiah!

 

[TimCallahan]

Why is that a mistake? I thought that Hebrew was pretty much only a liturgical language at the time and that most Jews in Jerusalem spoke Greek and/or Aramaic...

It's a mistake because Mark is actually quoting a scripture that would have been written in Hebrew. Since he has to translate Jesus's words it seems obvious that he's quoting it for the benefit of readers who only spoke Greek and not either Hebrew or Aramaic. Of course, the author of Mark might well have had an Aramaic copy of Ps. 22. In that case, Matthew's conversion of the Aramaic Eloi to the Hebrew Eli would have been a bit of fussiness on the part of a purist.

Because the Urban Jews in Jerusalem had been speaking Greek for a few hundred years, maybe?

The Jews of the Diaspora, living in places such as Alexandria and Antioch or Greek-speaking areas of the Aegean probably spoke Greek to the exclusion of Aramaic; hence, the need for the Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. I don't know that the Jews of Jerusalem would have spoken Greek.

I'm guessing you left out a "not" in there somewhere, in which case I agree, but is there any reason why g-Mark has to know all of that stuff?

No, I didn't leave out a "not." The Jewish law in question, that Mark gets wrong, is that women could not divorce their husbands. This is pretty basic, something we would expect Jewish males to know, regardless of their level of literacy. Thus, we would expect any historical Peter to know this.

As to the geography of Galilee, which is where Peter is supposed to have come from, we would indeed expect Peter to know its basic geography. Here's the part of the t geography that Mark garbles (Mk. 7:31):

Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.

Here's the problem: Sidon is north of Tyre. The Sea of Galilee is south of Tyre and west of the Decapolis. So Jesus, supposedly heading from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, first goes north, when he should be headed south, then goes around to the southeast through the region of the Decapolis, then, finally goes northwest to the Sea of Galilee.

Since any historical Peter would have enough knowledge of the geography of Galilee, to see that this was totally garbled, we can discount the idea that Mark was his secretary - as if Peter would have had staff.

So, I guess the idea that Mat. wasn't a copy of Mark, but a separate instance of a record of the same Oral Tradition that was used by Mark, is a non-starter.

As early as the late fourth century Augustine of Hippo had noted that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke contained shared material, either word for word or nearly so. Augustine's solution to what eventually became known as the "Synoptic Problem" was that Matthew wrote his gospel first. Mark wrote a condensed version of Matthew, and Luke used both gospels as source material.

In the 1700s Johan von Griesbach, who coined the term, "Synoptic" (Gr. "seen together") theorized that Mark used both Matthew and Luke as sources. Considering that Mark doesn't have any Nativity story, which, had he based his gospel on Matthew and Luke, he should have had, plus a lot of other evidence, most modern scholars see Mark as the source of the shared material in the Synoptic Gospels.

 

[Ethnikos]

I don't know that the Jews of Jerusalem would have spoken Greek.

There was a large Greek speaking synagogue in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus' ministry.
I got that from:
Mark: Hermeneia, by Adela Yarbro Collins

 

[Brainache]

It's a mistake because Mark is actually quoting a scripture that would have been written in Hebrew. Since he has to translate Jesus's words it seems obvious that he's quoting it for the benefit of readers who only spoke Greek and not either Hebrew or Aramaic. Of course, the author of Mark might well have had an Aramaic copy of Ps. 22. In that case, Matthew's conversion of the Aramaic Eloi to the Hebrew Eli would have been a bit of fussiness on the part of a purist.

I hope this isn't going OT, but you asked for Apologists to come and say how they separated fact from allegory in the gospels and I've got nothing better to do than impersonate an Apologist online, so:

I'm positing that Mark's source was oral. I'm saying g-Mark was one of those Jews for whom the Septuagint was written (Spoke Greek and Aramaic, but not Hebrew). That he was originally from Rome or one of the cities along the way from Jerusalem to Rome. That he had an Aramaic speaker as his source, who didn't think geography lessons were all that important, given that the world was about to end.

The Jews of the Diaspora, living in places such as Alexandria and Antioch or Greek-speaking areas of the Aegean probably spoke Greek to the exclusion of Aramaic; hence, the need for the Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. I don't know that the Jews of Jerusalem would have spoken Greek.

Someone in the HJ thread linked to an article about the number of Greek gravestones in 1st century Jerusalem, I can't find it now, but there were a lot of them. I googled to try to get it and failed, but I did find this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lid-Jerusalem-reveal-Jesus-resting-place.html

Using a robotic arm equipped with a camera, archaeologists have found human bone boxes and an inscription that reads 'Divine Jehovah, raise up, raise up' in a 1st Century Christian burial chamber beneath a tower block in Jerusalem.
They believe that this is proof the site is the final resting place of Jesus. However, other scholars remain highly sceptical of the find.
...

