|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Mary of Bethany's Anointing of Jesus
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
This coming Sunday, the RCL Gospel is Mary's anointing of Jesus depicted in the Gospel of John:
Gospel Text
A few initial thoughts:
Only John names the woman, In Luke, she is referred as a "sinful woman", which is interpreted by some to mean she was a prostitute. Theologically, I was taught that
1) For Luke, the story is about penitence, of Jesus forgiving the sinful woman.
2) For Matthew and Mark, the story is about the woman anointing Jesus as King, in the same way as Samuel anointing David.
John naming of the woman as Mary of Bethany, connects the story to the raising of Lazarus. I learned in seminary that the washing of Jesus' feet with the nard is an act of gratitude on Mary's part for raising her brother Lazarus.
[ 31. January 2017, 21:39: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
My wife has become very interested in the therapeutic use of essential oils. She says nard (spikenard) was used in ancient times as a calming medicine. If that's the case, the use of nard by Mary of Bethany/the woman takes on direct connections with the Passion—trying to relieve Jesus's anticipation of what was coming.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Here are the parallel passages:
Mark
Matthew
Luke
Mamacita, Host
[ 10. March 2016, 01:40: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Theologically, I was taught that
...
2) For Matthew and Mark, the story is about the woman anointing Jesus as King, in the same way as Samuel anointing David.
Which is giving a woman a very prominent role, and would have been very radical at the time. Though, the prominence given to women as the first witnesses to the resurrection, and to Mary of Bethany sitting as a disciple at Jesus' feet (rather than in her 'rightful place' in the kitchen, like her sister Martha - who is, again, serving in this passage) would be equally radical.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This story, and the account of the Last Supper, clearly shows how the Apostles and Jesus were dining Roman style, lying down on couches that surrounded a central dining table. Nothing like Leonardo's painting, in other words. They had shed their shoes (remember how at the Last Supper there's footwashing) and were lying on their dining couches, propped on their elbows. So the woman with the jar doesn't have far to reach, to pour it over Jesus's clean and bare feet.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suppose one should ask whether "Roman style" was also the norm for Jews even before the influence of Greece and Rome on customs. European style chairs (and high tables) do require significant quantities of wood, and craftsmen to make them strong enough to sit on. Fine for Europe with lots of forests, but in the middle east where wood is less available it's easy to see how this would be less common. Also, in small houses the rooms are all going to be multi-purpose, so at night that dining room becomes a bed room - where do you then put the table and chairs?
Practicality suggests a combination of rugs and cushions to sit on, with maybe a low table for the food. Without even the couches of the more wealthy Roman homes.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Theologically, I was taught that
1) For Luke, the story is about penitence, of Jesus forgiving the sinful woman.
2) For Matthew and Mark, the story is about the woman anointing Jesus as King, in the same way as Samuel anointing David.
John naming of the woman as Mary of Bethany, connects the story to the raising of Lazarus. I learned in seminary that the washing of Jesus' feet with the nard is an act of gratitude on Mary's part for raising her brother Lazarus.
In Matthew and Mark (which are almost identical), the ointment is poured on Jesus' head. Perhaps that led to the interpretation of anointing Jesus as King? I think we have to look at the timing of the story as well. In John as well as in Matthew and Mark, this episode takes place shortly before Jesus' passion and death. the gospel writers make it explicit that Jesus viewed the woman's gesture as anointing him for burial.
Luke seems to take the story in a very different direction. First, it takes place much earlier in Jesus' ministry, so it is removed from happening in a context of his death and burial. Luke's characterization of the woman as a sinner is a detail in an overall story about repentance and forgiveness. It's about more than just her sins, whatever they were. Note that only Luke sets the story in the house of a Pharisee. And Jesus responds to the woman's act (anointing his feet, not his head, surely a more humble gesture?) and the men's reaction by telling a mini-parable about forgiving debts, before he praises the woman's actions and declares her forgiven.
I think John's telling of the story is the most multi-dimensional. For one thing, it's the most intimate - we've been in this house before and we know everyone's name. I don't disagree that Mary of Bethany's motivation could have been gratitude for Jesus' raising of her brother. I think there's more to it, though -- the anointing (for burial, again, this time from one so closely acquainted with death), the intimacy of her caressing his feet... there's an outpouring of love in John's story that always moves me.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think we have multiple real episodes that are being conflated wrongly into one. The John account with Mary of Bethany--that seems to be clearly something done by a hostess to a most honored guest at a family-plus-others event, and is most likely showing gratitude, given the emphasis on Lazarus and his recent resurrection.
