Yesterday's gospel reading, John 12:1-8, is amazing/interesting on a number of levels.
Level 1: John 12:1-8 is arguably the strongest evidence from an individual passage in John's Gospel that John knew at least two of the other gospels.
Level 2: (whether or not John knew the other three gospels, or at least Mark and Luke) this story has amazing resonances with three other synoptic gospel stories, while being "John's own" story.
Level 3: This story speak to us as disciples of Jesus: what is our devotion to him? What is our response to the poor?
Level 4: You can race to the bottom of this post if you wish ...
Level 1: John 12:1-8 offers evidence that John knew at least two of the other gospels
Each gospel has a story of a woman anointing Jesus at a dinner party: Mark's and Matthew's are quite similar, and placed chronologically near the end of Jesus' life, and geographically, close to Jerusalem, at Bethany; Luke's occurs during Jesus' ministry in Galilee and is placed before Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem where he will die (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; Luke 7:36-50).
Now, John could have composed his story on the basis of some such story (or stories, if Luke's is a distinct, second such story) being orally communicated around the Christian communities, and needing no reference to any of the texts. It is an easily remembered kind of story, "There was a dinner party ... a woman turned up ... she used her hair ...". And such a composition theory could easily account for John agreeing with Mark and Matthew, that the dinner party took place at Bethany: no need for a text lying open before John to have noted that details in the story: "There was a dinner party at Bethany and ...".
But there are some common phrases and words, which of themselves do not prove John knew the texts of Mark (and possibly Matthew) and Luke, but point in that direction.
Consider:
A. John/Mark parallels
John 12:3: murou nardou pistikes polutimou (ointment of nard pure costly)
Mark 14:3: murou nardou pistikes polutelous (ointment of nard pure costly)
(Note that Matthew does not follow Mark closely here. Matthew 26:7 has: alabastron murou barutimou (alabaster phial of ointment very expensive)
John 12:4-6 is paralleled in both Matthew and Mark. The latter offer an argument among the disciples about the waste of money the perfumed ointment represents. John focuses attention on one of the disciples, Judas. John and Mark mention the same sum of money the ointment might have been sold for, three hundred denarii (Matthew mentions a large sum of money rather than a specific amount); all three talk about the money being given to the poor.
John 12:5: dia ti touto to muron ouk eprathe triakosion denarion kai edothe ptoxois?
Mark 14:5: edunato gar touto to muron prathenai epano denarion triakosion kai dothenai tois ptoxois
Matthew 26:9: edunato gar touto prathenai pollou kai dothenai ptoxois.
In response to this avalanche of unimpressed criticism from the disciples, John and Mark record Jesus offering his sympathy to the woman, "Let her alone, ...":
John 12:7: eipen ouv o Iesous afes auten, hina eis ten ...
Mark 14:6: O de Iesous eipen afete auten ti aute ...
Finally, John has the same words as Mark (and Matthew, see below) in respect of the famous saying "You will always have the poor with you but you will not always have me":
John 12:8: tous ptoxous gar pantote exete meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete.
Mark 14:7: pantote gar tous ptoxous exete meth eauton, ..., eme de ou pantote exete.
B: John/Luke parallels
Whereas Mark/Matthew have the woman anointing the head of Jesus, John and Luke are in parallel over the feet (tous podas autou, John 12:3/Luke 7:38) being anointed and the woman (Luke) / Mary (John) wiping his feet with her hair. If John is drawing on Luke then he simplifies Luke whose account includes tears and a kiss as well as ointment. In the excerpts below I have italicised the words common in Greek to both accounts.
Luke 7:38: and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment [the same word for ointment is used here as John uses in 12:2.
John 12:3: and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair.