It's the Daily Mail, so it must be true!

But Jesus was a country boy from Nazareth, maybe he had a thick accent? OK, sorry that was silly.

No, I didn't leave out a "not." The Jewish law in question, that Mark gets wrong, is that women could not divorce their husbands. This is pretty basic, something we would expect Jewish males to know, regardless of their level of literacy. Thus, we would expect any historical Peter to know this.

I thought that was one of Jesus' new Laws.

As to the geography of Galilee, which is where Peter is supposed to have come from, we would indeed expect Peter to know its basic geography. Here's the part of the t geography that Mark garbles (Mk. 7:31):

Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.

Here's the problem: Sidon is north of Tyre. The Sea of Galilee is south of Tyre and west of the Decapolis. So Jesus, supposedly heading from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, first goes north, when he should be headed south, then goes around to the southeast through the region of the Decapolis, then, finally goes northwest to the Sea of Galilee.

Since any historical Peter would have enough knowledge of the geography of Galilee, to see that this was totally garbled, we can discount the idea that Mark was his secretary - as if Peter would have had staff.

Well I doubt Peter offered medical insurance... But the story I heard from some early church Historian was that g-Mark was someone's cousin hired to be an interpreter. The story goes, that Peter ("Rocky" to his friends) gets out of Jail and has to leave town. So he goes to his buddy Mark's place, freaks out the kids and Mark says he has to take his show on the road. He sets Pete up with his cousin who speaks Greek and knows the road to Rome. (well, all of them apparently...)

Then we'd expect him to know the geography a bit better I suppose. I guess for my scenario, g-Mark would be an out-of-towner heading back to Rome, or Peter maybe picked him up once he got somewhere outside Palestine.

Maybe there is some other explanation, but my powers of Apology are too weak...

As early as the late fourth century Augustine of Hippo had noted that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke contained shared material, either word for word or nearly so. Augustine's solution to what eventually became known as the "Synoptic Problem" was that Matthew wrote his gospel first. Mark wrote a condensed version of Matthew, and Luke used both gospels as source material.

In the 1700s Johan von Griesbach, who coined the term, "Synoptic" (Gr. "seen together") theorized that Mark used both Matthew and Luke as sources. Considering that Mark doesn't have any Nativity story, which, had he based his gospel on Matthew and Luke, he should have had, plus a lot of other evidence, most modern scholars see Mark as the source of the shared material in the Synoptic Gospels.

Well, in my totally revolutionary, paradigm shifting HJ scenario: Mark and Matthew had the same Oral Tradition as a source, not written sources at all. Matthew's Oral Tradition was from inside Palestine and so included Hebrew and possibly more material from more contributors. Mark's gospel was the work of a fan-boy foreigner roped in to translate for a Jewish Holy Man. Luke was the only one using written sources, and he used Mark, Matthew and the Letters Of Paul.

I think as soon as people started putting these books together as Justin Martyr describes them "Memoirs of the Apostles" the copyists might have smoothed over some of the orally generated differences between Mark and Mat.

So there it is, my attempt at full-blown Apologist Mode. How did I do?

 

[pakeha]

The Jewish law in question, that Mark gets wrong, is that women could not divorce their husbands. This is pretty basic, something we would expect Jewish males to know, regardless of their level of literacy. Thus, we would expect any historical Peter to know this. ...

Are you quite sure about those divorce laws?
This site seems to suggest Jewish women had recourse to divorce proceedings
http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/DivorcesByJewishWomen.htm

 

[rcfieldz]

uh uhuh

I can provide a golden shower.

 

[TimCallahan]

Are you quite sure about those divorce laws?
This site seems to suggest Jewish women had recourse to divorce proceedings
http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/DivorcesByJewishWomen.htm

This is quite new to me. Thank you for this link. I would point out, however, that the first section does say that the woman essentially has to ask her husband to write her a bill of divorce. So, her ability to divorce him depended on him giving her permission to do that.

 

[TimCallahan]

I hope this isn't going OT, but you asked for Apologists to come and say how they separated fact from allegory in the gospels and I've got nothing better to do than impersonate an Apologist online, so:

I'm positing that Mark's source was oral. I'm saying g-Mark was one of those Jews for whom the Septuagint was written (Spoke Greek and Aramaic, but not Hebrew). That he was originally from Rome or one of the cities along the way from Jerusalem to Rome. That he had an Aramaic speaker as his source, who didn't think geography lessons were all that important, given that the world was about to end.

