The Repentant Woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene: One Figure?

[Grailhunter]

The issue is not whether you believed the edits improved accuracy.
The issue is that the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Not true.
The edits did not change my claim. Just additional scriptures on the topic of anointings.

 

[Grailhunter]

Then we're in agreement that you have presented multiple different interpretations of John 11:2 throughout this discussion.
The problem has never been whether you made those statements. The problem is that they are not the same interpretation.
Perhaps the next step is to choose one and stick with it.

I have always contended that John 11:2 did not define the anointing to another scriptural event. It says what it says with little details.

 

[Grailhunter]

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need for you to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to offer multiple, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.

The documented record speaks for itself.

The scriptures defeated you before you started. The additional scriptures are just that, additional scriptures on the topic of anointings. Then the question is, why would you not welcome additional scriptures on the topic. I was out to provide scriptures, all you do is complain about the conversation. And I have told you a few times I could care less about your complaints. It is all a distraction for your inability to prove your belief.

 

[Moonwood]

My position did not change. I contend that Mary Magdelene was not the repentant whore. I included other scriptures regarding the anointings. No position change just other scriptures.

Your conclusion may not have changed. Your arguments did.
You originally argued two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four.
You also offered multiple interpretations of John 11:2.
Those are changes in position, even if your final conclusion remained the same.

I have always contended that John 11:2 did not define the anointing to another scriptural event. It says what it says with little details.

You just agreed that you have presented multiple different interpretations of John 11:2 throughout this discussion.
That includes:

"It points to an anointing that happened before." (post #149)

and:

"just a previous event." (post #165)

Both contradict your latest claim that:

"This scripture does not point to a specific event..."

That is why your claim that you have held the same interpretation "from the get go" is not supported by the record.

The edits did not change my claim. Just additional scriptures on the topic of anointings.

The issue is not whether you added scriptures.
The issue is whether the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Changing:

"They are two separate accounts..."

to:

"They are three separate accounts..."

is not the addition of scripture.

And changing:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events..."

to:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events... and one note of a previous anointing"

is not the addition of scripture either.

Those edits changed the claims themselves.
The fact that the edits were made after the original statements had already been quoted and discussed is why they can be compared to the historical record.

Additional scriptures are not the issue. The issue is that the edits altered positions you had already stated.

The scriptures defeated you before you started.

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to present multiple interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.
The documented record speaks for itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your conclusion may not have changed. Your arguments did.
You originally argued two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four.
You also offered multiple interpretations of John 11:2.
Those are changes in position, even if your final conclusion remained the same.

Again and again and again and again......Not arguing.
My position has never changed.....Mary Magdelene was not repentant whore.
I have always said the John11:2 lacked details

 

[Grailhunter]

The issue is not whether you added scriptures.
The issue is whether the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

No they did not.

 

[Grailhunter]

If the scriptures had simply "defeated" my position, there would have been no need to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; no need to present multiple interpretations of John 11:2; and no need to retroactively edit earlier posts.
The documented record speaks for itself.

Again and again and again.
There was no need to add scriptures to defeat you, you were defeated before you started. The additional scriptures were just additional scriptures on the topic.

 

[Moonwood]

No they did not.

More specifically, you said:

The edits did not change my claim. Just additional scriptures on the topic of anointings.

But the issue is not whether you added scriptures.
The issue is whether the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

Changing:

"They are two separate accounts..."

to:

"They are three separate accounts..."

is not the addition of scripture.

And changing:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events..."

to:

"The Bible records three distinct anointing events... and one note of a previous anointing"

is not the addition of scripture either.

Those edits changed the claims themselves.
The fact that the edits were made after the original statements had already been quoted and discussed is why they can be compared to the historical record.

Additional scriptures are not the issue. The issue is that the edits altered positions you had already stated.

Again and again and again and again......Not arguing.
My position has never changed.....Mary Magdelene was not repentant whore.
I have always said the John11:2 lacked details

Your conclusion may not have changed.
Your arguments did.
You originally argued two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four.
Likewise, saying John 11:2 lacks details is not the same as:

• "No specific event given."
• "It points to an anointing that happened before."
• "a note to identify Mary..."
• "just a previous event."
• "There is not enough there to be an identifier."

Those are different interpretations, even if they all involve a verse that lacks details.
The issue has never been whether John 11:2 lacks details.
The issue is that your interpretation of what those details (or lack of details) mean has not remained constant.

I have always contended that John 11:2 did not define the anointing to another scriptural event. It says what it says with little details.

You just agreed that you have presented multiple different interpretations of John 11:2 throughout this discussion.
That includes:

"It points to an anointing that happened before." (post #149)

and:

"just a previous event." (post #165)

Both contradict your latest claim that:

"This scripture does not point to a specific event..."

That is why your claim that you have held the same interpretation "from the get go" is not supported by the record.

...you were defeated before you started.

