As Jesus is the Messiah, he needs to be anointed, after all, that is what "Messiah" or "Christ" means. We will examine where and when and by whom Jesus is anointed in the four gospels. We will start with John, then look at Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke. We will see that there are three distinct stories: Luke's narrative occurring significantly before Jesus goes to Jerusalem at the home of Simon the Pharisee, John's narrative occurring the evening before the triumphal entry at the home of Lazarus, Mary and Martha in Bethany, and Mark and Matthew's narrative after the triumphal entry at the home of Simon the leper. Luke and John have Jesus's feet anointed, while Mark and Matthew have his head anointed. The three synoptic gospels allow for no stay at Bethany the night before Jesus's triumphal entry, for all three indicate that on route from Jericho, they only stop near at Bethany and Bethphage to acquire the colt that Jesus needs to walk on in order to fulfill prophesy, and we will see that the author of Luke is copying the narratives of Mark (just as Matthew copies the narratives of Mark) and yet exactly where Mark (and Matthew) inserts the narrative of the anointing, the author of Luke intentionally skips over that the anointing at Simon the leper (as Luke had previously told of an anointing at the home of Simon the Pharisee long before Jesus ever got anywhere near Jerusalem). Also, the narratives in Mark and Matthew suggest that it was Jesus's anointing that caused Judas to betray Jesus, while John and Luke explicitly state that Satan had either chosen or entered into Judas. Finally, while John says that the triumphal entry occurred because the people knew that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead (from who's home Jesus had just stayed) while the disciples were confused by this, Mark gives no reason for the crowd, Matthew has the crowd wanting to see the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee, while in Luke it is stated that it is Jesus's disciples who are making the noise (those same disciples who John claimed were confused by the crowds making noise). Finally, we will look at two different apologetic attempts to reconcile these four narratives, and yet the justification by one is explicitly denied by the other, and neither attempts to explain all the differences; rather, they suggest how this aspect or that aspect may align. After all, the believer only wants a reassurance that there may be a harmonization of these four accounts, and will look no further after the apologist makes up an excuse for this or that, without actually attempting to explain all contradictions insgesamt.

John

We will begin with the gospel of John, for it is the gospel that most clearly describes the events of Jesus's anointing.

First, it is clear that Jesus is already aware of the three siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus of Bethany, a few miles away from Jerusalem, for Lazarus is described as “he whom you love is ill” and "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." We can contrast this with the other gospels, where Jesus never is described as journeying to Jerusalem prior to the last week of his life, and of the three, the author of Luke even mentions Mary and Martha, but without reference to their brother and his beloved Lazarus or the village of Bethany.

When Jesus hears that Lazarus is deathly ill, rather than immediately going to heal the one whom Jesus loved, he intentionally delays going there so that Lazarus can die, no doubt causing extreme mental anguish for both Mary and Martha; all this, just to show that he can resurrect someone. Had no one else died who could also be resurrected? After Lazarus dies, Jesus comes to Bethany and "[w]hen Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home." After speaking to Jesus, Martha says “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.” Martha then fetches Mary, and the three go to Lazarus's tomb and Jesus resurrects him. Jesus then leaves Bethany and Jerusalem for Ephraim (which is not that far away, perhaps 16 miles, and certainly much closer than Jericho), but then returns just before the Passover:

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

It should be noted that the direct route from Ephraim to Jerusalem does not pass through Jericho, as Ephraim is between Jericho and Jerusalem. While Jesus is at the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus,

There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’s feet, and wiped them with her hair.

Now, nard or spikenard is an essential oil derived from Nardostachys jatamansi, which is grown in the Himalayas. 450 mL of such an oil would likely be beyond the attainability of followers of Jesus to purchase, so instead, it was more likely an essential oil made from a plant of the genus Valeriana, of the same family as that of the genus Nardostachys.

One of the disciples objects:

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?”

The cost is 6 1⁄4 Roman pounds of silver, so this was clearly not Nardostachys jatamansi.

The author of John also elaborates on the motivation of Judas Iscariot:

He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.