C: John/Matthew parallel
This one is arguably weak, since John and Matthew could have independently come to the same decision about something they choose to omit from Mark, but it is worth noting. Mark, in 14:6-7, records Jesus as responding to the disciples criticism of the woman (see above re his first words, "Let her alone ...") with a short speech about how she has done a beautiful thing; the poor will always be with them, when they have opportunity to do good to the poor, and that the disciples will not always have him. Matthew shortens the last part of this speech by omitting talk of doing good to the poor. Thus, in respect of the last part of the speech, John appears to follow Matthew rather than Mark, but offering a similar omission to Matthew (who undoubtedly was following Mark):
John 12:8: tous ptoxous gar pantote exete meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete.
Mark 14:7: pantote gar tous ptoxous exete meth eauton, ..., eme de ou pantote exete.
Matthew 26:11: pantote gar tous ptoxous extee meth eauton, eme de ou pantote exete
That is, in sum, there is evidence, as cited above, for John knowing and choosing, here and there, to follow the texts of Mark and Luke and, possibly, also Matthew. The evidence does not constitute proof.
Attribution: nothing above is original to me nor new to the world of Johannine scholarship. Many commentaries on this passage pay attention to these parallels. They are readily observable in "synopses" which set out the four gospels side by side - in this case I used both Greek and English synopses.
Level 2: (whether or not John knew the other three gospels, or at least Mark and Luke) this story has amazing resonances with three other synoptic gospel stories, while being "John's own" story.
Irrespective of theories about how John came to compose the story in John 12:1-8, the story has resonances with the synoptic accounts: Jesus is anointed in a poignant scene, set at a dinner party, with expensive perfumed ointment, which occasions sharp criticism from one or more of his disciples, and leads Jesus to support the woman and her action while offering an observation about the permanency of the poor in human history. The poignancy of the scene is that in John's and Mark/Matthew's stories, the anointing of Jesus is an anticipation of his burial, that is, of his death which will occur not many days hence.
If Luke's story is distinct from Mark/Matthew's story (e.g. the former having occurred in Galilee and the latter in Bethany near Jerusalem), nevertheless the manner of John's telling, even though the setting is Bethany, recalls the Lukan story for us as well as the Mark/Matthew story.
Yet John makes this story his own: only he names three people present who are not named in the other stories: Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Lazarus figures in the story not only to underline the anticipation of Jesus' death inherent in the anointing with ointment but also to offer the hint of hope, that death will not be the end of Jesus: he like Lazarus will be raised to life after (and beyond) death.
Martha and Mary, who have figured in John's overall narrative, one chapter earlier, as the earnestly entreating sisters of Lazarus, believing that Jesus can do something about the death of their brother, appear here: one, Martha, undertaking necessary service for the meal to happen; the other, Mary, being the named anointing woman. But their figuring in the story is itself resonant with another story, told only by Luke, in 10:38-42, in which Jesus is at their house, with Mary sitting at the feet of the Lord (and doing precisely no housework) and Martha doing all the housework and complaining to Jesus about Mary's lack of involvement. Mary, perhaps annoyingly for Martha, is commended by Jesus for her attention to him and his teaching!
In John 12:1-8 there is no specific approbation for Mary in comparison to Martha, and Martha has no complaints. But Mary serves (12:2) and Mary anoints the feet of Jesus.
If John knew not the synoptic texts, he seems to have imbibed their spirit from the ethos-sphere!
Level 3: This story speak to us as disciples of Jesus: what is our devotion to him? What is our response to the poor?
The story John/Mark/Matthew tell is sophisticated and nuanced (so is Luke's story). On the one hand the story sets in motion 2000 years of expensive, extravagant devotion to Jesus: churches, cathedrals, stained glass windows, works of art in paint and in marble, lives devoted in sacrificial ways to being with Jesus (e.g. through the prayer work of religious orders).
On the other hand, the story sharply remind us that the poor are (as has been the case and still is) always with us, and the implication, even if we read Matthew and John and not Mark is, nevertheless, the point Jesus makes in Mark's story: "any time you want to [help the poor], you can help them" (14:7). Indeed, a bunch of other texts in the gospels and in the epistles challenge us to make "can help them" into "will help them."
