The Anointing Women

[pakeha]

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 diffe
rent 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...

I've been reading various Christian commentaries on the anointing:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/femanoint.html
This source claims there were two anointings.

http://mickeymcnew.hubpages.com/hub/The-women-who-anointed-Jesus-feet-and-their-typology

This one, three.
And has this to say to boot
"Looking deeper into all accounts we can extract precious spiritual nuggets that unveil the nature of the bride. In the first two accounts we have both women anointing Jesus’ feet but neither anoints His head. This act testifies to the character of the two women and their understanding of Jesus as the bridegroom God. In Ruth 3:3-5, Naomi sends her daughter-in-law to the threshing floor of her kinsmen redeemer, Boaz. She was instructed to lie down at his feet. When a woman lies down at a man’s feet she was saying in essence, “Cover me with your garment and I’ll be your bride”, see also Ezekiel 16:8. To anoint ones feet suggest even a more intimate nature. The word “foot” singular in Hebrew is “regel” Strong’s 7270 and is used as a euphemism for pudenda. Another strong indication that these two women understand their call to be the bride is the fact that they let down their hair in the presence of men. Women wore their hair up in public or kept it covered. Hair was considered sensual and was only let down in the presence of ones husband. The act of letting their hair down suggested they acknowledged Jesus as their Husband and He accepted their gesture. "

You might be on the right track after all, Brainache.

This third analysis
http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/john12x1.htm

aludes to the context of footwashing
"People generally washed and anointed their own feet. Foot washing was a routine matter of cleanliness, and the use of oil or ointment on one's feet was soothing for those shod in sandals. When guests arrived at someone's home, especially after a journey, the host usually provided a basin and water for the guests to wash their own feet before sharing the meal. In the Scriptures, for example, Abraham welcomed visitors to his tent by saying, "Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree" (Gen 18:4). The same practice is attested in other biblical texts and Greco-Roman sources. In some cases, a host might also provide oil for his guests, although they would ordinarily rub it onto their feet themselves.

A slave was virtually the only one who could be expected to wash and anoint the feet of another person....washing or anointing the feet of another person remained identified with slavery."

One impression I take away from these three commentaries is that the incident is clearly a literary devise.
Inspired by Homer? It could be.
There's also the possible it was woven together of elements from the Midrash as a literary introduction to the foot-washing at the Last Supper.

Another impression I take away is that there's no consensus on how many anointings there were.
An intriguing little story, all in all.

 

[catsmate]

You mean the Daily Mail sensationalised a story? Never!

Well, to be fair to the Fail, they just parroted a bunch of exaggerated/fabricated claims.

 

[TimCallahan]

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?

I haven't encountered anything of that sort in other mythologies so far. However, it would not surprise me if there were.

ETA: I found this example of women washing the feet of a chief at this site, chapter written by Sir James Frazer:

The Dyaks of Sarawak believed that their famous English ruler, Rajah Brooke, was endowed with a certain magical virtue which, if properly applied, could render the rice-crops abundant. Hence when he visited a tribe, they used to bring him the seed which they intended to sow next year, and he fertilised it by shaking over it the women’s necklaces, which had been previously dipped in a special mixture. And when he entered a village, the women would wash and bathe his feet, first with water, and then with the milk of a young coco-nut, and lastly with water again, and all this water which had touched his person they preserved for the purpose of distributing it on their farms, believing that it ensured an abundant harvest.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the Dyak example, TC.
The Golden Bough IS a remarkable reference source, isn't it.

 

[Brainache]

I've been reading various Christian commentaries on the anointing:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/femanoint.html
This source claims there were two anointings.

http://mickeymcnew.hubpages.com/hub/The-women-who-anointed-Jesus-feet-and-their-typology

This one, three.
And has this to say to boot
"Looking deeper into all accounts we can extract precious spiritual nuggets that unveil the nature of the bride. In the first two accounts we have both women anointing Jesus’ feet but neither anoints His head. This act testifies to the character of the two women and their understanding of Jesus as the bridegroom God. In Ruth 3:3-5, Naomi sends her daughter-in-law to the threshing floor of her kinsmen redeemer, Boaz. She was instructed to lie down at his feet. When a woman lies down at a man’s feet she was saying in essence, “Cover me with your garment and I’ll be your bride”, see also Ezekiel 16:8. To anoint ones feet suggest even a more intimate nature. The word “foot” singular in Hebrew is “regel” Strong’s 7270 and is used as a euphemism for pudenda. Another strong indication that these two women understand their call to be the bride is the fact that they let down their hair in the presence of men. Women wore their hair up in public or kept it covered. Hair was considered sensual and was only let down in the presence of ones husband. The act of letting their hair down suggested they acknowledged Jesus as their Husband and He accepted their gesture. "

You might be on the right track after all, Brainache.