This clearly states the motivation for Judas: simple thievery, and it appears that Judas has been engaged in such nefarious activities for some time. Jesus responds to Judas with

Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

If Jesus is omniscient, whey does he keep up the façade that Judas actually cares about the poor? Why does he not admonish Judas for theft? We will see later what the other gospels say about Judas's motivation. However, we will make one observation about the anointing: it is Jesus's feet that are being anointed and Mary wipes Jesus's feet with her hair. However, most critical is the location and timing of the anointing: it is at the "home of Lazarus" and it is "six days before the Passover" and the day before Jesus has his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

It is only the next day after Jesus is anointed that he enters Jerusalem in triumph:

The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting,

“Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord—
the King of Israel!”

Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written:

“Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
Look, your king is coming,
sitting on a donkey’s colt!”

His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him. So the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to testify. It was also because they heard that he had performed this sign that the crowd went to meet him.

Thus, the motivation for the crowd coming to see Jesus enter Jerusalem is also given: they had heard that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead: it is the crowd that is shouting, and it is Jesus's disciples that are not understanding what is happening.

Another event included by the author of John describes an event where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples:

Jesus...got up from supper, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him.

Following this homoerotic scene, Jesus says “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” When asked by Peter who would betray him, Jesus responded

“It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.

Following this

After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” Now no one knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the piece of bread, [Judas] immediately went out. And it was night.

This is the same night that Jesus is arrested, so there is no mention in John of Judas previously meeting with the high priests to betray Jesus, so there is no clear connection between the anointing and Judas deciding to betray Jesus: here, the same day Jesus is betrayed is the evening where Jesus identifies Judas as his betrayer and Judas leaves to speak to the high priests.

Another interesting point about the gospel of John is that it has Jesus explicitly visit Bethany before the triumphal entry, but no subsequent mention is made of that village, no subsequent mention is even made of the Mount of Olives.

This ends our look at Jesus's anointing in the gospel of John: in it, it gives names to all of the persons involved, lists the place at which the anointing occurs, and that the event took place immediately before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Next, we will look at the corresponding sections in the three synoptic gospels, starting with the first to be written: Mark.

Mark

Next, we will consider the narrative in Mark. First, the author of Mark never mentions Mary, Martha or Lazarus, and makes no mention of the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus in the short time before Jesus's execution. In Mark 10, the author begins Jesus and the disciples heading to Jerusalem: "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, ..." and Jesus foretells his arrest, torture and execution, and they make a stop in Jericho, after which in Mark 11, there is the triumphal entry into Jerusalem:

When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this: ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’ ” They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” They told them what Jesus had said, and they allowed them to take it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it.

Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,

“Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple, and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

The triumphal entry has occurred, and yet there is no mention of the anointing; indeed, there is no mention of stopping in Bethany for the night, as is told in John. Also, Jesus sends his disciples to fetch a colt from the village "ahead of" them, while in John, "Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it." If Jesus and the disciples were only approaching the villages ahead of them, then it is not reasonable to assume that they had reached Bethany the night before and stayed there: instead, they are simply passing by as they head to Jerusalem and only return after having had the triumphal entry and a short visit to the Temple. Also, no explanation is given for the gathering of this large crowd, even though the author of John explicitly says that many were there upon having heard that Lazarus had been resurrected. Finally, after Jesus returns to Bethany, it makes no mention of where Jesus stays in Bethany: no mention of Mary, Martha or Lazarus is made.

The day after the triumphal entry, we have that

On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.

So figs are out of season, so of course the tree does not have figs; Jesus, however, still decides to curse the tree.

Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

No mention is made of Jesus being anointed that night, either, and again, no mention of Mary, Martha or Lazarus.

The second day after the triumphal entry, we have that

In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. Then Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

So Jesus kills a tree to make an obscure point?

For the next few chapters, it narrates Jesus as being around and teaching in the Temple. At the start of Mark 13, Jesus leaves the Temple. It is only on the evening of the second day in Jerusalem that Jesus is anointed, and Mark explicitly says that "[i]t was two days before the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread."

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.

