{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment,
and wiped his feet with her hair} ((886e) de Mariam h(8820)aleipsasa ton
kurion mur(9369) kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin aut(8873)).
This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose
brother Lazarus was sick" (h(8873) ho adelphos Lazaros (8873)thenei).
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(8820)aleipsasa, first aorist active articular
participle of aleiph(935c), old verb for which see  Mr 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(935c), to wipe off or away
( Isa 12:3  13:5  Lu 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 ( Mt 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  Lu 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
hamart(936c)os." 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  Lu 7:36-50  Joh 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?