Comparison of St. John’s Account with That in Matthew and Mark
An Annoying Anointing (John 12)
The same incident is recorded in Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9. Whatever may be the real or apparent contradiction as regards time, the narrative so closely resembles that of St. John that we must suppose them to be the same.
There is another anointing in Luke 7:36. On the same grounds on which we are obliged to accept the identity of the narrative in the former case, we are obliged to reject it in the latter case. The place and time are different, the woman is different (here a faithful and devout disciple, in Luke 7 a sinner), the host is different (here a leper, there a Pharisee), the objection itself is different (there on the waste of a pound of nard, wasting money, but in Luke 7, it is that the woman would defile our Lord with her touch). Furthermore, bearing the point of the parallel must be considered in evidence when comparing Luke 7 with these other narratives. And lastly as the objection is different, so also is the answer. Here our Lord replies with reference to His burial, there with a parable about the debtors.
Anointing must have been common (see Beeler’s Clement of Rome pp. 71, 75, 79, 111). It is the fact of Mary’s prodigality, the costhness of her gift, which is brought into prominence here. In St. Luke’s narrative it is not the act of the woman but the sufferance of the Lord that is remarkable. Thus, these are two different anointings. But what of the name Simon, the name of the person in whose presence the Lord was anointed? This has been alleged to show that we have two different versions of the same story. And even some who consider the differences striking, think that the name has crept into St. Luke’s account from some confusion.
But the name Simon is extremely common, the name of the person in whose house he was anointed (as common as the name John with ourselves). For example, Josephus (Ant. 38) mentions a Simon the Pharisee in the same sentence he mentions another Simon. Simon Peter is a fellow disciple of Simon the Zealot, Peter refutes Simon Magus, and lodges at the house of Simon the Tanner. There are eight people of this name besides Simon Peter (10 counting the two Symeons) just in the New Testament.
Comparison of St. John’s Account with That in Matthew and Mark
The time. πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα (John 12:1), six days before the Passover. St. John’s chronological notice, as usual, is precise, not so those of the Synoptic Evangelists e.g. Matt 26:2, 6—after two days and the Ἰησοῦ γενομένου ἐν Βηθανίᾳ etc. (vs. 6), but there is no suggestion that the sequence is chronological. The events are suggested by our Lord’s declaration that ‘after two days the Son of Man is betrayed.’ This suggests to the Evangelist to relate: 1) that at that time the chief priests etc. conspired against Him, and 2) that Jesus was anointed before and for his burial (Alford’s idea that there may have been a reference in the original account to Judas’ part). In St. Mark’s narrative the events follow in the same order, but the links of connection are different. It is possible that he did not know that this was the chronological order. This is in accordance with an account given not by an eyewitness or an Apostle but a close disciple of an Apostle. So Papias in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii.39.13sqq. This is given on the authority of John the Elder. Whether John the Elder was John the Apostle or not, it may be regarded as substantially the testimony of John the Apostle. I have already remarked that this notice in Eusebius compares and contrasts St. John with St. Mark.
Now this exactly agrees with the panorama here. While the chronology is different, the coincidence of language and fact is striking e.g. vs. 3, νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου; vs. 5, τριακοσίων δηναρίων, whereas St. Matthew has simply πολλοῦ (26:9). So again in a former narrative compare John 6:7 with Mark 6:37.
The house and the entertainers. St. John has ἐποίησαν οὖν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον ἐκεῖ. In St. Matthew and St. Mark the meal is said to take place in the house of Simon the leper. There is no contradiction here. There is nothing (as some have assumed) implying that it took place in the house of the two sisters or was given by them. To my mind ἐποίησαν (‘they made’) is impersonal and excludes this idea, for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are not mentioned until afterwards. It would be at least a strange mode of expression if this were the meaning. Some have supposed that Simon was the father, or the husband of Mary (see Smith’s Dictionary s.v. ‘Lazarus,’ ‘Mary Magdalene’ etc.). There is nothing in the narrative to indicate this. Lazarus appears to be one of the guests. Martha is just the sort of person to make herself useful anywhere. We have often and again seen the same ourselves, and in Palestine where social conventions were less tyrannous, such a part might well be taken by one who was not even a member of the family. I should gather from ἐποίησαν that it was a feast given by several of the villagers who would thus do the feast for Lazarus and friends.
The persons. We have the usual particularity of St. John as e.g. John 6:5, 7, 8 or again John 18:10, 11, so here Mary, Judas. The common idea representing Mary Magadalene here arises from two combinations: 1) Luke 7:36sqq. with Luke 8:1-3. Everything is against this combination: a) the form of the narrative; b) the description of Mary Magadalene in Luke 8, her association with other women, the description of the malady; 2) the identification of the anointing in Luke 7 with the one in John 7 and parallels. We thus get a Mary as an anointer. But, a) we have shown that the narratives are quite different, and b) neither Luke (10:38-42) nor St. John is aware that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person. They would not have so spoken, had they intended to suggest that Mary Magadalene = Mary of Bethany. See Prescott, Journal of Sacred Literature (Oct.) 1867, p. 123, and Plumptre in Smith’s Dictionary s.v. (though in the Lazarus article he dallies with the idea).
[THE MANUSCRIPT ON THE FOURTH GOSPEL BREAKS OFF HERE. (BW3)]