We really don't know the names of the gospel writers. Unlike Paul, who stated at the beginning of his epistles who he was, the gospel writers gave no indication who they were. As such, we really don't know if the guy who wrote Mark was really named Mark, or, more likely, Marcus. However, if his name was actually Mark or John Mark, then one of his names at least was Roman.

Someone in the HJ thread linked to an article about the number of Greek gravestones in 1st century Jerusalem, I can't find it now, but there were a lot of them. I googled to try to get it and failed, but I did find this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lid-Jerusalem-reveal-Jesus-resting-place.html


It's the Daily Mail, so it must be true!

See Ethnikos' post above. I stand corrected concerning Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem.

. . . (snip) . . .

I thought that was one of Jesus' new Laws.

Jesus is basically saying that, though Jewish law allowed divorce, in his new covenant it wasn't to be allowed (Mk. 10:2 - 5)

And the Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment . . . ."

What follows this is the formula of Christian weddings ( "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder" . . . (etc.)

Well I doubt Peter offered medical insurance... But the story I heard from some early church Historian was that g-Mark was someone's cousin hired to be an interpreter. The story goes, that Peter ("Rocky" to his friends) gets out of Jail and has to leave town. So he goes to his buddy Mark's place, freaks out the kids and Mark says he has to take his show on the road. He sets Pete up with his cousin who speaks Greek and knows the road to Rome. (well, all of them apparently...)

Then we'd expect him to know the geography a bit better I suppose. I guess for my scenario, g-Mark would be an out-of-towner heading back to Rome, or Peter maybe picked him up once he got somewhere outside Palestine.

As far as I know, the whole link between Peter and Mark was based on extra-biblical tradition

. . . (snip) . . . Well, in my totally revolutionary, paradigm shifting HJ scenario: Mark and Matthew had the same Oral Tradition as a source, not written sources at all. Matthew's Oral Tradition was from inside Palestine and so included Hebrew and possibly more material from more contributors. Mark's gospel was the work of a fan-boy foreigner roped in to translate for a Jewish Holy Man. Luke was the only one using written sources, and he used Mark, Matthew and the Letters Of Paul.

I think as soon as people started putting these books together as Justin Martyr describes them "Memoirs of the Apostles" the copyists might have smoothed over some of the orally generated differences between Mark and Mat.

So there it is, my attempt at full-blown Apologist Mode. How did I do?

The problem with the theory that both Mark and Matthew used a common oral source is that a lot of the material in Mark is common also to Matthew and Luke. That is to say, it's written material, copied word for word or nearly so, as opposed to the same subject matter, but differently worded.

 

[pakeha]

This is quite new to me. Thank you for this link. I would point out, however, that the first section does say that the woman essentially has to ask her husband to write her a bill of divorce. So, her ability to divorce him depended on him giving her permission to do that.

Quite all right, TC. It IS a fascinating take on Jewish women's possibilities vis a vis divorce in the 1st century, isn't it.

Then along comes Jesus claiming a woman who has managed to free herself from an intolerable marital situation has no right to then form a relation on her own terms.

Anyway.
Are we to assume Jesus permitted this anointing with spikenard a number of times or just once?
Were the gospel writers simply describing different reports of the incident?
Can any of the gospel writers be taken seriously on this subject?

 

[Brainache]

Quite all right, TC. It IS a fascinating take on Jewish women's possibilities vis a vis divorce in the 1st century, isn't it.

Then along comes Jesus claiming a woman who has managed to free herself from an intolerable marital situation has no right to then form a relation on her own terms.

Anyway.
Are we to assume Jesus permitted this anointing with spikenard a number of times or just once?
Were the gospel writers simply describing different reports of the incident?
Can any of the gospel writers be taken seriously on this subject?

I'm no Tim Callahan, but I'll take a stab at this.

The fact that all four gospels include a version of this story suggests to me that they all thought it important enough to include. Why?

It's a vignette about Jesus interacting with a woman and then rebuking his followers who saw something wrong in that. The exact nature of the interaction, the woman, the fault seen by the followers, and the rebuke all vary in each gospel. I think that is because the story is about sexuality and that different communities saw it in different ways.

Is it about sexuality? I'm not sure, but I think a religious Jewish woman wiping my feet with her hair, might well... (I'll be in my bunk...

