the poor

by peacefulpete 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  the story of John 12 with the woman pouring expensive oil on Jesus has been discussed before in relation to the mary/martha legends, however now I just wonder how the punchline, "The poor will lalways be with you , but I will not." could have been written by anyone with a Christian mission of helping the needy. Even if the author justified the line put in Jesus' mouth, surely he recognized just how arrogant and hedonistic it made his hero sound. I can't imagine the Buddah or modern sages like Ghandi saying a line like that. It has been suggested that the line has been seriously altered.

  The first line "poor will always be with you seems like a quotation from Deut 15:11: There will always be poor people in the
  > land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward
  > your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your
  > land. (NIV)

  If this is so then perhaps the author originally had Jesus desire the oil to tbe spent on the poor, but the woman insisted by saying that they would not always have Jesus with them. This would make a great deal of sense and flow with the character of feeding the poor etc..

  Perhaps the evolution of the Judas character (his objection to the waste) into the antagonist as well as the parallel developement of the Mary brother of Lazarus figure, as well as deification of Jesus prompted a turn around in the story that resulted in Jesus condoning waste on himself.

  thoughts?
• 

  hmike

  Do you see this as another version of the account in Matt. 26?
• 

  Narkissos

  The story is already in Mark 14, with a longer version of the saying: "For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me." (The part in italics being dropped by both Matthew and John). The saying is completely suppressed by Luke (in the different setting of 7:36ff), whose (theoretical) interest for "the poor" is well-known.

  I wonder if this does not basically reflect an anti-Jamesian polemics (cf. the "poor" of Jerusalem, still reflected in the latter Ebionites ["poor"]; cf. Galatians 2:10 and the epistle of "James"), the issue being, is "true religion" about "the poor" or about "Christ," the "anointed" -- this story being, after all, the only one in the Gospels where Jesus is "anointed". In that case, I think this deliberately outrageous saying fits pretty well on Jesus' lips. In any case it reveals the deeply (although paradoxically) aristocratic nature of gnostic-like Christianity -- in opposition to Judeo-Christianity...
• 

  hmike

  Thanks, Narkissos, for the reminder that all four Gospels carry a version of this story.

  Can you say what the significance would be in pouring the perfume on the feet of Jesus, as stated in Luke and John, compared to pouring it on his head, as stated in Matthew and Mark--particularly as to how this would relate to funeral customs?

  Although Luke doesn't mention the poor, he does use this incident to contrast the repentent sinner with the Pharisee, another familiar theme
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  It's difficult to be specific... The anointing on the head seems to be more in line with the Jewish royal or priestly ritual (making both the king and the priest an anointed, messiah, christos). The anointed of the feet with the woman's hair* (plus "kissing" in Luke) is a highly erotic picture in ancient Jewish culture. Both of them, connected with the prospect of burial (except in Luke, who displaces the story), make a striking parallel with several death and resurrection myths, especially Isis and Osiris (Isis revives her dead lover Osiris by embalming him and gets pregnant).

  *Edit: the word kephalè, "head," applies to Jesus' head in Mark and Matthew, but to the woman's head in Luke; it disappears in John where only the hair is mentioned.
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  Thanks. I need to do some more research on this. As for the kissing of the feet, I've always seen it as an application of Psalm 2:12 ("Kiss the Son..."), meaning it was an act of recognition for who Jesus was.

  This is a good topic, Pete. Off the top, I'd say this may be similiar to the situation when people asked Jesus why his disciples weren't fasting when those of John the Baptist and the Pharisees did, and he told them they would not fast while the bridegroom was with them. This would have been a unique time while Jesus was on earth. Helping the poor could be done anytime, but showing Jesus honor was only possible during this short time. And, Jesus wouldn't mind some good treatment considering what he'd been through. After all, when the wealthy or important invited him for dinner, he didn't refuse, nor did he require that all the poor be invited also. Maybe this is also in line with Jesus saying the most important commandment is to love the Lord, then to love your neighbor. Doing good for God's annointed doesn't have to displace helping the poor, but, under special circumstances, can supercede it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I used John intentionally because I suspect that our hypothetically redacted John was the source for the expansion in GMark and subsequently Matt. Note how Mark most closely mirrors John. Matt using this harmonized Mark reworded things as usual. I wonder if Luke does not reflect an UrMark in not having the saying, tho the denarrii story was his own expansion.

  hmike..check out this earlier thread:story differences

  Suppose for a moment that it was the redactor of John that made the adjustment to have a stooge object to the waste rather than Jesus and to have Jesus say the "poor will always be with you" as part of the justification for the waste ignorant of it's source in Deut. Then to have the Jesus continue to say that 'he will not always be with them' rather than the woman as part of her expression of love for him. GMark was harmonized early then Matt expanded. Luke using Urmark expanded in his own way but without any reference to the poor as it did not appear in his source. I know it's a lot of 'what ifs' but I am growing comfortable with the first hand of John having used an UrMark before there were a Matt or Luke.
• 

  hmike

  hmike..check out this earlier thread:story differences

  I read it. Thank you.

  I realize there are problems with this woman being the same in all the accounts. Only John names her as Mary--someone he knew. The other accounts give no clear indication he was acquainted with her. And there is no indication in John that Mary had a bad reputation.

  Still, I have to wonder if maybe she would have been one of the women who accompanied Jesus and the disciples as one of their group. Otherwise, why would they have anything to say about how she used the perfume? It was hers to use as she wanted, and if she wanted to pour it on Jesus, it was up to her. The fact that they were critical implies to me that the others considered the perfume as part of the communal property, whereas she didn't, or felt she was right to use it this way. Judas, who John says was in charge of the resources, would have been the one to object about how the common property was used.
• 

  peacefulpete

  hmike, you should write your own Gospel.
• 

  hmike

  If I do, I'll send you an advance copy. Do you prefer papyrus or parchment?