If my position was defeated from the beginning, then why did your position change from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; why did your interpretation of John 11:2 change multiple times; and why did you retroactively edit earlier posts?

The documented record speaks for itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

But the issue is not whether you added scriptures.
The issue is whether the edits changed the substance of the claims being made.

No they did not.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your conclusion may not have changed.
Your arguments did.
You originally argued two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four.
Likewise, saying John 11:2 lacks details is not the same as:

• "No specific event given."
• "It points to an anointing that happened before."
• "a note to identify Mary..."
• "just a previous event."
• "There is not enough there to be an identifier."

Those are different interpretations, even if they all involve a verse that lacks details.
The issue has never been whether John 11:2 lacks details.
The issue is that your interpretation of what those details (or lack of details) mean has not remained constant.

Still no details.....

 

[Grailhunter]

If my position was defeated from the beginning, then why did your position change from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; why did your interpretation of John 11:2 change multiple times; and why did you retroactively edit earlier posts?

The documented record speaks for itself.

Again and again and again and again and again.
The additional scriptures were just that, additional scriptures on the topic.
And I have always said John 11:2 lacked details. Maybe I worded it different but it meant the same thing.
Ok, unless you bring up something different I will no longer respond to your posts.

 

[Moonwood]

Ok, unless you bring up something different I will no longer respond to your posts.

I understand why you'd like the discussion to move away from your changing positions, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2, and retroactive edits. However, those issues remain part of the documented record.
Since you're unwilling to address them, I agree that it's probably best if you no longer respond.

 

[Moonwood]

You are clearly pushing a belief that you didn't learn/teach yourself. I've only seen Catholics push those are the same woman. Just like Jesus' mother Mary didn't have anymore children. Two different women wiped Jesus' feet. The woman at Simon's house did not anoint Jesus' feet, the Mary at the dinner did. Jesus made that clear, but you don't believe Jesus.

Calling the argument "Catholic" does not address the text.
My argument is based on what John actually wrote in John 11:2 and how Luke regularly introduces significant figures without naming them.
If my reading is wrong, explain why John identifies Lazarus's sister, Mary, as: "the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair" before narrating the Bethany anointing in John 12.

And regarding your claim that "the woman at Simon's house did not anoint Jesus' feet," Luke 7:38 explicitly says: "she stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wet his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." So the issue is not whether Jesus' feet were anointed in Luke 7. The text explicitly says they were.

 

[Rockerduck]

Calling the argument "Catholic" does not address the text.
My argument is based on what John actually wrote in John 11:2 and how Luke regularly introduces significant figures without naming them.
If my reading is wrong, explain why John identifies Lazarus's sister, Mary, as: "the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair" before narrating the Bethany anointing in John 12.

And regarding your claim that "the woman at Simon's house did not anoint Jesus' feet," Luke 7:38 explicitly says: "she stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wet his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." So the issue is not whether Jesus' feet were anointed in Luke 7. The text explicitly says they were.

Mary anointed Jesus' feet for burial, the other woman anointed Jesus' feet for what? Look at the text yourself. Understand what a host at a feast with A list attendees required. The host was to greet with a kiss, have the guests feet washed, and give " fragrant anointing oil' for the hair of the guest. Jesus pointed that out to Simon, that the woman provided what he didn't. Being anointed and anointing are two different things. In 7:38 the Greek word is ἤλειφεν (ēleiphen) – To anoint / rub with oil. The NLT says she kept putting fragrant oil "Then she kept kissing his feet and putting perfume on them." This is the correct way to interpret the Greek. In John 11:2 - the Greek work is different - ἡ ἀλείψασα (hē aleipsasa) – "the [one who] anointed" — a feminine articular participle from aleiphō (to anoint or rub with oil/perfume).

Mary performed an act of devotion, the other woman rubbed oil on Jesus' feet.

 

[Moonwood]

In John 11:2, which occurs before John 12 in the narrative, John identifies Lazarus's sister Mary as the one who:

"anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair."

The only anointing account recorded before John 12 in which a woman both anoints Jesus and wipes His feet with her hair is Luke 7:36-50:

"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."

John chose to identify Mary by the distinctive combination of anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair before narrating the Bethany anointing in John 12.

If John was not intentionally invoking an earlier, recognizable event, then the question remains: why did he identify Mary by an act he had not yet narrated?

 

[Moonwood]

Mary anointed Jesus' feet for burial, the other woman anointed Jesus' feet for what? Look at the text yourself. Understand what a host at a feast with A list attendees required. The host was to greet with a kiss, have the guests feet washed, and give " fragrant anointing oil' for the hair of the guest. Jesus pointed that out to Simon, that the woman provided what he didn't. Being anointed and anointing are two different things. In 7:38 the Greek word is ἤλειφεν (ēleiphen) – To anoint / rub with oil. The NLT says she kept putting fragrant oil "Then she kept kissing his feet and putting perfume on them." This is the correct way to interpret the Greek. In John 11:2 - the Greek work is different - ἡ ἀλείψασα (hē aleipsasa) – "the [one who] anointed" — a feminine articular participle from aleiphō (to anoint or rub with oil/perfume).