 

[catsmate]

<snip> but I did find this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lid-Jerusalem-reveal-Jesus-resting-place.html


It's the Daily Mail, so it must be true!
<snip>

That rubbish about the supposed tomb was critiqued in detail last year by numerous professional archaeologists. Jacobovici and Tabor used their "find" to pimp their book and film.

"In my assessment, there's zero percent chance that their theory is correct," said Andrew Vaughn, executive director of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

"....a nice tomb ... it's hard to press it into service as an impressive find"
Christopher Rollston, an expert in Semitic epigraphy at Emmanuel Christian Seminary

"Nothing in the book 'revolutionizes our understanding of Jesus or early Christianity,' as the authors and publisher claim, and we may regard this book as yet another in a long list of presentations that misuse not only the Bible but also archaeology," Eric Meyers, Duke University

"...it pains me to see archaeology hijacked in the service of non-scientific interests, whether they are religious, financial, or other."
Jodi Magness, religious-studies professor at UNC

 

[Brainache]

That rubbish about the supposed tomb was critiqued in detail last year by numerous professional archaeologists. Jacobovici and Tabor used their "find" to pimp their book and film.

"In my assessment, there's zero percent chance that their theory is correct," said Andrew Vaughn, executive director of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

"....a nice tomb ... it's hard to press it into service as an impressive find"
Christopher Rollston, an expert in Semitic epigraphy at Emmanuel Christian Seminary

"Nothing in the book 'revolutionizes our understanding of Jesus or early Christianity,' as the authors and publisher claim, and we may regard this book as yet another in a long list of presentations that misuse not only the Bible but also archaeology," Eric Meyers, Duke University

"...it pains me to see archaeology hijacked in the service of non-scientific interests, whether they are religious, financial, or other."
Jodi Magness, religious-studies professor at UNC

You mean the Daily Mail sensationalised a story? Never!

 

[TimCallahan]

Quite all right, TC. It IS a fascinating take on Jewish women's possibilities vis a vis divorce in the 1st century, isn't it.

Then along comes Jesus claiming a woman who has managed to free herself from an intolerable marital situation has no right to then form a relation on her own terms.

There does seem to be a definitely anti-sexual message in the gospels. When Jesus tells the Pharisees that Moses only allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, he would seem to be championing women. However, given the apocalypticism that permeates the New Testament, he would seem to also be implicitly championing asceticism and sexual abstinence, as Paul does explicitly.

Anyway.
Are we to assume Jesus permitted this anointing with spikenard a number of times or just once?
Were the gospel writers simply describing different reports of the incident?
Can any of the gospel writers be taken seriously on this subject?

Since John is generally seen as being later than the Synoptic Gospels, it would be likely that he based his story, with the embellishment that Judas was the one rebuking the woman, on at least one of those in the Synoptic Gospels. The story is the same in Mark and Matthew, with Luke varying it considerably. So, I would see the story originating with Mark, being copied by Matthew and revised for emphasis by Luke.

I would go with Dennis MacDonald's explanation that the anointing woman is based on Eurycleia in the Odyssey. Her story, in case you don't remember it, is that she was the nurse of Odysseus when he was a child. As a young man, Odysseus had been gored by a wild boar and still bore the scar of that goring on his thigh. He comes back to Ithaca disguised as a beggar. While his wife, Penelope, doesn't recognize him, she nevertheless shows him hospitality, part of which involves having the slave woman, Eurycleia, wash his feet. While doing this, Eurycleia sees the old scar and realizes the beggar is actually Odysseus. She's the only one to recognize him without Odysseus specifically revealing himself. Likewise, the anointing woman is the only one who, without special revelation from Jesus, recognizes he is the Christ, the anointed one.

While a single episode of an anointing woman isn't that hard to accept as an actual incident, it's a bit too pat as a homiletic tale to accept as history, particularly since just about everything in the gospels can be shown to be a variant of earlier material, either from the Jewish scriptures, contemporary event seen through the point of view of Jewish apocalypticism, pagan myth or Greek literature. So, I would see the homily of the anointing woman as this: A woman, hence an inferior, plainly sees that Jesus is the Christ and, accordingly anoints him. The men are offended by her action, not only because of what they see a profligate, but as well because of the physical intimacy of her act. Jesus corrects / scolds them and defends her as doing him a service. The moral is that those who see that Jesus is the Christ are more worthy than those who don't, even if the later is in a higher social station.

 

[pakeha]

That sounds reasonable, TC.
Thanks for reminding me of that incident from the Odyssey.
Is foot-washing/anointing linked with a special recognition an element in other mythologies? Apart from the Greek and Christian stories?