Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?

[steve7150]

I think Lazarus is by far one of the best suggestions based upon the text of the fourth gospel alone (and ignoring early church tradition), but it falls down at a number of points, in my opinion, such as that it requires the BD to have had two houses.







Thanks again for your insightful responses, apparently you are very familiar with this topic. For now i just want to respond that i don't see why the BD would have to own the house in Jerusalem as he could have also been a guest. I understand you said that you believe the host would be seated next to Jesus during the dinner but i want to try to address that ASAP by looking at the sequence of events. Also if the BD had been rich and well known it's interesting that not a word is said about this "other disciple" or Lazarus in any other gospel. In John, Lazarus first appears in John 11 then 12 then disappears yet suddenly the "other disciple" appears almost like Clark Kent and Superman. Perhaps Mary is the Lois Lane of her time?

[Apollos]

Also if the BD had been rich and well known it's interesting that not a word is said about this "other disciple" or Lazarus in any other gospel. In John, Lazarus first appears in John 11 then 12 then disappears yet suddenly the "other disciple" appears almost like Clark Kent and Superman. Perhaps Mary is the Lois Lane of her time?

The way I see it is that when the author speaks of others, he speaks of them by name, but when he speaks of himself, he refers to himself indirectly as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This suggests to me that he had not previously mentioned himself.

[steve7150]

Just a couple of quick observations cause i'm on my way out.

No one over Chistian history objected to John being the "other disciple" because he could'nt have been the host of that dinner, disqualifying him from sitting in that seat, therefore why is this objection applicable to Lazarus?
Also the three things not mentioned in the other gospels
Lazarus
"the other disciple"
the owner of the house
Just a thought but if Lazarus were the rich young ruler "whom Jesus loved" as he loved Lazarus and the "other disciple" that would give Lazarus the means to own that house.

[Apollos]

Just a couple of quick observations cause i'm on my way out.

No one over Chistian history objected to John being the "other disciple" because he could'nt have been the host of that dinner, disqualifying him from sitting in that seat, therefore why is this objection applicable to Lazarus?

The view that the son of Zebedee is the BD didn't become widespread until after Eusebius. This caused problems precisely because they did believe the BD was the host - so for example we read Epiphanius the Monk (c. 1015) saying that Zebedee sold his fishing business and bought the house in Jerusalem.

[steve7150]

I think the Rich Young Ruler might have been the BD. And Lazarus could have owned two houses - I just find that unlikely, and I doubt Martha would have been serving if they were that rich! I'm wondering though - it seems like there hasn't really been any evidence that points to Lazarus, so I'm wondering what makes you so convinced?
The more I think about, I think the scholar who said that the BD is introduced as a new character in Jn 13 is absolutely right - that first word 'there was' means that - that would rule out Lazarus and bar Zebedee.Apollos






I'm not totally convinced but Lazarus makes the most sense to me because of the following
"the disciple whom Jesus loved" ....... Jesus is said to love Lazarus.
the other disciple believed not when he saw the empty tomb but when he saw the linen graveclothes, something Lazarus would have uniquely identified with.
The other disciple outran Peter to the grave suggesting he felt more intensity and urgency about a possible resurrection, something Lazarus would have identified with.
If Lazarus were the rich young ruler (of the synagogue) whom Jesus loved he might not have minded identifying humself as being resurrected , after all it was public knowledge (John 11) or talking to the jews about it (John 12) but he may not have wanted to openly identify himself as a disciple of Jesus for a variety of reasons therefore at that point (John 13) he may have gone into the local phone booth and come out as "the other disciple." As the ruler of a synagogue Lazarus would have been let into the High Priest's courtyard because he was known.
Your objections are valid but not insurmountable IMO , such as Mary contributing parts as an eyewitness and also perhaps at least one other author. Even John himself may have contributed the first part like when Jesus is called "the Word" or the descriptions of light and dark are used.
I think the other gospels which were written earlier may have omitted "the other disciple" and Lazarus and the owner of the Jerusalem house not by accident but by his explicit request perhaps because he had a lot to lose.

[Apollos]

Well thanks for sharing your views - I always enjoy going over these things and always glean something new. I do think the criteria of objections not being insurmountable should be used with caution, especially if the view leads to a number of unlikely and dubious scenarios. I try to find where the evidence comfortably falls down without too much difficulty. I do think your reasons for holding to Lazarus are better explained by other factors, but it seems Lazarus is becoming a popular view and so I've appreciated being able to learn more about that view (though I appreciate you aren't yourself totally convinced of it yet).

[steve7150]

Well thanks for sharing your views - I always enjoy going over these things and always glean something new.




Thanks to you too as i learned a lot by reading your imput.

[TheTruthMatters]

Well I look forward to hearing any reasons you have - especially if there are arguments I haven't heard before.

Apollos, you might find some arguments you haven't heard a free eBook on the beloved disciple at [url http://thegospelofjohn.com]thegospelofjohn.com[/url] that lays out a presentation of biblical evidence that proves that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple" was he could not have been John -- because that unbiblical man-made tradition requires the Bible to contradict itself.

