If Steve7150 wanted to pretend he figured it all out himself then I don’t think he would have posted a link (at the History Channel) to this website either. This would risk having his “cover” blown by someone at the History Channel.
SteveF,
Thanks for your comments. My motivation was to see if anyone could blast holes in this theory which Apollos did although i think his objections can be answered, but of course all anyone can do is weigh the evidence if they are interested, which i am.
Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
1) There is no evidence concretely pointing to Lazarus.
2) The BD is introduced as a new character in Jn 13:23. That alone is enough to make me look elsewhere for the BD.
3) Lazarus is not called a disciple in the NT.
4) Lazarus disappears at the point where we find out that the chief priests were wanting to kill him, yet the BD is able to gain access to the courtyard of the high priest because he is well-known to him.
5) The evidence points to the host of the Lord's Supper as being the BD, but this house was well-to-do, had at least one servant, could accommodate lots of people and was in Jerusalem. Lazarus lived with his family in Bethany, and judging from Martha's complaint about doing all the chores, they didn't have a servant.
6) The story of the resurrection of Lazarus is told very vividly from the perspective of somebody watching, not from the point of view of Lazarus. At the one place where we can test the hypothesis, it thus fails.
7) The author of Revelation calls himself 'John', not Lazarus.
8) The historical record - those who knew the BD - do not identify him as Lazarus.
Hi Apollos, I know we covered a lot of this but i want to make the case for Lazarus at least being a contributor to John's gospel.
1) True
2) Not necessarily is this a new charactor , i think that Lazarus being so prominant in John 11&12 because he was resurrected most likely would become a disciple after this amazing experience yet if he were in fact the rich young ruler of the synagogue may have wanted to hide his identity. Maybe Jesus told him to but i think it's unlikely an unnamed "other disciple" appears out of thin air yet is called "other disciple." Why would'nt he be named unless there was a lot to lose and Lazarus would be well known to the High Priest yet have great motivation to be a disciple while keeping his position as the ruler of a synagogue. This would give him a solution which few people would need.
3) Lazarus was called a disciple if he were the other disciple. It would be remarkable if he was'nt a disciple after his experience.
4) Lazarus was just resurrected in John 11 and he was a witness that some Pharisees wanted to initially kill but once Jesus support wore off after he entered Jerusalem , then Lazarus danger as a witness faded away and they may longer have felt threatened by him. After all what did Lazarus actually do to warrant their continuing hatred toward him?
5) We really don't know what Lazarus living arrangments were or what level of wealth he had or whether Martha was the kind of women who even wanted help or whether the help was just not working that particular day. Lazarus may have been the host or just a visitor since we know the guests included more the Jesus and the 12. No one ever had a big problem with John not being the host or they figured out some solution which can also be found for Lazarus.
6) Mary could have written this or related it to Lazarus.
7) OK but how does this relate to Lazarus?
8) He may have lived longer then the 12 and kept it a secret until the grave. I think Lazarus was the other disciple but it may have been John who wrote the first part of the gospel and perhaps Mary wrote part of it.
A couple of minor points also are that Lazarus being resurrected would be a person Peter would ask about re whether he would ever die and also Lazarus would be the kind of person to call Jesus "Rabbi" if he were a ruler of a synagogue and Jesus was called "Rabbi" more in this gospel then anywhere else.
2) The BD is introduced as a new character in Jn 13:23. That alone is enough to make me look elsewhere for the BD.
3) Lazarus is not called a disciple in the NT.
4) Lazarus disappears at the point where we find out that the chief priests were wanting to kill him, yet the BD is able to gain access to the courtyard of the high priest because he is well-known to him.
5) The evidence points to the host of the Lord's Supper as being the BD, but this house was well-to-do, had at least one servant, could accommodate lots of people and was in Jerusalem. Lazarus lived with his family in Bethany, and judging from Martha's complaint about doing all the chores, they didn't have a servant.
6) The story of the resurrection of Lazarus is told very vividly from the perspective of somebody watching, not from the point of view of Lazarus. At the one place where we can test the hypothesis, it thus fails.
7) The author of Revelation calls himself 'John', not Lazarus.
8) The historical record - those who knew the BD - do not identify him as Lazarus.
Hi Apollos, I know we covered a lot of this but i want to make the case for Lazarus at least being a contributor to John's gospel.
1) True
2) Not necessarily is this a new charactor , i think that Lazarus being so prominant in John 11&12 because he was resurrected most likely would become a disciple after this amazing experience yet if he were in fact the rich young ruler of the synagogue may have wanted to hide his identity. Maybe Jesus told him to but i think it's unlikely an unnamed "other disciple" appears out of thin air yet is called "other disciple." Why would'nt he be named unless there was a lot to lose and Lazarus would be well known to the High Priest yet have great motivation to be a disciple while keeping his position as the ruler of a synagogue. This would give him a solution which few people would need.
3) Lazarus was called a disciple if he were the other disciple. It would be remarkable if he was'nt a disciple after his experience.
4) Lazarus was just resurrected in John 11 and he was a witness that some Pharisees wanted to initially kill but once Jesus support wore off after he entered Jerusalem , then Lazarus danger as a witness faded away and they may longer have felt threatened by him. After all what did Lazarus actually do to warrant their continuing hatred toward him?
5) We really don't know what Lazarus living arrangments were or what level of wealth he had or whether Martha was the kind of women who even wanted help or whether the help was just not working that particular day. Lazarus may have been the host or just a visitor since we know the guests included more the Jesus and the 12. No one ever had a big problem with John not being the host or they figured out some solution which can also be found for Lazarus.
