Well, let's do a little textual criticism, and find out who was telling the truth, and who was edited after the fact.
Code:
Book Who What Where Angry
Matthew A woman His head Bethany, the Jesus'
house of Simon disciples
the leper
Mark A woman His head Bethany, the Some
house of Simon people
the leper (unspec)
Luke A woman His feet The house of Simon
who was a Simon, a
sinner Pharisee
John Mary His feet Bethany, Judas
and Martha
served
Mark is generally regarded as the earliest written gospel, and thought to omit many proper names for the purpose of not making those still living in Judea targets for retribution. Consistent with that expectation, very few names are given, with only "Simon the leper" being singled out.
Perhaps Simon wasn't a target. He was part of the Pharisee establishment, it seems. It also seems possible that the negative appellation "leper" could be a codeword denoting that he was not of the faithful, but rather a Pharisee.
Matthew is known to use the same source as Mark, but appears to be written to a Jewish audience, largely for the purpose of substantiating Jesus claim to being Messiah.
Anointing Jesus head (as opposed to feet) seems relevant here in light of Exodus 29:7. Remembering that Messiah means 'anointed,' it seems possible that this story was included in all 4 gospels, because it is meant to be the point at which Jesus was, in fact, anointed.
Luke was written later, by Paul's disciple, a Greek-Jew physician who fills in details (especially names) that the earlier gospels leave out. Here, Simon the leper has become Simon the Pharisee. Perhaps for Luke the title Pharisee was not as stigamatic?
Mary is not named in this account, and some critics have suggested that Paul's disciple Luke omitted her name from accounts out of jealousy or misogyny.
Lazarus is likewise absent from this account, and he appears in this gospel only in a parable.
We finally have a name for the person who was outraged - and it is Simon. This doesn't really add up.
Mark and Matthew appear to have hidden the outraged person's identity in their accounts. But they both named Simon elsewhere in their accounts.
John seems to be telling a completely different story from the others. He is the only one to name Mary, Martha, Judas, or Lazarus.
Lazarus in particular is displayed prominently, as being both from the area, and being "at the table" with the others. He is portrayed as an object of wonderment - "the boy who lived" - and we are told that the establishment planned to kill him along with Jesus. How would they know this? That seems like a gloss added later.
The outraged party is now Judas, who nobody had any reason to protect earlier, since he was purportedly dead.
Mary is named only here in John, and John does so several times, even adding it as an aside in other stories. John also portrays himself in his gospel as Mary's "son" and caretaker, so perhaps they shared some connection that compelled John to give her credit due but withheld in earlier accounts.
So, then... what is the true story? Who was Mark protecting? How much of this story is parable, or codewords?
Jarrod
