The Raising of Lazarus

[SteveF]

How did you conclusively determine that “another disciple” is referring to the writer? I noticed you said the Greek reads “the other disciple”. I’m assuming you’re connecting it to John 20:2 where the writer refers to himself as “the other disciple”. I checked e-sword and the word “the” is not in John 18:15. It seems it should read simply “another disciple” which could mean anyone who ended up following Christ and happened to be known by the high priest. Also if you are connecting John 20:2 and John 18:15 how do you reconcile that the chief priests were looking to kill Lararus in John 12?

Good point about Lazarus there. Just wanted to chime in on the Greek though - verse 16 has the article. v15 has the article in the Majority Text but not in the critical text (at least not in Westcott and Hort's).

Thanks for the info Dean. Out of curiosity, do you know what percentage of the Majority Text manuscripts contain the article in vs 15?

Also, I see the word "the" in verse 16 as simply a grammatical necessity following the introduction of the "other disciple" in vs. 15.

Just wondering, are you inclined to think the disciple mentioned in vs 15-16 is the writer? If so, do you find it curious that this seems to be the only time the writer wouldn't have referred to himself as the "one whom Jesus loved".

Also, do you have a personal view on who you think might have written the Gospel or are you presently agnostic about it? Have you conclusively decided that John didn't write it or are you simply inclined to think he didn't?

Thanks
Steve

[SteveF]

Allyn, I've been thinking more about whether Lazarus could be the disciple who was known by the High Priest in John 18. I'm still finding it hard to see how someone who the chief priests wanted to kill also seemed to have an "open door" policy in the high priest's courtyard. I don't know the history well enough to know who could and couldn't walk freely into the courtyard. I do know that he had to obtain permission for Peter. Therefore this individual also seemed to have some pull. It's just hard for me to see this as Lazarus since they wanted to kill him at one point.

I know you're far from dogmatic on this and have already expressed your thoughts but do you have anything else you could add? I'm just trying to think this through.

Thanks,
Steve

[SteveF]

Paidion wrote

Further, Matthew records that the Jesus sat at table to eat the passover with the 12 disciples. There is no mention that anyone else sat with him on that occasion --- and Lazarus certainly wasn't one of the twelve! Matthew made clear in the passage above who the 12 were.

And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover. When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples. Matthew 26:19,10

It's interesting to note that Ben Witherington, who think Lazarus wrote it, doesn’t think John 13 is speaking of the Passover exclusively. He writes:

"John does not recount the Lord's Supper at all, simply the earlier meal, but he does indeed add the end of the last supper meal story about Judas going out and betraying Jesus here which is necessary to the plot line continuing. This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together."

Maybe you've already given this possibility serious thought Paidion. I need to look into this some more. This would likely be a topic for another thread, that is, if someone sees merit in this argument and wants to present a case.

[Allyn]

Allyn, I've been thinking more about whether Lazarus could be the disciple who was known by the High Priest in John 18. I'm still finding it hard to see how someone who the chief priests wanted to kill also seemed to have an "open door" policy in the high priest's courtyard. I don't know the history well enough to know who could and couldn't walk freely into the courtyard. I do know that he had to obtain permission for Peter. Therefore this individual also seemed to have some pull. It's just hard for me to see this as Lazarus since they wanted to kill him at one point.

I know you're far from dogmatic on this and have already expressed your thoughts but do you have anything else you could add? I'm just trying to think this through.

Thanks,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Lazarus became a living testimony to the power of God. And “many of the Jews”, who witnessed the raising of Lazarus, believed on Jesus (Jn. 11:45). I sincerely believe that Lazuras no longer feared death. I believe that because of this courage he could not be intimidated by the threats against him from the priests. This is conjecture but I believe that if Lazuras is the writer then the account of him going with Peter when Jesus was arrested was because he had nothing to fear.

Now if this isn't enough, I also believe that the young man in the Mark account of Jesus' arrest was Lazuras. The young man mentioned as having only a linen wrapped around him and who then left in a rush because of his nakedness is a good candidate because of the Greek meaning of the word "linen". The Greek word for “linen” in Mark 14 was used only in relation to Jesus’ dead body every other time that it was used (Mt. 27:59, Mk. 15:46 [twice] & Lu. 23:53).

Besides the fact that this unnamed “young man” was the last follower of Jesus to flee from Gethsemane that fateful night, the Gospel of Mark calls attention to this “young man’s” attire! Twice we see references to the “linen cloth” that this “young man” was wearing (Mk. 14:51 & 52). And both these verses indicate that this was the only thing covering his otherwise “naked” body. Why would the Gospel of Mark bother to mention these details? (Possibly because it is in these details that we can find the clue to the identity of this unnamed “young man”.)

Our English word “linen” was used to translate several different Greek words, but that two of these always refer to the cloth covering a corpse – with this passage in Mark 14:51-52 being the only exception!

Why would this “young man” have chosen to wear a material that is otherwise associated only with dead people (in the scriptures)?

Is it possible that this unnamed “young man” was indicating that he’d already been dead or that he didn’t fear death? More importantly, could this have been a way of expressing the fact that he was a changed man – that reckoned himself dead to sin, but alive unto God (as Paul later encouraged others to do in Romans 6:11)?

Whatever the explanation, there is a link between this unidentified “young man” and Lazarus (the unidentified “disciple whom Jesus loved”). This link can be seen when one closely examines the “linen” evidence that the scriptures contain.

[Allyn]

Hi again SteveF,

I failed to answer this question:

Do you think it’s likely that Lazurus would have been one of the few in the fishing boat after the resurrection? He would have been (the writer) the one who first recognized Jesus as well.