6) Mary could have written this or related it to Lazarus.
7) OK but how does this relate to Lazarus?
8) He may have lived longer then the 12 and kept it a secret until the grave. I think Lazarus was the other disciple but it may have been John who wrote the first part of the gospel and perhaps Mary wrote part of it.
A couple of minor points also are that Lazarus being resurrected would be a person Peter would ask about re whether he would ever die and also Lazarus would be the kind of person to call Jesus "Rabbi" if he were a ruler of a synagogue and Jesus was called "Rabbi" more in this gospel then anywhere else.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Hi Steve,
One last point, and then I leave this alone:
The word 'Word' (logos) in Greek adds up to 373. There are three uses of this word in John 1:1, adding up to 1119 - the numerical value of the name 'John' in Greek. John's very own signature right there in the first verse. And we know from Revelation that John was very interested in Gematria.
Peace
One last point, and then I leave this alone:
The word 'Word' (logos) in Greek adds up to 373. There are three uses of this word in John 1:1, adding up to 1119 - the numerical value of the name 'John' in Greek. John's very own signature right there in the first verse. And we know from Revelation that John was very interested in Gematria.
Peace
Last edited by Apollos on Sat May 29, 2010 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Hi Apollos,
I'm not unpersuable , i know nothing about the history part and it is valid considering there is no scriptural proof. I'll be away today so i'll check out your imput ASAP, thanks.
I'm not unpersuable , i know nothing about the history part and it is valid considering there is no scriptural proof. I'll be away today so i'll check out your imput ASAP, thanks.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
The word 'Word' (logos) in Greek adds up to 373. There are three uses of this word in John 1:1, adding up to 1119 - the numerical value of the name 'John' in Greek. John's very own signature right there in the first verse. And we know from Revelation that John was very interested in Gematria.
I was reading a blog from Ben Withrington and he thinks that John was the editor and compiler but that Lazarus wrote much of it. He thinks that the fact that Lazarus lived with his two sisters and the fact that none had kids is odd which leads him to theorize that they may have been the children of Simon the Leper and that Jesus had cured them of leprocy and that the home in Bethany had belonged to their father Simon. If that were true that would leave Lazarus with one house in Jerusalem if it's his.
I was reading a blog from Ben Withrington and he thinks that John was the editor and compiler but that Lazarus wrote much of it. He thinks that the fact that Lazarus lived with his two sisters and the fact that none had kids is odd which leads him to theorize that they may have been the children of Simon the Leper and that Jesus had cured them of leprocy and that the home in Bethany had belonged to their father Simon. If that were true that would leave Lazarus with one house in Jerusalem if it's his.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Well I have my reasons for thinking otherwise, but I did read something over the weekend you might find interesting - Bethany was one of three towns where the Qumran Copper Scroll says that the unclean could live - suggesting that Simon moved there with his family when he became leprous.steve7150 wrote: I was reading a blog from Ben Withrington and he thinks that John was the editor and compiler but that Lazarus wrote much of it. He thinks that the fact that Lazarus lived with his two sisters and the fact that none had kids is odd which leads him to theorize that they may have been the children of Simon the Leper and that Jesus had cured them of leprocy and that the home in Bethany had belonged to their father Simon. If that were true that would leave Lazarus with one house in Jerusalem if it's his.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Can I trouble you for specific references on these points?Apollos wrote:
We learn from ancient sources (including the Muratorian canon) that church leaders came to John from all over Asia and implored him to write the Gospel. He is the "elder" of the epistles and "John the elder" of Papias. The Gospel was written in the 60s, and was authorized for public use by a number of surviving disciples, including Andrew. No one was in any doubt who it was, and Polycarp travelled Asia recounting the time he spent with his master, John the Beloved.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
the Muratorian canon) that church leaders came to John from all over Asia and implored him to write the Gospel.kaufmannphillips wrote: Can I trouble you for specific references on these points?
Last edited by Apollos on Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Well I have my reasons for thinking otherwise, but I did read something over the weekend you might find interesting - Bethany was one of three towns where the Qumran Copper Scroll says that the unclean could live - suggesting that Simon moved there with his family when he became leprous.
Another interesting tidbit from Withrington is re the anointing story of Jesus in Mark 14.3-11 , the house is said to belong to Simon the Leper while John 12 says this house belongs to Mary, Martha and Lazarus.
He also says that nowhere in John 13 is it said that this meal actually took place in Jerusalem or that it was a Passover meal, only that it took place before the Passover.
Another interesting tidbit from Withrington is re the anointing story of Jesus in Mark 14.3-11 , the house is said to belong to Simon the Leper while John 12 says this house belongs to Mary, Martha and Lazarus.
He also says that nowhere in John 13 is it said that this meal actually took place in Jerusalem or that it was a Passover meal, only that it took place before the Passover.
Re: Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?
Yes, I think he is right on this, though it makes no difference to the question of the identity of the BD.steve7150 wrote: Another interesting tidbit from Withrington is re the anointing story of Jesus in Mark 14.3-11 , the house is said to belong to Simon the Leper while John 12 says this house belongs to Mary, Martha and Lazarus.
Yes, though he says this so that he doesn't have to have a BD with two separate houses. Either solution is very problematic, imo.He also says that nowhere in John 13 is it said that this meal actually took place in Jerusalem or that it was a Passover meal, only that it took place before the Passover.