At least the essential oil, nard, is the same. However, the anointing is now in the "house of Simon the leper" and not the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, and it is two days before the Passover and not six days before. The woman anointing Jesus is not named, which is odd if Mary was beloved by Jesus--would the author not have known this? Additionally, rather than anointing Jesus's feet, the essential oil is poured onto Jesus's head and there is no mention of the woman cleaning Jesus's feet with her hair. The anger is over the waste of this essential oil is voiced by at least two who are present, and Judas Iscariot is not explicitly named:

But some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her.

But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 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. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”

Thus, the author of John has the anointing occurring before Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, six days before the Passover, at the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus in Bethany, it is Mary who anoints Jesus, and Judas Iscariot accosts her for having wasted the essential oil. The author of Mark has the anointing occurring two days after Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, two days before the Passover, at the house of Simon the leper (also in Bethany), an unnamed woman pours the essential oil over his head as opposed to anointing his feet and wiping them with her hair, and at least two persons with Jesus accost her for having wasted the essential oil. Note that Mark also refers to Jesus staying in Bethany many times after the triumphal entry:

"..he went out to Bethany with the twelve."
"On the following day, when they came from Bethany..."
"While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, ..."

This is on contrast with John who does not mention Bethany after the anointing the evening before the triumphal entry.

Can Matthew or Luke do any better? It is unlikely, as we have already seen that Matthew and Luke copied off of Mark, so these two should tell a story similar to that of Mark.

Matthew

The author of Matthew also starts with Jesus and his disciples going to Jerusalem together with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In Matthew 20, we have that "[w]hile Jesus was going up to Jerusalem" he foretells his arrest, torture and execution, they stop at Jericho, and then proceed to Jerusalem, where in Matthew 21 we have that:

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.” This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,

“Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, “Who is this?” The crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.”

The fact that Matthew has Jesus riding two animals simultaneously is a humorous aside that others discuss elsewhere. The reason for the people gathering to meet him is not because they heard that he had resurrected Lazarus, but rather, because he is "the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee." It was not a sign (the resurrection of Lazarus) that caused them to come, but because of who he was: a prophet. However, most importantly, like Mark, the author makes no mention of them stopping in Bethany for the night, and instead, they simply appear to be passing these villages and acquiring the colt, and immediately proceeding to Jerusalem thereafter.

Jesus, however, does not go back to Bethany for the night, only to return the next day and cleanse the Temple, but rather he cleanses the Temple immediately following his triumphal entry:

Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of robbers.”

The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he cured them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did and heard the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became angry and said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?”

He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.

The chief priests and scribes do not even seem to be aware of the scheming and the requirement to arrest Jesus as is told cycle of Jewish hatred in the gospel of John, but rather just speak to him. It is only after the Temple is cleansed that he goes to Bethany.

The next day, Jesus returns,

In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.”

In Mark, it was only the next morning that the disciples saw that the fig tree had withered in the intervening twenty-four hours, but in Matthew (who is copying from Mark) had that the fig tree "withered at once", and the disciples reinforced this immediate consequence by asking “How did the fig tree wither at once?” Contrast this with what the disciples say the next day as recorded in Mark: “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.”

Jesus spends the day in Jerusalem, and then at the start of Matthew 26, he gets ready to return:

When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

As for the anointing, it is very similar to the story told in Mark:

Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.

But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum and the money given to the poor.”

But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”

The only significant difference is that it now appears to be all the disciples who object to this waste. The name of the essential oil is not given, and the exact cost is not given, either. The location however is still at the house of Simon the leper in Bethany and not the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus (which is also in Bethany). The details of the anointing are also the same as Mark: the essential oil is poured onto Jesus's head. Given that Luke was also copying from Mark, perhaps Luke, too, will have a similar story; however, we will first examine the claim of plagiarism.