If, focusing on John's story, Mary is a model disciples in respect of extravagant devotion to Jesus, then Judas is a model anti-disciple: we should not be like him, harping on about the waste of money, nor like him being a thief, nor like him being a mouther of words and a non-doer of relevant action.
This story offers, subtlely, the both/and of extravagant devotion to Jesus and of generous provision for the poor.
Level 4: Filling the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ
The Good News Bible renders John 12:3 in a lovely and inspiring way:
The sweet smell of the perfume filled the whole house.
Is John offering a little descriptive flourish here, or teasing the reader to think outside of the story, to the ongoing story of each of our lives as followers of Christ?
We are the salt of the earth (Matthew) and meant to season and flavour all of life and all lives around us.
Here, John is implying we are the perfume of the world and meant to spread the sweet fragrance of that perfume into every corner and nook and cranny.
If so, John is not alone in such conception. Paul writing in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 says:
God uses us to make the knowledge about Christ spread everywhere like a swet fragrance. For we are like a sweet-smelling incense offered by Christ to God, which spreads among those who are being saved and those who are being lost. For those who are being lost, it is a deadly stench that kills; but for those who are being saved, it is a fragrance that brings life.
Beyond the obvious challenges in the story: to be devoted to Christ, to help the poor, there is another challenge.
How might we fill the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ?
As an outsider, I think its an uphill battle for ACANZP because the "mother church" keeps generating awful headlines about church abuse. If ACANZP publicly withdrew from being in "communion" with CofE until survivor concerns and redress are properly addressed and the new Clergy Conduct Measure introduced, I'd probably beat a path to a local Anglican church! But as things stand, I'm unwilling to engage with that implicit relationship with the CofE. I've checked on the new Clergy Conduct Measure at the CofE website and it's expected to be introduced in early 2026. I realise ACANZP is much better, e.g. not having a time limit on complaints, but I can't handle the cruelty of the CofE one year time limit - that's barbaric. The aroma and "whole house" concept doesn't work for me until the CofE is radically reformed.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Peter. A rich post that is sure to be loved by those interested in scriptural analysis, by theology students currently writing on this passage, and Anglo-Catholics everywhere (your building a solid theological defense for the widespread use of incense)!
ReplyDeleteI like your attention to *feet*. This passage made me immediately think of Jesus washing his disciples feet in the lead up to his trial (a passage only mentioned in John). Maybe Mary's act inspired Jesus's too, or it was the same Spirit at work in both of them.
It also made me think of *hair*. I've being following a blog by a Jewish American woman, Frieda Vizel, who left the ultra-orthodox "Satmar" Hasidic community she was born into as an adult. One of the pivotal moments in her decision to leave came after she was married and started practicing the Hasidic custom of married women shaving their hair. Frieda rebelled. The custom itself, which other Jewish groups don't regard as Biblical, was argued to be based in some passages within Song of Songs, as well as other commentaries, in which women's hair is considered extravagant, luxurious, and full of potential (and not necessarily bad) erotic power.
Mary wiping expensive perfume off Jesus' feet has often struck me a powerfully erotic, and full of deep pathos and love. We might celebrate this as the Passion of Mary!
PS. to my previous comment, another case in point. Australia.
ReplyDeleteNew to me this morning, article dated 26-Mar-25.
“What they did with the paedophiles in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s by moving them around, and especially with Lou Daniels—they encouraged him and gave him a high position in CEBS,” the Church of England Boys Society. The Anglican Church of Australia was known as “the Church of England in Australia” until 1981. [...]
“Every parish in Tasmania will now have a levy on income from investment for the next maybe five or 10 years, which will also build up the funds that are available for redress,” he said. [Bishop Condie]
I mean, this is a current headline! So there's a real dissonance when messaging about "How might we fill the whole house of the world with the aroma of Christ?" and what I and other folk are reading in the news.