The "sinful woman" account seems to involve an unwelcome outsider, not a hostess, who has managed to gain access to the dining room but is in front of a hostile audience of religious leaders--not hostile because of her extravagance, but rather because of her reputation. There's also the whole weeping thing, which doesn't show up in Mary's account.
I'm inclined to think these were two separate events (at least) and that this kind of action was rare but not totally unknown in the culture. I haven't seen any non-Jesus material like it, though. Has anybody else?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think we have multiple real episodes that are being conflated wrongly into one. The John account with Mary of Bethany--that seems to be clearly something done by a hostess to a most honored guest at a family-plus-others event, and is most likely showing gratitude, given the emphasis on Lazarus and his recent resurrection.
I think that's highly unlikely and instead the gospel differences represent different early Christian traditions on this event. But I can't see how it would be possible to prove it definitively either way - to me the most likely explanation is that an event has been distorted into different stories.
But, of course, YMMV.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It does sound unlikely to have two occurrences. (It sounds Monty Python-ish -- women coming up and pouring greasy stuff on you.) There is a tradition, nothing in the text, that simply says the women are the same. Mary of Bethany was a sinful woman who was saved by Jesus, and is the only one slinging ointment around.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does sound unlikely to have two occurrences.
It's possible that Mary was deliberately copying the earlier woman. (Not that I would base my salvation on the factuality of either or both accounts.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There was in fact a history of anointing on various occasions (and it's worth asking perhaps why she even had the nard, as it's not something one would keep handy to, say, deodorize the house). People certainly did put oil on guests' heads (see Luke 7:46) and this doesn't seem to me to be much different, bar the extravagance.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
to me the most likely explanation is that an event has been distorted into different stories.
.
Or been used to make two different theological points.
[ 10. March 2016, 18:19: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What 'history'? Do you mean other emotions in the NT, which isn't really history'?
My take on 'extravagance' here.
WTF? A history is a sequence of events. One of which I referenced, when Jesus refers to an expected everyday anointing that did not in fact take place--showing that it was in fact normal for that sort of anointing to take place at dinner parties. I haven't a clue what you're on about when you mention emotions, or refer to the NT as "not really history." If the events of the NT happened, it's history--even if you think every detail was not as described. If it did NOT happen in any way, shape or form, why the hell are you even a Christian?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does sound unlikely to have two occurrences. (It sounds Monty Python-ish -- women coming up and pouring greasy stuff on you.) There is a tradition, nothing in the text, that simply says the women are the same. Mary of Bethany was a sinful woman who was saved by Jesus, and is the only one slinging ointment around.
I disagree, anointing with oil was a common act of hospitality, especially as a mark of honour at that time. Just as we don't say it's Monty Python-ish to have several blind people come up to you and ask for healing (if you're the Messiah that is), neither is it outlandishly out of the question to have oil poured on you by a woman as a mark of respect when you're the Messiah and being entertained at somebody's house.
It may be more likely that two different traditions have sprung up around the one event but it's not ridiculous to suggest that Jesus may have been anointed with oil more than once during His ministry.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are some significant differences as well as the similarities. I think the biggest is that in one it's an outcast woman (maybe a prostitute, certainly someone no Pharisee would associate with) who comes into the home of a Pharisee to perform the annointing of an honoured guest that the Pharisee had failed to do - Jesus goes to quite considerable lengths to point that the woman who was not part of the household, who was not welcome there, performed the rituals of welcome and hospitality that the Pharisee had (almost certainly deliberately) failed in. Contrast with this story where the annointing of the honoured guest is quite correctly carried out by a member of the household.
The common feature is the extravagence of the annointing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I see no reason to think the two very different timings and methods of anointing, by (as someone has pointed out) two very different statuses of women (an outsider and a hostess) are "the same incident told two ways." Too many significant details differ.
I am unimpressed whenever "historical interpretation" is used to tar a woman as "obviously a prostitute" just because a different woman of similar name or similar behavior (at a different time or location) may have been that.
There is a long "tradition" of regarding all women mentioned in the Bible as "prostitutes" (except Mary). That long tradition is wrong. Just ask Mary Magdalene, who has long been mislabeled a prostitute on zero evidence.
I am aware there is a peculiar tradition in some quarters of believing nothing ever happens again - by that logic Jesus raised only one person from the dead and the story got retold as retold as a girl child and a mother-in-law and a man entombed for four days. Huh?