In case the reader is not convinced that Matthew copied from Mark, let us look at the significant similarity of the anointing and the surrounding verses between Mark and Matthew. We begin with the discussion that the Passover being near, and while Mark has a narrative describing the high priests wanting to arrest and kill Jesus, Matthew includes Jesus reminding his disciples that he is to be killed. Matthew, however uses the text of Mark as a template, and repeats many phrases verbatim or very close thereunto:

Ἦν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας, καὶ ἐζήτουν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς πῶς αὐτὸν ἐν δόλῳ κρατήσαντες ἀποκτείνωσιν· ἔλεγον γάρ· μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ μήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος τοῦ λαοῦ.

Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους, εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· οἴδατε ὅτι μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι. Τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα καὶ συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα τὸν Ἰησοῦν δόλῳ κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν. ἔλεγον δέ· μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, ἵνα μὴ θόρυβος γένηται ἐν τῷ λαῷ.

Red generally highlight the same words in both texts in the same order, while blue is used to highlight words with different prefixes or suffixes, or shorter phrases not in the same order as in the other text.

Next is the pericope of the anointing of Jesus, and here Matthew has essentially copied the text in Mark much more closely:

Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς. συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς. ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς· εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν; ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς· καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἄφετε αὐτήν, τί αὐτῇ κόπους παρέχετε; καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε αὐτοῖς εὖ ποιῆσαι, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε. ὃ ἔσχεν ἐποίησεν, προέλαβεν μυρίσαι τὸ σῶμά μου εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασμόν. ἀμὴν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ὃ ἐποίησεν αὕτη λαληθήσεται εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς.

Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γενομένου ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου βαρυτίμου καὶ κατέχεεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου. ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἠγανάκτησαν λέγοντες· εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; ἐδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο πραθῆναι πολλοῦ καὶ δοθῆναι πτωχοῖς. γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί κόπους παρέχετε τῇ γυναικί; ἔργον γὰρ καλὸν ἠργάσατο εἰς ἐμέ. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε. βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐποίησεν. Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, λαληθήσεται καὶ ὃ ἐποίησεν αὕτη εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς.

In the text, you will note that while Mark used ἦλθεν ("he came"), Matthew used προσῆλθεν ("arrived"). This is no different from one student copying from another, changing a word here or there, while making no real attempt to seriously reinterpret what is being copied, or even putting it into the author's own words.

The following verses discuss the intention of Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus:

Καὶ Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώθ, ὁ εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδοῖ αὐτοῖς. οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐχάρησαν καὶ ἐπηγγείλαντο αὐτῷ ἀργύριον δοῦναι· καὶ ἐζήτει πῶς αὐτὸν εὐκαίρως παραδοῖ.

Τότε πορευθεὶς εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς εἶπεν· τί θέλετέ μοι δοῦναι, κἀγὼ ὑμῖν παραδώσω αὐτόν; Οἱ δὲ ἔστησαν αὐτῷ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια. καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐζήτει εὐκαιρίαν ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδῷ.

It is useful to note that both authors of Mark and Matthew describe Judas approaching the high priest to betray Jesus immediately following the anointing of Jesus, and thus this we can reasonably gleam what was occurring: by having himself anointed, perhaps Judas began to see Jesus as indeed having a messiah complex, and perhaps this was going to Jesus's ego; perhaps this was too much for Judas who felt that Jesus had gone too far.

The author of Matthew also mentions Bethany on a number of occurasions after the triumpal entry:

"He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there."
"Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, ..."

Given that the author Matthew is copying Mark, it is a small wonder that these two gospels appear to describe the same narrative. Next we will look at the gospel of Luke, and as that author also copied from Mark, one would think that they should be similar.

Luke

The author of Luke at least mentions Mary and Martha, but not Lazarus, but this is in Luke 10, and nowhere near the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This is not unexpected, as John indicates that "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus", so hopefully at least one of the three other gospel writers mention the siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus:

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at Jesus’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks, so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her, then, to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”

Even the town of Bethany is not mentioned here, and neither is Lazarus; however, do note the parallels with what is told in John at Jesus's anointing: while Mary was anointing Jesus, Martha was serving dinner. In Luke, while Mary sat at Jesus's feet and listened to him, Martha was engaged in other tasks. It is the same story, but only now, Mary is simply listening to Jesus. It is not the disciples that admonish Mary for anointing Jesus, but Martha who admonishes Mary for not helping her, yet in all stories, Jesus comes to the defense of the woman.