There needs to be humility in response to criticisms of JW too, because some of those are entirely valid and being defensive about it, especially when the church has got so much morally wrong, creates the opposite of a pleasing aroma. We can't just pretend these things aren't real!
Article: https://livingchurch.org/news/news-anglican-communion/tasmanian-bishop-offers-regrets-and-payments/
*
ReplyDeleteRe the aroma Q, and, abusive church in various forms.
In Luke's version of the story, Jesus says of the woman "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little."
*
The church sinned much, listened far less.
Apologised much, lamented.
How much love hath the church?
When will the church be love-in-action,
loving the unloved, hearing the unheard?
When will the church take on Christ's yoke,
liberating folk from their burdens?
~Liz
*
Note: I should have made the last line, "and liberate folk from their burdens?"
ReplyDeleteWould've read better.
Great verse, Liz! Such an important part of the Messiah hope. How Jesus begins his mission, quoting Isaiah, in Luke...
ReplyDeleteThe Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free...
What Mary we assume experienced that she had found - someone who liberated her from her burdens and made God close at hand. It's so crushing and dispiriting when Church becomes the burden and the wound.
Thanks so much, Mark. I occasionally use verse when I feel deeply about something. I was troubled with how the church has often distanced itself from people who've been hurt (or even preyed on) by an officeholder in the church. Too often, when they've tried to talk about it they've been met with indifference, inaction, even hostility.
ReplyDeleteThe bible ref you shared is beautiful and I love the thoughts added after. Mary experienced for herself 'God with us' and her response was this amazing expression of devotion to Jesus that also spread sweet fragrance to everyone there. How deep is our love?
And if we see the church becoming a burden and wound - how do we deal with that? What do we say, and what do we do? Often the issue is systemic. There may be bullying or power issues, external pressures (e.g. in the UK.. church insurance). Love-in-action calls for courage and persistance, and shouldering the burden with those afflicted until there's some kind of resolution and relief.
"And if we see the church becoming a burden and wound - how do we deal with that? What do we say, and what do we do?" (Liz).
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the big question so many live with.
This morning I've read a (lengthy) article in The Guardian titled "Loathe thy neighbor: Elon Musk and the Christian right are waging war on empathy" which unexpectedly provoked me to more thinking about +Peter's post. [content warning: might be triggering for some - take care if you decide to read it]
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/08/empathy-sin-christian-right-musk-trump
I've not previously taken such a deep dive into the RW thinking on the 'sin of empathy'. The article is wide-ranging and includes references to Vance and "ordo amoris", Bishop Buddes's sermon and reaction to it, and much more. It ramped up concerns I already held.
Afterward, something dawned on me. Jesus tells his listeners that he won't always be with them - this is why Mary's devotion has special significance. But in our era, we're far removed from the time of Christ's earthly life. How may we express our devotion?
I recalled Jesus' narrative about his future judgement of the nations in Matt 25 and the separation of sheep from goats, and it's a separation based on righteousness. The blessed are those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison.
This it would seem, is the test of our love. To see, listen, and do good - to love and bear witness to the truth. To do righteousness. I would understand the church officers who deliberately harm others to be wolves or "anti-disciple"s like Judas. They must not remain in positions of influence in the church.
*
From the article....
The white evangelical embrace of Trump – 81% supported him in 2016 – represents the tail end of a broader shift, according to John W Compton, a professor of political science and author of the 2020 book The End of Empathy: Why White Protestants Stopped Loving Their Neighbors.
[...]
“Focused on personal salvation and stripped of any concern with social justice, post 1970s evangelicalism struck a chord with white middle-class Protestants who now had little reason to concern themselves with the plight of the less fortunate,” [John W Compton]
*
The church must be held to account when its devotion to Christ fails and those whom Christ cares about are cast aside and sidelined. Our challenge is to demonstrate our love for Christ through love of neighbour (including those harmed by the church), and practice truth and justice in daily living.