[ 11. March 2016, 03:40: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
I am aware there is a peculiar tradition in some quarters of believing nothing ever happens again - by that logic Jesus raised only one person from the dead and the story got retold as retold as a girl child and a mother-in-law and a man entombed for four days. Huh? [/QB]
Oh, that's our powerful human desire to see patterns. The randomly scattered stars in the sky organize themselves, under our gaze, into constellations, and then instantly accrue stories to explain themselves. The Gospel accounts were not written (or compiled) in a way that meets these mundane needs. And so we run around naming the wise men, appending a number (three) and an entire miniseries worth of back story to them.
No modern account would have so many Marys in the account -- if they were all named Mary you would carefully tip off each one, Mary mother of Jesus, Mary sister of Martha, Mary the one who always has some oil for Jesus's feet. Instinctively we organize them, tidying them into one Mary and then adding a lurid backstory worthy of Downton Abbey. We all do this, all the time.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What 'history'? Do you mean other emotions in the NT, which isn't really history'?
My take on 'extravagance' here.
WTF? A history is a sequence of events. One of which I referenced, when Jesus refers to an expected everyday anointing that did not in fact take place--showing that it was in fact normal for that sort of anointing to take place at dinner parties. I haven't a clue what you're on about when you mention emotions, or refer to the NT as "not really history." If the events of the NT happened, it's history--even if you think every detail was not as described. If it did NOT happen in any way, shape or form, why the hell are you even a Christian?
Lots of Christians don't regard the gospels as history but as myth.
'emotion' - typing too fast - should have been 'mentions'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
And now you need to define myth.
There is at least one usage in which myth and history coexist quite happily.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Any comparison between this story and the story of Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus in John chapter 20? I know we are dealing with two different Marys (if you accept historical scholarship), but I'm struck by the fact that the risen Jesus tells Magdalen to not touch him, whereas the pre-risen Jesus allows himself to be touched and washed by Mary of Bethany.
If I was preaching on this passage, I would say that Jesus accepts and blesses human touch, human embrace, physical expressions of love, and yet at the same time, the physical Jesus is not here on earth, but we must encounter him not through embracing a physical body, but through the Sacraments of bread and wine, but as well, through other people, the poor included.
Understood this way, Jesus' response of "You will always have the poor with you", means that unlike Mary of Bethany who encountered the Jesus on earth, we are called to encounter him in others, especially in the poor and those on the margins.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I'm struck by the fact that the risen Jesus tells Magdalen to not touch him...
I have looked at the Greek (although I am no great Greek scholar), and I think Jesus was telling her not to cling to him. My impression is that she plastered herself against his feet.
He's telling her that he can't stay around forever; he must ascend to the father.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I like Moo's translation of "do not cling to me." In fact I was just checking some alternate translations. The KJV has "touch" while NRSV and NIV have "do not hold on to me," and the ESV has "do not cling to me." I know that's hardly a comprehensive study, but I think it indicates that the original sense of Jesus' admonition to Magdalene meant something other than "hands off!!!" We should also consider that Jesus follows that by telling her to go tell Peter and the others right away. Taken together, I believe that conveys a sense of urgency. In other words, "Mary, you can't hang onto me forever. You need to go get the others so they know. I'm not here for long, and time's a-wasting!"
[ 11. March 2016, 20:57: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I agree with you both. It's a present tense, which can indicate continual ongoing action. And considering she'd just got him back from the dead, I think she probably was hugging him so tightly he couldn't move!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Also, given that a few days later, Jesus (in John's gospel) invites a skeptical Thomas to touch his wounds, I don't think Jesus was adverse to human touch before or after the Resurrection. I do agree that he allowed Mary of Bethany to minister to him in a very personal manner, probably aware of what was about to happen to him,
[ 12. March 2016, 03:30: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Having had a minor accident with an obvious wound, I'm thinking asking someone to touch it to be sure you are flesh-and-blood is a pretty weird request.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
leo, you said myth before, not midrash. The two are not identical. And myth has multiple meanings, not all of them inconsistent with history.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
how are these mutually exclusive? I'm not wasting my time on stuff that didn't really happen, and I object to being lied to. No matter how allegedly valuable the resulting philosophical musings may be.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They may not - but if you obsess on what happened you will miss the meaning behind what happened.
Othwerise you have to wonder whether Jeusus cleansed the temple twice, fed the multitudes twice, wsas anointed twice.
I'm not seeing an obsession with what happened, just an attempt to find what the Gospel writers intended to convey by the choices they made in what to include in their account. That includes the "historical" details - what meaning is there when what appears to be a single event like the cleansing of the Temple is at the start of Jesus' ministry in one Gospel and near the end in another? Naturally we need to take each account, what did each writer want to convey? But, surely there is also value in asking what the fact of the differences mean - and, part of that would be "if Jesus actually cleansed the Temple at the start of His ministry, why put the story at the end?" and vice versa. Why an author deliberately changes history conveys a lot of meaning - even if it's unlikely we'll ever know what the actual event was.