The story of Jesus's anointing, however, occurs even earlier in the text, in Luke 7:

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine.

It is now at the house of a yet unnamed Pharisee and not the house of Simon the leper or the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Comes into the house and anoints Jesus:

And a woman in the city who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair, kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.

Despite the author of Luke copying from Mark for the vast majority of his gospel, the author is clearly telling the same story told in the gospel of John: the woman anoints Jesus's feet, although the details are slightly different. The woman bathes Jesus's feet with her tears, and dries his feet of her tears with her hair, and only then does she kiss his feet and then anoint them. However, this story much more closely parallels the story told in the gospel of John. It seems as if the anointing of Jesus's feet was an oral tradition that gained popularity after Mark and Matthew were written, or at least gained popularity in the communities of the authors of Luke and John. Additionally, the author Luke has the woman wash Jesus's feet first, and the only other gospel to mention the washing of feet is John, where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Thus, like the anointing of Jesus's feet, it seems that oral traditions related to the washing of feet also seem to have gained popularity either after Mark and Matthew were written, or were sufficiently widespread at the time that they were known to the communities of the authors of Luke and John, although the details were still not solidified. If Jesus had indeed washed the feet of his disciples, then it is almost certain the author of Mark would have known of this, and consequently would have included it in his gospel.

The author Luke, however, continues with the Pharisee denigrating the woman:

Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”

The Pharisee does admonish her, but not because of the waste of money, but rather because she is a "sinner." Jesus, however does respond:

Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

“Teacher,” he replied, “speak.”

“A certain moneylender had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?”

Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.”

And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.”

Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little.”

Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

To emphasize, Jesus explicitly states that the woman was anointing his feet and not his head. Also, the name of the Pharisee is given as Simon, so now Jesus's anointing is in the house of Simon the Pharisee and not Simon the leper. Humorously enough, this pericope also includes the monetary coin of the denarius, however, the amounts mentioned are 50 and 500 denarii and not 300 denarii. There is never-the-less the parallel where the person Jesus is with objects to what the woman is doing, and Jesus responds in defence of the woman's actions.

Thus, the events at the anointing differ greatly from the accounts in John, Mark and Matthew, but also it does not appear to occur at any time even close to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. For interest, we will look ahead and see what events the author of Luke does describe in the last week of Jesus's life: Immediately before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in Luke 19, the author has Jesus passing through Jericho coming upon Zacchaeus, and then the author tells the story of the "ten pound" (of silver). This is a plagiarism from Mark where the author changes the number of slaves receiving silver (ten instead of only three as described in Mark), but where the author of Luke suffers editorial fatigue: having introduced ten slaves, the author is too lazy to also modify the story to tell what happened to all ten, and only repeats the story in Mark that describes the efforts of the first three. The author then says

After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Like Mark and Matthew, there is no mention of stopping overnight at Bethany and having dinner there; instead, they pass close to Bethany, acquire a colt, and then proceed immediately to Jerusalem:

When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, “Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it.’ ” So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?” They said, “The Lord needs it.” Then they brought it to Jesus, and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it.

As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. Now as he was approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, saying,

“Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!”

Now, it seems that the reason the people are shouting out is that they are being compelled to do so:

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, order your disciples to stop.”

He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.

In both cases, the author of Luke is saying that this crowd is one made up of Jesus's "disciples," and the Pharisees are explicitly telling Jesus to order his "disciples" to stop. This differs from the previous justifications, such as knowing that Lazarus has been raised from the dead, or from knowledge that Jesus was a prophet. It also explicitly refers to the crowd as being one composed of Jesus's disciples, and not simply people who have heard that Lazarus was resurrected or that Jesus was a prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.