This third analysis
http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/john12x1.htm

aludes to the context of footwashing
"People generally washed and anointed their own feet. Foot washing was a routine matter of cleanliness, and the use of oil or ointment on one's feet was soothing for those shod in sandals. When guests arrived at someone's home, especially after a journey, the host usually provided a basin and water for the guests to wash their own feet before sharing the meal. In the Scriptures, for example, Abraham welcomed visitors to his tent by saying, "Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree" (Gen 18:4). The same practice is attested in other biblical texts and Greco-Roman sources. In some cases, a host might also provide oil for his guests, although they would ordinarily rub it onto their feet themselves.

A slave was virtually the only one who could be expected to wash and anoint the feet of another person....washing or anointing the feet of another person remained identified with slavery."

One impression I take away from these three commentaries is that the incident is clearly a literary devise.
Inspired by Homer? It could be.
There's also the possible it was woven together of elements from the Midrash as a literary introduction to the foot-washing at the Last Supper.

Another impression I take away is that there's no consensus on how many anointings there were.
An intriguing little story, all in all.

I thought so. I knew the stuff about a Jewish woman's hair (didn't know about "pudenda" though...).

Is it possible this story is about Jesus fornicating, disguised so that only those in the know of the symbolism would get it?

Have I read too many conspiracy theories?

 

[edge]

An interesting aspect of the gospels is that they all have pericopes. A pericope (pronounced: per-ih-CO-pay) is a story that, while being part of the gospel, is complete in itself, such as the story in the Gospel of John (though apparently added to it after the gospel was written) of the woman taken in adultery. The word "pericope" is derived from two Greek words, the prepositional prefix peri, meaning "around," and a word meaning "to cut." Thus, a pericope is a "cut around," a story that can be cut out from the narrative and stand on its own as an independent tale.

The four canonical gospels all contain different versions of a pericope often referred to as that of the "anointing woman." In all versions of the tale, Jesus is a guest at someone's house and is sitting or reclining at supper. A woman comes up behind him and anoints either his head or feet with ointment. The act is rash and presumptuous, since a woman would not ordinarily have the right to anoint someone. Somebody, either the host, the disciples or a particular disciple, condemns the woman for the act; but Jesus reproves them (or him) and praises the woman. In other words, he flouts tradition and propriety to champion an open act of generosity.

In Mark and Matthew, the same story is told (Mk. 14:3 - 9; Mt. 26:6 - 13) Two days before the Passover, Jesus and his disciples are having supper at the home of Simon the leper (actually, the probably refers to any scaly skin disease, such as psoriasis), in Bethany. An unknown woman comes in with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, breaks it open and pours it over Jesus' head. Some of the disciples are indignant, saying, "Why was the ointment wasted? It could have been sold for more than 300 dinarii and the money given to the poor." Jesus says, "Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me." He goes on to say she has anointed him beforehand for burial, then adds that they will always have the poor with them, but they won't have him with them much longer. He adds that wherever the gospel is preached, what she has done will be told in memory of her. After this incident, Judas goes out to the chief priests to betray Jesus.

Luke changes the story considerably (Lk. 7:36 - 50), putting it earlier in the ministry of Jesus at an unnamed town, at the home of Simon the Pharisee, and making the act all the more scandalous, since the woman - often conflated with Mary Magdalene - is a "sinner" (Gr. hamartolos), with the clear indications she's a prostitute. She is obviously penitent, since when she comes in she is weeping. She wets his feet with her tears and wipes them dry with her hair, then kisses his feet and anoints them with ointment. Jesus' host, Simon the Pharisee says to himself that Jesus couldn't be a prophet, or he wouldn't allow the woman to touch him, for she is a sinner. Jesus responds to him, telling him a parable of a creditor and two debtors, one owing him 500 dinarii and one owing him 50 denarii. When they couldn't pay, he forgave them both. Which one, Jesus asks, does Simon think will love the man more. Simon says the one who owed more, and Jesus says he's correct. Then Jesus says to Simon that when he entered Simon's house, he didn't give him water to wash his feet, but the woman has wet his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. He says that Simon didn't greet him with a kiss, but the woman hasn't ceased kissing his feet. Then he says that though her sins are great, she is forgiven.