Or, to come back to Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus, was there one or two events? Each answer to those questions gives different insights, a different meaning behind the text. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to explore the question. If there was just one event then we can synthesise a history - Jesus is anointed in the home of Lazarus, a Pharisee, by Lazarus' sister Mary who had a reputation as a "sinful woman", which was both an act of repentance by Mary and interpreted as a preparation for his funeral by Jesus. If there were two events then the above synthesis is invalid. I'm not sure we can be certain one way or the other if there was one or two anointing incidents - but if we make an assumption one way or the other then we potentially miss out on the meaning the authors wish to convey.
I'm not going to call that obsessing about what happened. It's obsessing about understanding what it means.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They may not - but if you obsess on what happened you will miss the meaning behind what happened.
Othwerise you have to wonder whether Jeusus cleansed the temple twice, fed the multitudes twice, wsas anointed twice.
Better to do a lectio divina on these stories and see what God is saying.
Yes, but there's a difference between acknowledging the "human" element to the recording of these incidents, that the retelling comes out a bit different with a different narrator from a different perspective-- and saying there is no historical event behind these narratives at all.
There are a number of biblical narratives where I don't think or don't care if there was a historical event behind them-- Job, for example. Gen. 1-11. There are biblical narratives where I WISH /hope there was not a literal historical event behind them (the conquest of Canaan).
But I'm with Lamb re the gospel narratives. I don't need every jot & tittle to line up, again, I'm comfortable with minor errors in transmission, conflating of events, reordering of chronology, etc. There is a human element to Scripture that we see on every page. But with Lamb I feel the historicity of the key gospel narratives is central to the Christian faith. The apostles and the early Church* seemed to feel that way as well. It's really all built on the assumption that this really happened in history.
*I'm thinking, for example, of the fact that the only people mentioned by name in both the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are Jesus, Mary-- and Pilate. Why Pilate, of all the possibilities? Why so careful to include his name? It seems it's because he is a Roman governor-- and therefore his name binds the events to a particular place & time. It reinforces the historicity of the events.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Having had a minor accident with an obvious wound, I'm thinking asking someone to touch it to be sure you are flesh-and-blood is a pretty weird request.
I recognize my previous post used the word "invite," but remember it was Thomas' idea on the first place. In John 20:25, Thomas says he has to touch the wounds in order to believe. Jesus was responding to this.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
My take-home message from yesterday's sermon on this subject was that the nard cost the equivalent of £20,000 in today's money. HOW DOES PERFUME COST THAT MUCH? Not very spiritual but it really made me sit up and think about the scale of Mary's gesture.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
First, although there are elements in the gospels which can legitimately described as midrashic, the idea that the gospels as a body of literature, or any of them individually could simply be labelled 'midrash' seems to me to be deeply lacking in literary judgment. Read any Gospel as a whole, alongside any substantial body of Midrash as a whole, and the difference will be evident.
Secondly, turning to this story, Mark and Matthew could be parallel accounts of the incident in John. The timing is right, and the general comments are similar. There is some problem about 'Simon the leper' vs. 'the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary' - but it could arguably reasonable accounted for by different emphases of the different gospels, and the inclusion or omission of different information. John's setting appears to be intended to bring out the connection with the raising of Lazarus, which the other gospels do not mention. It does seem to me to be problematic to try and account for two anointings in Bethany so close to the time of Jesus' death.
Luke's account seems to me to differ from the others in significant ways. The host is named as Simon the Pharisee, The event takes place at a quite different point in Jesus' ministry, and the 'sinfulness' of the woman is mentioned. (In none of the other accounts is Mary/'the woman' described as sinful.) Also the setting at that point in the gospel is Jesus' ministry in the Galilean region, and its reputation spreading to Judea and to the disciples of John the Baptist.
(Simon/Simeon seems to be a popular name at the time: two of Jesus disciples were called Simon, as well as Simon the Pharisee, Simon the leper, and Simeon in the Temple.)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not going to call that obsessing about what happened. It's obsessing about understanding what it means.
In which case we need to employ some redaction criticism.
John was using the story to reinforce Jesus as messiah.
Luke was using it to show acceptance of sinners.
Which are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
My take-home message from yesterday's sermon on this subject was that the nard cost the equivalent of £20,000 in today's money. HOW DOES PERFUME COST THAT MUCH? Not very spiritual but it really made me sit up and think about the scale of Mary's gesture.