Steve7150 was pushing the John tradition over on [url http://boards.history.com/topic/History ... 2&start=30]the HistoryChannel forum[/url] until he found out about thegospelofjohn.com, but rather than credit the site he has prefers to present snippets of the information that he lifts from that site as if it was his own research, so he won't tell you about the site. Nevertheless, as you asked about arguments you haven't heard, I suspect that you might find a few there -- especially since the methodology is different. It cites nothing but the scriptures to make its case -- no non-Bible sources.

You said that you "used to hold to the son of Zebedee as the BD until I read a book that dealt with the problems" then you also said "I think another problem is that you have to dismiss the early tradition" but why is it a problem to "dismiss" any non-Bible statements that contradict with facts found in the plain text of scripture? If the Bible is true, then EVERY statement that stands in contradiction to the facts found in the biblical record must be untrue.

IF a statement of any person (from those among the Corinthians who said there was no resurrection, to those lived a hundred or more years later who today are called the 'early church', or anyone else in the last 2000 years) makes a statement that CONTRADICTS God's word, then that statement is false -- regardless of who they are, when they lived, their level of education, or how highly they are regarded by anyone/any group. THE PLAIN TEXT OF SCRIPTURE, is the authority by which we judge their statements, and not the other way around.

But if someone prefers to, in their mind, presuppose that a statement of "Irenaeus" (or any other person who they may chose to vest authority in) can be true regardless of whether or not it contradicts scripture, then they will reap what you sow. Like those who heap to themselves teachers that tickle their itching ears, when one decided that the authority of God's word is in second place to the authority of something said in some NON-Bible source, then they will simply get the teaching that they want -- because are they, of course, are the one who is deciding which NON-Bible statement they will accept as the 'authority' on that issue. But they also grant themselves the artistic license to make scripture conform to the words of their chosen 'authority' on the issue and, in doing so, they grant themselves the same privilege on any other issue that they may chose to accept the authority of their preferred NON-Bible source over the plain reading of the text of scripture. The reason that this is a fools game is that all scripture is inspired by God, but this is not true of all statements of "Irenaeus" or any other NON-Bible source.

If one does not care if a statement is Biblical or not, then they can pick any statement of anyone they want and trust in that statement. Those who prefer to believe the words of men who quote other men who quoted still other men, can pick any 'authority' they want. But since men can be wrong, the way for those who love the truth to KNOW if any particular statement of someone is biblical or not is to see if the Bible confirms or contradicts that statement.

And, if one can't cite a single verse that would justify teaching an idea (as is the case with the John tradition), then it is at the very least a false presentation for that person to promote that idea AS IF IT WAS BIBLCIAL. But this is what goes on in the case of the false John tradition. No one has ever cited a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat this hand-me-down error to this day

One can choose to follow the opinions of this-or-that person in the late second/early third century on this issue if they want, but Ps. 118:8 and MANY other passages urge those who love the truth to rely on God’s word and NOT what men may say about God’s word — because men can be wrong, but the word of God is not wrong.

[steve7150]

Steve7150 was pushing the John tradition over on [url http://boards.history.com/topic/History ... 2&start=30]the HistoryChannel forum[/url] until he found out about thegospelofjohn.com, but rather than credit the site he has prefers to present snippets of the information that he lifts from that site as if it was his own research, so he won't tell you about the site. Nevertheless, as you asked about arguments you haven't heard, I suspect that you might find a few there -- especially since the methodology is different. It cites nothing but the scriptures to make its case -- no non-Bible sources.






I was'nt pushing the John tradition, i asked a rhetorical question about why John viewed himself as beloved which would apply to Lazarus or whomever is the BD.
As far as info about this goes , all anyone has to do is google the subject and there is info available from your site and other places which i looked at also. In addition Apollos brought up many points i had not read about but just thought through myself. Therefore although thegospelofjohn.com is a very good site i read other info and thought through other issues because of Apollos and actually i brought up the topic for the purpose of getting feedback and seeing where it went.

[TheTruthMatters]

I was'nt pushing the John tradition, i asked a rhetorical question about why John viewed himself as beloved which would apply to Lazarus or whomever is the BD..

Yes you were and anyone who reads your posts there will see that they make two things obvious (1) you had bought the John idea hook, line and sinker, and (2) they will see that you were desperately trying to defend it and that you tried to ridicule the idea that the Bible disproved the John idea and tried multiple times to defend the John idea (using info no doubt clipped from other defenders of this unbiblical tradition).

As far as info about this goes , all anyone has to do is google the subject and there is info available from your site

Yeah and the COPYRIGHT notice will still be there! Some people will choose to respect it and others won't. People have plagiarized the work before and surely it will be done again by people who think that appropriating the work of others WITHOUT PROPER CREDIT is appropriate.

The work was posted for free but some people still choose to ignore both the moral responsibility to properly credit the work, not to mention the disrespect that is shown for the copyright law itself. But that is hardly the behavior of one who is honoring what is said in the scriptures.

Immediately after you yourself said that you had read a COPYRIGHTED article that was published on that site, you went out and presented the information without credit as if it was you own research. And the fact that you might also do the same thing with insights that you take from "other places" does not earn you any merits. It's simply more of the same rude and thoroughly unChristian behavior.

Why you brought up the topic is of no matter. That you fail to credit the work of others is the point. And like most who get caught doing wrong, the wrongdoer will either repent and admit he was wrong or he will continue to find excuses for his behavior. The choice is up to you, but the Lord knows what the truth is, so honesty is the better policy.