The Raising of Lazarus

[Allyn]

Paidion, how could the author have pretended to be John when John's name is never attributed to the writing, ever, in the Gospel of John or any of the other books?

Allyn, if you should take a moment of your time to read the link I provided, or better yet, read the gospel of John itself, you will discover that John did, without naming himself, indicate his authorship of that book.

Thanks, Paidion, I have read the Gospel of John over a hundred times, and no, its not there. But if you think it is then I would like for you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion. It seems to me that aside from the other speculation and the fact that tradistion is speaking, the only other evidence is that since Jesus loved John then he must be the disciple Jesus loved. If we go by that as one of the proofs then we must also remember that when Lazuras was in his tomb that Jesus was told that the one whom you love is dead. Now, based on this evidence and the evidence that John was not known by the High priest, we can conclude, at least, that John was not the writer of the Gospel. However there is more evidence to consider, but I will let you reply first.

[SteveF]

Hi Allyn, I have a few questons:

Acts 4:13 speaking of the high priest and these rulers says, “when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus“.

What do you suppose caused them to connect the dots and realize Peter and John had a connection to Jesus? Do you think they suddenly recalled seeing them together at some point or something else?

John 18:13 tells us that Jesus was brought “to Annas first”. Then we read about two disciples that followed Jesus. John 18:15 begins, “And Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple”. [The Greek here states, “Now there followed Jesus Simon Peter and the other disciple”.] The words that follow this, however, are what ultimately ‘clear’ John.

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? He hardly seems like someone who’d feel comfortable in the high priest’s courtyard.

If you are more inclined to think that Lazurus was the writer, other than in John 11 and 12 where it mentions Jesus’ love for Lazarus, what particular argument did you find compelling?

Do you think it’s likely that Lazurus (based on what we read about their relationship in John 11 and 12) would be the one at the last supper who Peter perceived as the most likely (above anyone else) to get info from Jesus? It seems to me the ones tightest to Jesus were Peter, James and John.

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.

The reason I ask these questions is I find it a little hard to get my head around. Perhaps you have some thoughts. I realize there’s some debate over the authorship of John, so I’m interested to hear your insight.

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn, I have a few questons:


What do you suppose caused them to connect the dots realize Peter and John had a connection to Jesus? Do you think they suddenly recalled seeing them together at some point or something else?

To begin with, they could tell that Peter and John “were unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13). [The Greek on these two points reads, “unlettered” and “uninstructed”.]
Also realize that the Bible indicates that regional traits could be easily discerned by the people of that day (Mt. 26:73, Mk. 14:70 & Lu. 22:59).

The important thing for us to notice from this is the awareness to which those leaders had come. Acts 4:13 goes on to say that, those leaders “took knowledge of them (Peter and John) that they had been with Jesus”. [In the Greek this verse reads, “they recognized them that with Jesus they were”.]

This verse exposes the telltale discovery that was made by those leaders. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood something like, ‘Oh, these two were followers of that Jesus of Nazareth’! So yes, I do think it was a sudden realization that they had been with Jesus.

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 there. 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? He hardly seems like someone who’d feel comfortable in the high priest’s courtyard.

A good question Steve. I don't conclusively say that "another disciple" was referring to the writer, but it does seem to me to be part of the enigma. We do have the fact that Jesus said that all would desert Him in John 16:32. The Bible does not indicate that John acted notably different from the rest of Jesus’ disciples on that night. Yet one has to believe this if they believe that John was “the other disciple”, because we know that after Jesus was arrested and his disciples fled, this unnamed individual “followed Jesus” (Jn. 18:15). This is not conclusive either but the Bible also says that while dying on the cross, Jesus saw “the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (Jn. 19:26). Therefore, the Bible suggests that this “disciple” was with Jesus for the period of time that is covered between John 18:15 and John 19:27. But this behavior stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Apostle John earlier that same evening, when John couldn’t even manage to stay awake for Jesus.

When you compare scripture with scripture you find that the evidence indicates that John and “the other disciple” are two different individuals. This “other disciple” exhibited a boldness and moral strength that set him apart from the rest of the disciples. He was the one that stayed with Jesus until the time of his death. He was the first of the disciples at Jesus’ vacant tomb on resurrection day (Jn. 20:2-4). Furthermore when he went into the tomb that morning, the scripture says he “believed” (Jn. 20:8) – the first disciple after the resurrection to do so. Although all of this speaks well of the “other disciple”, it does not in any way suggest that this person was the Apostle John. On the contrary, all of the facts indicate that the “other disciple” and the Apostle John were two different people – because they behave differently!