Yes. I wondered about that. Then I found this.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
My take-home message from yesterday's sermon on this subject was that the nard cost the equivalent of £20,000 in today's money. HOW DOES PERFUME COST THAT MUCH? Not very spiritual but it really made me sit up and think about the scale of Mary's gesture.
I did a little research on that question when preparing a sermon on this passage a few years ago. The perfume named is nard, from the spikenard plant. If I recall correctly, spikenard grows in the foothills of the Himalayas. So it would have been imported from quite a distance, and that must have accounted for much of the cost.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
My take-home message from yesterday's sermon on this subject was that the nard cost the equivalent of £20,000 in today's money. HOW DOES PERFUME COST THAT MUCH? Not very spiritual but it really made me sit up and think about the scale of Mary's gesture.
It is very easy for perfume to cost that much in a time before mechanisation (so all growing/extraction/blending/selling etc done by hand) and before chemistry could produce synthetic scents. Human labour is always the most expensive part of making something, and perfume in ancient times was VERY labour-intensive - growing and/or harvesting resin-producing plants, hunting animals used in perfumery (for eg ambergris or civet, but I assume Jews would not use these), steeping in oil to make tinctures, extracting the natural fragrances, blending perfumes etc etc - all by hand, all the growing having to be done without pesticides, all the perfumers spending years of training. It's more the case that technology has made modern perfume very cheap.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Surely there are perfumes today that cost £20,000?
(I haven't used one myself lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
I'm shacked with an aromatherapist and have done a bit of research. Nard is extracted from the rhizomes of a flower from the valerian family that grows on the himalayan foothills, or used to anyway. The journey to Palestinian marketplaces would probably have gone through southern Indian ports: so through colossal land journeys and a sea route only navigable once or twice a year at best, taking advantage of the monsoon winds. It was quite phenomenally expensive if ancient bills are to be believed. And yes, it is a fairly potent sedative, the extract is still used in preparations. Jesus turned it down on the cross.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Surely there are perfumes today that cost £20,000?
(I haven't used one myself lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist.)
Yes there are. See the link in my post above.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
The things boredom makes you do! [EMAIL][/EMAIL]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: The things boredom makes you do! [EMAIL][/EMAIL]
Post random UBB tags? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian on another thread:
Matthew 26:6-13
Mark 14:3-9
Luke 7:36-50
John 12:1-8
It is difficult to reconcile the four different texts. Matthew and Mark say the event was at the house of Simon the Leper, Luke says it is at the house of some pharisee, perhaps Simon the pharisee? Only John explicitly identifies the woman with Mary of Bethany. Matthew Mark and John mention Bethany. Luke and John explicitly mention dinner, but all four say that Jesus was ‘reclining’, implicitly at the dinner table. Note that Mark and John use a different greek for ‘reclining’ than Luke and Matthew. All four mention perfume (μύρου). Only Mark and John say it is nard (νάρδου). Matthew and Mark have the woman pouring the perfume on Jesus’ head, Luke and John say she poured it on his feet, and also wiped his feet with her hair.
Luke diverges completely at this point with a long parable about forgiveness, and crucially says ‘You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet’, then says no more.
Matthew Mark and John say the disciple(s) were indignant etc., and John explicitly identifies Judas, adding for good measure that Judas was wont to steal from the poor box. Yet, oddly, Matthew says that the perfume could have been sold for a lot (πολλοῦ), whereas Mark and John say it could have been sold for 300 denarii (δηναρίων τριακοσίων), which some translations render as ‘a year’s wages’ based on a claim in Matt. 20:2 about a labourer’s daily wages.
Mark and John have ‘leave her alone’, although in slightly different Greek. Matthew and Mark say ‘Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing’, and all three have the bit about the poor you will always have, but Jesus not always. Matthew and Mark say she is doing this now to prepare for burial, John says that the perfume was to be saved for the day of Jesus’ burial. Matthew and Mark end with “Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” The Greek is identical, though a slightly different word order.
The story seems the same for all four, i.e. the same event is being described, given the similarities of wording that are otherwise difficult to explain – for example the 300 denarii, giving to the poor, ‘leave her alone’ etc. The divergence in Luke and John can be explained by a theological point (debt and forgiveness, Judas’ guilt). Luke’s version may also explain the difference between the perfume on the head, and on the feet.
It is harder to explain the difference of venue, and the apparent confusion between two Simons.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy on another thread:
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
It is difficult to reconcile the four different texts.
I think this story is probably easier to reconcile than many of the others.
What people usually say is that these accounts show an unusual amount of agreement, given that they were specific recollections gathered years after they took place.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