Mary performed an act of devotion, the other woman rubbed oil on Jesus' feet.

In Luke 7, the anointing is an expression of repentance, love, and gratitude.
In John 12, the anointing is an expression of devotion and preparation for Jesus's burial.
Different motivations do not require different women.

The question is not whether the motivations were identical. The question is why the same highly distinctive gesture appears in both accounts.

You are minimizing Luke 7 while emphasizing John 12.
Luke 7 does not merely describe a woman "rubbing oil" on Jesus's feet.
The woman:

• wet His feet with her tears
• wiped them with her hair
• kissed His feet
• anointed them

John 12 likewise describes Mary:

• anointing Jesus's feet
• wiping His feet with her hair

The Greek argument does not resolve the issue.
Both passages use forms of ἀλείφω (aleipho). More importantly, my argument does not rest on the application of oil alone.

The distinctive feature is not merely the application of oil. It is the highly unusual combination of anointing Jesus's feet and wiping them with her hair.
That is precisely the connection John invokes in John 11:2 when he identifies Mary as:

"the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair."

If John intended readers to think only of the Bethany anointing in John 12, then he has the unusual problem of identifying Mary by an event he has not yet narrated.

That is the issue that still needs to be explained.

 

[Rockerduck]

In Luke 7, the anointing is an expression of repentance, love, and gratitude.
In John 12, the anointing is an expression of devotion and preparation for Jesus's burial.
Different motivations do not require different women.

The question is not whether the motivations were identical. The question is why the same highly distinctive gesture appears in both accounts.

You are minimizing Luke 7 while emphasizing John 12.
Luke 7 does not merely describe a woman "rubbing oil" on Jesus's feet.
The woman:

• wet His feet with her tears
• wiped them with her hair
• kissed His feet
• anointed them

John 12 likewise describes Mary:

• anointing Jesus's feet
• wiping His feet with her hair

The Greek argument does not resolve the issue.
Both passages use forms of ἀλείφω (aleipho). More importantly, my argument does not rest on the application of oil alone.

The distinctive feature is not merely the application of oil. It is the highly unusual combination of anointing Jesus's feet and wiping them with her hair.
That is precisely the connection John invokes in John 11:2 when he identifies Mary as:

"the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair."

If John intended readers to think only of the Bethany anointing in John 12, then he has the unusual problem of identifying Mary by an event he has not yet narrated.

That is the issue that still needs to be explained.

The Apostle John only mentions Mary one time. Don't you think he would have mentioned the other time too.

John 11:2 -It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

 

[Moonwood]

The Apostle John only mentions Mary one time. Don't you think he would have mentioned the other time too.

John 11:2 -It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

I understand your point. You're saying that if Mary were also the woman in Luke 7, John might have explicitly mentioned that connection. But my question is different. In John 11:2, John identifies Mary as the woman who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair before he narrates the anointing in John 12. Why does John use that description at that point?

If John is referring only to the event in John 12, then he is identifying Mary by an event he has not yet told the reader about. That's what I'm asking you to explain.

And the only other Gospel account that includes the distinctive act of anointing Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair is Luke 7. So why would John choose those particular details as Mary's identifying marker unless he expected readers to recognize them?

 

[Rockerduck]

I understand your point. You're saying that if Mary were also the woman in Luke 7, John might have explicitly mentioned that connection. But my question is different. In John 11:2, John identifies Mary as the woman who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair before he narrates the anointing in John 12. Why does John use that description at that point?

If John is referring only to the event in John 12, then he is identifying Mary by an event he has not yet told the reader about. That's what I'm asking you to explain.

And the only other Gospel account that includes the distinctive act of anointing Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair is Luke 7. So why would John choose those particular details as Mary's identifying marker unless he expected readers to recognize them?

John was identifying Mary before John 12 happened. John is a stickler for detail. John would have identified both events and credited Mary, but John credited just the one. To the point though, is I believe they were two separate women and events. If both women were named Mary, John would have credited the one Mary, because there is an inference that both women were named Mary, by John saying, "this is the Mary". This means there was another Mary.

 

[Moonwood]

John was identifying Mary before John 12 happened. John is a stickler for detail. John would have identified both events and credited Mary, but John credited just the one. To the point though, is I believe they were two separate women and events. If both women were named Mary, John would have credited the one Mary, because there is an inference that both women were named Mary, by John saying, "this is the Mary". This means there was another Mary.

I understand your position that the two women were different. But that still doesn't explain my question. In John 11:2, John identifies Mary as the woman who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair before narrating the anointing in John 12.

If John is referring only to John 12, why does he use an event that his readers have not yet been told about as Mary's identifying marker?

And why does he choose the very distinctive combination of anointing Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair, which is otherwise found in Luke 7?

Whether the women are the same or different, John 11:2 still requires an explanation.