It’s true that the “other disciple” wasn’t the only one to exhibit courage on the night Jesus was arrested. Peter too, showed up that night to follow Jesus (Mt. 26:58, Mk. 14:54a, Lu. 22:54, Jn.18:15). However he remained outside, warming himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54b & 14:67, Lu. 22:55-56, Jn. 18:18). Then he denied Jesus (Mt. 26:70-74, Mk. 14:67-71, Lu. 22:57-60, Jn. 18:25). After he denied Jesus, Peter recalled Jesus’ prophecy of this and then he “went out” and “wept bitterly” (Mt. 26:75, Lu. 22:62). All of this occurred prior to Jesus being taken before Pilate and might appear to suggest that, unlike Peter, the “other disciple” was always present with Jesus.


I think the main reason that Lazuras would be known by the high priest and not afraid of him is for the very reason of his resurrection. How could death now be a fear for this man? What could the Jews do to him that has not already happened? Also, and I am not well informed on this, but I do believe it was required of anyone healed of a thing even as severe as death to present themselves to the high priest. If this was the case then Lazuras surely would have done so whether or not he was comfortable in doing so.

If you are more inclined to think that Lazurus was the writer, other than in John 11 and 12 where it mentions Jesus’ love for Lazarus, what particular argument did you find compelling?

Every reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” can be shown to precisely fit this one specific individual. This is the compelling evidence for me over anything pointing it back to John. I see, actually no evidence contemporarily pointing to John.

Do you think it’s likely that Lazurus (based on what we read about their relationship in John 11 and 12) would be the one at the last supper who Peter perceived as the most likely (above anyone else) to get info from Jesus? It seems to me the ones tightest to Jesus were Peter, James and John.

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.

Good questions. I can only speculate but if I go with the idea that Lazuras is the writer then I think that I believe also that he was that paticular disciple in your question.

The reason I ask these questions is I find it a little hard to get my head around. Perhaps you have some thoughts. I realize there’s some debate over the authorship of John, so I’m interested to hear your insight.

I don't have any problem with referring to John as the author, but I do find it an interesting subject to look into.

[SteveF]

Thanks Allyn, I guess I'm still not convinced that the "other disciple" mentioned in John 18 is used/written in the same way as the author refers to himself in other places.

I read this short article that reviewed Ben Witherington's view on the matter. Witherington believes Lazarus wrote it.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007 ... el-of.html

When i find time I plan on reading BW's article found here:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/200 ... ciple.html

[Allyn]

Sorry for taking your thread off topic, TK

[dean198]

I believe it is possible that Lazuras was actually the writer of what is commonly called the gospel of john. The writing is attributted to john assuming he was that disciple that Jesus loved, but there is no real evidence otherwise. So if Lazuras was the writer then this could be one of the reasons.

That's the view of J. N. Sanders.

I think John was friends with Lazarus and lived nearby.

[dean198]

It's true that the gospel of John is more disputed as to authorship than any of the other three. Yet, I think internal evidence as well as early ascription to John, provide considerable evidence for the apostle John as author.

early evidence - one or two speak of an apostle named John (not 'the apostle John'). Most though speak of 'the disciple John', even when they speak at the very same time of others as 'Andrew one of the apostles' (the Muratorian canon) or 'Philip, one of the apostles' (Polycrates).

If not, then the writer pretended to be John the apostle, and thus the book is fraudulent and should not be accepted as part of the New Testament "canon".

He never did pretend to be the son of Zebedee. He claimed to be the disciple whom Jesus loved.

[dean198]

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).

[dean198]

Paidion, how could the author have pretended to be John when John's name is never attributed to the writing, ever, in the Gospel of John or any of the other books?

Allyn, if you should take a moment of your time to read the link I provided, or better yet, read the gospel of John itself, you will discover that John did, without naming himself, indicate his authorship of that book.

But Paidion, I think you're ignoring the evidence you don't like. John 18:5 - this disciple knew the high priest (unless you argue that it wasn't the same disciple as the 'other disciple' in John 20:2). But Acts 4:5-6 - John the son of Zebedee wasn't known to the high priest.

Therefore the beloved disciple wasn't the son of Zebedee.

Besides this, Jesus prophesied that John and James would be martyred. John of Ephesus died peacefully.

I read the link you gave, but the quotes don't carry the conclusions being placed upon them. They say that a John, the disciple of the Lord, was the beloved disciple. They say nothing about the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, being the BD.

[dean198]

I was listening to Steve's lectures on the Gospel of John and a question came to mind.

Why does only John's gospel mention the raising of Lazarus from the dead? I guess the same could be said about the miracle at Cana, but this one really stands out as a biggie. It is certainly understanable that John wanted to include it since the other gospels did not, but this begs the question: why didn't the other gospels include this spectacular miracle?

TK

Maybe the earlier gospels suppressed the raising to protect Lazarus from possible reprisals? But it didn't matter so much to John because he wrote later. Perhaps he also knew Lazarus, just as he knew the high priest and Nicodemus (i.e. was from Jerusalem).