rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\n de Mariam h aleipsasa ton kurion muri kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin auts\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hs ho adelphos Lazaros sthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in 12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\h aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph\, old verb for which see kjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; 13:5; kjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of kjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamartlos\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in 8:2| and that the details in kjv@Luke:7:36-50; kjv@John:12:1-8| have only superficial resemblances and serious disagreements. John is not here alluding to Luke's record, but preparing for his own in chapter 12. What earthly difficulty is there in two different women under wholly different circumstances doing a similar act for utterly different purposes?