This is all occurring closer to Bethany, for as they approach Jerusalem, Jesus weeps over its destruction, something not mentioned in the other gospels:

As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”

Like the author of Matthew, the author of Luke deviates from Mark, skipping Jesus's first night in Bethany, and has Jesus immediately enter Jerusalem and cleanse the Temple:

Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there, and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”

Every day he was teaching in the temple. The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him, but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard.

The timing is now awkward, as there is no explicit return to Bethany, and there is no record of what occurred on each day. Instead, it continues with phrases such as "Every day..." and the start of the next chapter begins with "One day he was teaching..." To contrast Luke with Mark and Matthew, the author of Luke makes no mention of the cursing and subsequent withering of the fig tree. Instead, there is a parable in Luke that does not appear in Mark or Matthew, and that is told earlier:

Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the man working the vineyard, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good, but if not, you can cut it down.’ ”

Perhaps the author of Luke felt it was not necessary to retell yet another story of fig trees as he was writing down and copying the story of Jesus's last days in Jerusalem. Additionally, perhaps the author of Luke asked the same question I myself asked: Why would a god curse a fig tree to wither simply because it was not bearing fruit when it was not the season for fruit?

As for Jesus's time in Jerusalem in that last week, the author of Luke does not explicitly mention Bethany at all as the place where Jesus stayed:

Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives, as it was called. And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to him in the temple.

This is despite Bethany being on the southeastern slope of this mount, and the author of Mark explicitly mentioning this place in his gospel. Even though the author of Luke did mention Martha and Mary, there is no mention that he saw them in Bethany in the week leading up to his execution, and again, there is no mention made of Lazarus.

If we go to Luke 22, we see the narrative that the high priests were looking to arrest and kill Jesus, but what comes next is the description of Judas's communication with the high priests: the anointing that the author of Mark inserted between these two is consipously absent. To emphasize that the author of Luke was copying Mark, let us look at the text in Greek, first of the high priests seeking to kill Jesus:

Ἤγγιζεν δὲ ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα, καὶ ἐζήτουν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς τὸ πῶς ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν· ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ τὸν λαόν.

As entire phrases are copied verbatim, and other language is very similar, it is essentially certain that the author of Luke copied off of Mark, and this is emphasized again by looking at the description of Judas approaching the high priests:

εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἀπελθὼν συνελάλησεν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ στρατηγοῖς τὸ πῶς αὐτοῖς παραδῷ αὐτόν. καὶ ἐχάρησαν καὶ συνέθεντο αὐτῷ ἀργύριον δοῦναι. καὶ ἐξωμολόγησεν καὶ ἐζήτει εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν ἄτερ ὄχλου αὐτοῖς.

Because the author of Luke intentionally left out the anointing of Jesus, the author introduces an alternative reason for Judas's betrayal: "Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot." Luke had had Jesus anointed much earlier in his ministry, and perhaps the author was not comfortable with the suggestion that it was Jesus's anointing that motivated Judas to betray him; however, what is clear is that the author of Luke was aware of the story of the anointing at the house of Simon the leper, knowing full well that he had already included the narrative with Simon the Pharisee.

Following this discussion, it says

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.

Therefore, Judas was meeting with the high priests before the day that Jesus was betrayed, to contrast with John where John is explicitly identified as the betrayer and who then leaves and betrays Jesus that same evening.

The author of Luke does not mention Jesus sleeping in Bethany, but he does mention "Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives, as it was called." Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, and given that the author of Luke was copying from Mark, one wonders why he left this detail out, especially given that his beloved Martha and Mary (and their brother Lazarus) lived there and were so close to Jesus at the end.

Now for something completely different...

For entertainment, when it is announced that they are headed to Jerusalem and Jesus predicts his betrayal, you will note that even here, while the words of Jesus being very similar, especially in English, the words of Jesus are not the same in Greek:

ὅτι ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθήσεται τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν, καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐμπαίξουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ μαστιγώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν, καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται.

ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθήσεται τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ γραμματεῦσιν, καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι· καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται.

Παραλαβὼν δὲ τοὺς δώδεκα εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ τελεσθήσεται πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· παραδοθήσεται γὰρ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐμπαιχθήσεται καὶ ὑβρισθήσεται καὶ ἐμπτυσθήσεται, καὶ μαστιγώσαντες ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν, καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ἀναστήσεται.