John seems to have taken something from both of these versions. He sets the story again in Bethany, this time six days before Passover, at the house of Lazarus, whom he has raised from the dead, and his two sisters, Martha and Mary (Jn. 12:1 - 8). Mary of Bethany takes a pound of pure nard (i.e. spikinard, imported from India), which is very costly, anoints Jesus' feet with it and wipes them with her hair. Judas says, "Why wasn't this ointment sold for more than 300 dinarii and the money given to the poor." John adds that Judas really didn't care about the poor and that he was a thief. Jesus defends Mary, again saying, as in Mark and Matthew, "Let her alone," and also saying, let her keep the ointment for his burial, adding that the they always have the poor with them, but they won't always have him.

For those who see the gospels as, to any degree, historical, I'd like to ask what they see as the historicity of this incident. Did all three of these anointings take place? Did it happen once, then get retold different ways? If so, which of these versions is the true one? Or, do you think, even though you take the gospels as basically historical, that the entire story was made up?

Well Tim she is portrayed as a heroine, even when the disciples don't and can't believe Jesus when he tells them he must be put to death none of them believe it: the woman is the first to be a true Christian taking what Jesus tells them on faith. Sure it’s going to vary; all of them have a different perspective on the social issues of woman through their cultural basis. Jesus rebukes them; he was ahead of his time on this one. Even if it was made up it puts woman in a better light so then you could say someone was ahead of their time. One more thing every person has great sin so who can say what she was, the no touching was cultural. She overcame her sins.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well Tim she is portrayed as a heroine, even when the disciples don't and can't believe Jesus when he tells them he must be put to death none of them believe it: the woman is the first to be a true Christian taking what Jesus tells them on faith. Sure it’s going to vary; all of them have a different perspective on the social issues of woman through their cultural basis. Jesus rebukes them; he was ahead of his time on this one. Even if it was made up it puts woman in a better light so then you could say someone was ahead of their time. One more thing every person has great sin so who can say what she was, the no touching was cultural. She overcame her sins.

No, different points of view don't explain the following differences:

Mark and Matthew say the anointing took place in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, two days before Passover, close to the time of the Passion.

Luke says it happened at the house of Simon the Pharisee. He doesn't specify either the town or when the anointing happened; but it's quite some time before the Passion.

John says it happened at the house of Lazarus, after Jesus had raised him from the dead and that it happened six days before the Passover.

We could perhaps excuse the discrepancy between six days or two day before Passover. We could also possibly excuse the difference between the house of Simon the leper and that of Simon the Pharisee, or the discrepancy between two different houses in Bethany; but we can't excuse both discrepancies at the same time.

Mark and Matthew say nothing about the woman, Luke says she was a "sinner" i.e. a prostitute. John says she was Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus. There's no way to harmonize her with Luke's prostitute.

Mark and Matthew say she anointed the head of Jesus. Luke and John say she anointed his feet and wiped them with her hair. Again, these two variants can't be harmonized.

Mark and Matthew don't specify who objects to the woman's act; but there's more than one person. Luke says Simon the Pharisee objected, but spoke to himself, meaning Jesus had to read his thoughts. John says the one who objected was Judas. Again, you cannot harmonize these as being simply separate points of view.

Therefore, we are left with three possibilities:

1) All three tales are true. On three separate occasions, women came up behind him while he was taking a meal as a guest at someone's house and anointed him. This strains credibility, particularly because of the parallels. It always happens at a meal, the woman is always scolded, directly or indirectly, on two of the three occasions the woman anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes them with her hair. Someone always objects to either the impropriety of the act (Simon the Pharisee) or the waste of a valuable item. Jesus always rebukes them.

2) It happened once, as recorded (probably) by Mark and Matthew. Luke and John freely adapted the story for homiletic reasons.