We see that “the sons of Zebedee” are named in John 21:2 and yet we know that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” is present at the same time! (Jn. 21:7) This is strong evidence that the author was not the Apostle John.

[dean198]

Thanks for the info Dean. Out of curiosity, do you know what percentage of the Majority Text manuscripts contain the article in vs 15?

Hi Steve, I checked my only resource - Robinson and Pierponts "New Testament in the Original Greek", and there is no alternative reading there for the Majority Text. That probably means that at least most of the Majority Text manuscripts have it, but I'm not exactly sure at what point they begin to list variations.

Also, I see the word "the" in verse 16 as simply a grammatical necessity following the introduction of the "other disciple" in vs. 15.

Agreed, but what do you then do with John 20:2:

Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Just wondering, are you inclined to think the disciple mentioned in vs 15-16 is the writer? If so, do you find it curious that this seems to be the only time the writer wouldn't have referred to himself as the "one whom Jesus loved".

Yes, I do think it's the writer. I have no clue why the author doesn't make himself clearer, but with the verse in John 20:2, I think he does identify himself, later on.

Also, do you have a personal view on who you think might have written the Gospel or are you presently agnostic about it? Have you conclusively decided that John didn't write it or are you simply inclined to think he didn't?

I don't think there is any way the son of Zebedee wrote it - there's just far too much evidence against it in my opinion - both internally (from John and Revelation) and externally (from church tradition).

[dean198]

Paidion wrote

Further, Matthew records that the Jesus sat at table to eat the passover with the 12 disciples. There is no mention that anyone else sat with him on that occasion --- and Lazarus certainly wasn't one of the twelve! Matthew made clear in the passage above who the 12 were.

And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover. When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples. Matthew 26:19,10

It's interesting to note that Ben Witherington, who think Lazarus wrote it, doesn’t think John 13 is speaking of the Passover exclusively. He writes:

"John does not recount the Lord's Supper at all, simply the earlier meal, but he does indeed add the end of the last supper meal story about Judas going out and betraying Jesus here which is necessary to the plot line continuing. This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together."

Maybe you've already given this possibility serious thought Paidion. I need to look into this some more. This would likely be a topic for another thread, that is, if someone sees merit in this argument and wants to present a case.

I don't know what to think of the connection between the passover and last supper. But I don't think there's any proof that only the 12 were at the last supper.

[Allyn]

A misperception about Jesus’ last Passover has tended to give credence to the idea that John was the author of this Gospel. John 21:20 tells us, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the one who “leaned on his (Jesus) breast at supper and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” (Also see, John. 13:23-25.)

However, because Mark 14:17 states, Jesus “cometh with the twelve” and Matthew 26:20 says, Jesus “sat down with the twelve” some presume that the “other disciple” has to be one of “the twelve”. There are also many ‘Last Supper’ paintings that help instill an image in our mind of Jesus sitting with “the twelve” at a table having a private supper together with no one else in the room. However, these artist renditions and an erroneous assumption have led many people to accept a faulty conclusion.

Note that the Bible does not say that “the twelve” were the only ones present with Jesus at that Passover. Nowhere are we told that they dined alone. Nor will you find any verse that indicates that other disciples could not participate. Is there any reason to believe that they dined alone that last Passover? Not unless you read a constraint into Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 that isn’t in the text.

Remember that it is wrong to assume that someone is not present at an event simply because a passage of scripture doesn’t mention their presence!

This is demonstrated by contrasting Luke 24:10-12 with John 20:2-10. If someone had only the passage from Luke, they might jump to the conclusion that Peter was alone when he went to the tomb on resurrection morning. However, Peter was not alone when he visited Jesus’ vacant tomb with the “other disciple” that morning. What’s more, the person that Luke left out wasn’t some bit player! “The disciple whom Jesus loved” was a key figure in the life of Jesus.

If Jesus and “the twelve” were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to include the stipulation “one of the twelve” in his answer? The term “the twelve” is a limiting phrase, used to specifically refer to those “chosen” disciples. And yet, Jesus used this phrase at the ‘Last Supper’ (Mk. 14:20). But if “the twelve” were the only ones present, wouldn’t Jesus have said, ‘One of you’?

In fact Jesus does exactly that in John 6:70, which is the only other verse where Jesus used the phrase “the twelve”. In John 6:66-69 many disciples abandoned Jesus. He then challenged “the twelve”, who declared their devotion. In reply he said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Jn. 6:70). [“You twelve” in the Greek reads, “you the twelve”.] Consequently, at the ‘Last Supper’ when Jesus said the traitor was “one of the twelve” (instead of saying “one of you”), it indicates that he and “the twelve” were not the only ones present.

Notice too, that the author didn’t call himself ‘one of the twelve whom Jesus loved’. [An indication that he wasn’t one of “the twelve”?] If Jesus sat down to supper with “the twelve” and then later they were joined by “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, then naturally this person wasn’t one of “the twelve”.

[dean198]

Those are very good points. Jesus says 'one of the twelve' is the one who would betray:

Mar 14:20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

That does suggest (though perhaps doesn't 'prove') that there were more than the twelve present. What about the host, who owned the house? Wouldn't he be there, and in the host's place right next to the guest of honor ('leaning on his bread')?

Whoever the Beloved Disciple was, he lived in or near to Jerusalem, had been a disciple of John the Baptist, knew the high priest, was at sanhedrin meetings, and apparently didn't ever spend much time at Galilee.

[dean198]

However there is more evidence to consider, but I will let you reply first.

I know you didn't get a reply to that question, but I hope you provide further evidence because I know I'd love to hear it.