If these authors were divinely inspired, could they not at least all agree upon the explicit words of Jesus, for certainly the incarnation of God would have said only one statement, and as, for example, the author of Luke is able to faithfully transcribe the discussions between Mary and Elizabeth and the angels to whom they spoke, why is that same author be copying off of Mark, and yet manipulating the very words of Jesus himself?

Apologetics

Some apologists claim that there may have been multiple anointings. This is, of course, the most straight-forward solution; however, one must ask why no author describes more than one anointing, even if that author was copying from another. We will look at some attempts at such a harmonization, and investigate them to see if they are valid. In one case, it claims there were two: one as recorded in Luke, and a later one that is told in Mark, Matthew and John. Here is the full apology:

Again, the location (Bethany), and Jesus’ own words are similar in these three. But what about the differences in John? John tells us Mary’s name, and mentions that Jesus arrived in Bethany 6 days before the Passover (when He would be crucified), and mentions that Martha helped serve the meal—Matthew and Mark do not. The answer is simply: These are additional details John adds to Matthew and Mark’s version, but importantly(!) they do not contradict anything from Matthew and Mark. And we can work it out, so for example: Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before Passover John says, but this meal was still held two days before, not six (as Matthew and Mark say). The meal was at Simon the Leper’s house (as Matthew and Mark note), but Martha must have helped serve at Simon’s house (this is the Martha we know, isn’t it?). And more: The different people who are said to respond: Judas, the disciples, or “some others”… are again, just different details, but provide no contradiction. There was obviously a reaction from everyone in the room, as we might expect. The fact is: The authors of the Gospels will record the same event, but with different details. Sometimes this is an important part of the message they are trying to convey.

Anyone could return to the gospel of John and see what is written there:

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’s feet, and wiped them with her hair... The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.

The apologist hopes that the reader will simply read the apology and say "Oh, that makes sense." and go away, assured that no real contradiction exists. The believer is not interested in a careful reading; the believer simply wants reassurance that all is okay. However, the claim is absurd: the apologist is trying to say that the meal actually took place at the house of Simon the leper, even though the author of John as all these events occurring at the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, and all occurring before the triumphal entry. The apologist does not, however, explain why the author of Luke did not at least refer to the second anointing, for the author of Luke has Jesus travel from Jericho to Jerusalem, stopping near Bethany only to get the colt, and then says nothing about Jesus staying in Bethany during the night. One would think that if Mary, Martha and Lazarus were such good friends of Jesus, and that Lazarus had been resurrected, and that the author of Luke was already copying from Mark, and that there was another opportunity to emphasize the character of Judas Iscariot, why the author would simply leave all of this out, not even mentioning the name Bethany.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) gives an alternative explanation: Jesus was anointed three times. This contradicts the previous apologist's claim that "So Matthew, Mark, and John we can conclude are the same event." AiG makes the correct observation that a Pharisee could not be a leper, so one cannot conflate the accounts in Mark and Matthew with the account in Luke, despite the two individuals having the same name. If Jesus

AiG proposes a different possibility, whereby the authors in Mark and Matthew simply refer back to a previous event when they describe the anointing, and thus, Jesus was anointed before the triumphal entry, just Mark and Matthew (or more correctly, just Mark, as Matthew just copied from Mark) did not include the story at that point. Possible, but as the previous chapter has Jesus and the disciples approaching Jerusalem:

They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, ...

and Jesus foretells his upcoming arrest, torture and execution, and like Luke, they have them pass through Jericho (although the details differ), and as they approach "Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples" to fetch the colt (or colts), and there is no mention of them visiting the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus and staying there for the night: they approach Jerusalem, fetch the colts, and enter Jerusalem. AiG does not look at the overall picture, but rather, focuses on individual details, to pacify and reassure the believer:

Once again, the apparent contradictions melt away when the passage or passages are studied in more detail, and in context. In this case, the “contradiction” arises because the anointing passages are conflated or forced into a single account when they don’t belong together.