3) It never happened. Mark made it up, possibly based on the incident of Eurycleia recognizing Odysseus when she was washing his feet. Matthew copied the story verbatim. Luke and John wrote variations.

Concerning the second hilited area: Yes, I agree, Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was kinder to women than were his contemporaries.

 

[rcfieldz]

getting wet

Had a gal try and drown me once...uhuh...we weren't in a body of water.

 

[Ethnikos]

Luke says Simon the Pharisee objected, but spoke to himself, meaning Jesus had to read his thoughts.

Which to me is one of the indications that when you are reading Luke, you are reading what is
basically "historical fiction", and not actual history as witnessed by actual people who had their
accounts recorded in one way or another.

If you were a fundamentalist (which I am recovering from), you would think, "this is the Word of
God, so Luke was divinely inspired to know what people in the story were thinking". My advice is,
don't think that, it doesn't make sense and is beyond what even the Bible itself claims.
Now most members here would reply something like, "well . . duh . . "
But there are people who don't necessarily post here much, but who do read posts that interest
them, so heads up from someone who did go through a crises brought on at least partially by being
on this forum, avoid that sort of fundamentalism because it will fail you, if not now, eventually, so
be prepared by having a fallback, which is that the Bible was written, edited and translated by men,
and not God.

 

[Brainache]

No, different points of view don't explain the following differences:

Mark and Matthew say the anointing took place in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, two days before Passover, close to the time of the Passion.

Luke says it happened at the house of Simon the Pharisee. He doesn't specify either the town or when the anointing happened; but it's quite some time before the Passion.

John says it happened at the house of Lazarus, after Jesus had raised him from the dead and that it happened six days before the Passover.

We could perhaps excuse the discrepancy between six days or two day before Passover. We could also possibly excuse the difference between the house of Simon the leper and that of Simon the Pharisee, or the discrepancy between two different houses in Bethany; but we can't excuse both discrepancies at the same time.

Mark and Matthew say nothing about the woman, Luke says she was a "sinner" i.e. a prostitute. John says she was Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus. There's no way to harmonize her with Luke's prostitute.

Mark and Matthew say she anointed the head of Jesus. Luke and John say she anointed his feet and wiped them with her hair. Again, these two variants can't be harmonized.

Mark and Matthew don't specify who objects to the woman's act; but there's more than one person. Luke says Simon the Pharisee objected, but spoke to himself, meaning Jesus had to read his thoughts. John says the one who objected was Judas. Again, you cannot harmonize these as being simply separate points of view.

Therefore, we are left with three possibilities:

1) All three tales are true. On three separate occasions, women came up behind him while he was taking a meal as a guest at someone's house and anointed him. This strains credibility, particularly because of the parallels. It always happens at a meal, the woman is always scolded, directly or indirectly, on two of the three occasions the woman anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes them with her hair. Someone always objects to either the impropriety of the act (Simon the Pharisee) or the waste of a valuable item. Jesus always rebukes them.

2) It happened once, as recorded (probably) by Mark and Matthew. Luke and John freely adapted the story for homiletic reasons.

3) It never happened. Mark made it up, possibly based on the incident of Eurycleia recognizing Odysseus when she was washing his feet. Matthew copied the story verbatim. Luke and John wrote variations.

Concerning the second hilited area: Yes, I agree, Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was kinder to women than were his contemporaries.

Hi Tim. I'm resurrecting this thread to offer a different perspective.

There is a number of stories in the Talmud about the daughters of rich men and their extravagances at this time. They are usually called Miriam or Martha. Rabbis are complaining about how much they spend on wine, perfume and spicy treats.

Also stories in Josephus and elsewhere about Queen Helen of Adiabene who made generous donations to the temple, including a plaque about how bad it was to falsely accuse people of Adultery.

They are also associated with the theme of "True Charity" - A rich man walks to the temple on a carpet of old clothes so his feet don't touch the mud, afterwards he lets the poor keep the old clothes. Is he really being charitable?
They had a saying that roughly translates as: "The bigger the Camel, the bigger the burden". The richer you are, the more you should give. Interesting association of "Rich men" and "Camels".

The issue of giving money to the Temple, rather than using it to directly help relieve suffering by supplying food during a famine or something, was a big issue at the time.