Upon reading this, the believer is reassured that all is well in the world of the gospels, and the believer can continue to go on believing, and of course, tithing so as to fill the coffers. No justification is given for why three of the four gospels make no mention of the stop in Bethany the night before entering Jerusalem, no justification is given for Luke's intentional leaving out of the anointing in Bethany as described in Mark, while introducing an alternative reason for Judas approaching the high priests to betray Jesus, and there is no justification for the authors of the first three gospels making no mention what-so-ever of the raising of Lazarus, an event so very close to the end, nor of the great friendship and love between the siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus and Jesus.

Conclusion

To compare and contrast the stories:

Luke has the anointing occurring long before Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, John has it the day before and five days before the Passover, and Mark and Matthew have it occurring a number of days after Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem and only two days before the Passover.
Mark, Matthew and Luke have Jesus approaching Bethany the day of the triumphal entry, where the disciples simply stop to retrieve a colt, leaving no time for a full evening in Bethany prior to the triumphal entry as described in John. Mark and Matthew both mention that Jesus returns to Bethany on many evenings after the triumphal entry. Matthew indicates that Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives in the evenings but does not explicitly mention Bethany. John, on the other hand, makes no mention of Jesus returning to and staying in Bethany during the nights after his triumphal entry.
Luke quite faithfully copies the stories in that last week from Mark, and yet, while copying many of the stories both before and after the anointing, conspicuously leaves out the actual anointing at the home of Simon the leper.
John has the anointing occurring at the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, Mark and Matthew has it occurring at the house of Simon the leper, and yet Luke has it occurring at the house of Simon the Pharisee.
John has Mary anoint Jesus, and she is described as being well known to Jesus and loved by him long before even the death of her brother, Lazarus. Luke mentions Mary and Martha but makes no mention of Lazarus, and the woman anointing Jesus is described as a "sinner" who seems to be unknown to Jesus. Neither Mark nor Matthew suggest who the woman is.
John and Luke have the woman anoint Jesus's feet, while Mark and Matthew have the woman pour the oil on Jesus's head. John has the woman anoint the feet first and then wipe them with her hair, while Luke has the woman cry over Jesus's feet, dry his feet with her hair, and then anoint the feet.
John, Mark and Matthew have Judas Iscariot, at least two disciples, and all disciples, respectively, attack the woman for the cost of the essential oil, and Jesus defends the actions of the woman. Luke has the Pharisee attack the character of the woman, and Jesus defends the character of the woman.
In Mark and Matthew, the anointing of Jesus occurs immediately before the description of Judas going to the high priests to betray Jesus: neither gives any reason for Judas doing so, and thus it may be inferred that it was the anointing of Jesus was the motivation for Judas. In Luke, it says the Satan possessed Judas, while in John, it appears Judas was already corrupt--he was already stealing from the communal purse--and was chosen by Satan.

The author of Luke could faithfully write down the private words spoken between Mary the mother of Jesus and an angel, and yet none of the authors seem to be able to faithfully tell the story of the single most significant event in Jesus's life: his anointing, for without this anointing, he would not be the Messiah or Christ. Additionally, the author of Luke had access to the gospel of Mark, and yet despite this, he intentionally introduced changes that are irreconcilable with the gospel of Mark: the anointing was explicitly moved to a time before Jesus is in Jerusalem, and Simon is no longer a leper but a Pharisee. You will recall that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew, and the first words of Luke include:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus...

It seems that the author of Luke is making an explicit reference to Mark, and yet, the author of Luke has indicated that he has introduced changes, as he is authoring a "well-ordered account" as he was had "a grasp of everything from the start."

In summary, like the story of the women at the tomb, the four stories of the anointing of Jesus differ significantly, and they differ despite one author have access to the text of another. The two that are most similar are Mark and Matthew, and as the author of Matthew, too, copied from Mark, this is not unexpected; however, given the deviations introduced by the author of Luke, it must be remembered that these deviations (which incidentally include elements which cause its telling to align closer to those stories told by the author of John) were introduced despite the author having access to Mark.