The Raising of Lazarus

[Allyn]

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.

You are right, I didn't get a reply. But I have been providing it nevertheless. Some of the other "evidence" is not so much concrete but rather logical to assume.

[dean198]

Is it that significant that the Muratorian canon speaks of "the disciple John" and immediately afterward speaks of "Andrew one of the apostles"?

Yes, I think it's very significant.

[TK]

maybe someone mentioned this already( I skimmed quick but didnt see it)- but wouldnt it be strange for John not to have been named in the Gospel if he was not the author?

TK

[Paidion]

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 think Ben's position is difficult to maintain in the context. Ben's final statement which you quoted seems a desparate attempt to explain why this cannot be the Lord's supper prior to His institution of the communion, "This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together."

Luke 22:11-16 makes it clear that it was the Passover supper which they were eating, prior to the institution of the Communion (sharing) of the bread and wine or the Eucharist (thanksgiving) for the bread and wine, in remembrance of our Lord.

John 13:1 reads as follows:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus perceived that his time had come to step out of the world system to the Father. Having loved His own, the ones in the world system, he loved them to the end. PT

This verse does not state that the supper of verse 2 occurred before the Feast of the Passover. So what event does it state which occurred before the Passover Feast? Just this --- that Jesus perceived that his time had come to step out of the world system to the Father.

The same verse also states that Jesus, having loved His own, the ones in the world system, loved them to the end. To the end of what? Most likely to the end of His time in this world system --- and that end did not come before the Passover Feast. So why should it be
presumed that the Supper mentioned in the next verse took place before the Passover Feast?

The details of the supper correspond in several respects to those of the other gospels. For
example, all four gospels record the announcing of Judas' betrayal: Mt 26:21, Mk14:18, Lk22:21, and Jn13:2.

The fact that John 13 describes feet washing after the meal, while the other gospels describe a sharing of bread and wine after the meal does not, in my view, provide clear evidence that the meal was not a celebration of the passover. For much in John's gospel differs from the synoptic gospels. Jesus may have both instituted the communion and feetwashing. There are numerous churches even in our day who practise a feetwashing ceremony as part of their communion.

[Allyn]

maybe someone mentioned this already( I skimmed quick but didnt see it)- but wouldnt it be strange for John not to have been named in the Gospel if he was not the author?

TK

He was mentioned in John 21:2 as one of the sons of Zebedee.

[Paidion]

maybe someone mentioned this already( I skimmed quick but didnt see it)- but wouldnt it be strange for John not to have been named in the Gospel if he was not the author?

Could it be that John wished to avoid being regarded as arrogant since he announced himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? This would have seemed to others that John was boasting that Jesus did not love the other disciples as He loved John. By remaining the anonymous author of the gospel, John was able to avoid being accused of such arrogance.

But if Lazarus were the author, we have an even "stranger" situation. In that case, the author referred to himself by name 12 times. In each of these cases, the referent could not have been the apostle John. By why then, did Lazarus refer to himself 4 times as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? In each one of these cases, that disciple could have been the apostle John.

John 13:23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus;

John 20:2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

John 21:7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

[TK]

That is always what I have understood, Paidion. If Lazarus wrote the gospel, the lack of reference to John (other than that mentioned by Allyn), who was one of the closest three, would be somewhat odd.

TK

[Allyn]

That is always what I have understood, Paidion. If Lazarus wrote the gospel, the lack of reference to John (other than that mentioned by Allyn), who was one of the closest three, would be somewhat odd.

TK

[Homer]

You folks might find this article pertinent. There is a detailed summary of the internal and external evidence for the authorship of the Gospel of John:

Gospel of John

[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

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.

Thanks Allyn, the issue I have isn’t so much whether Lazarus was afraid to enter the court or not. The issue I have is it seemed he had an open invite to do so. For example, I may not be afraid to enter your property any time I feel like it but that doesn’t mean you’ve given me your blessing to do so. The “other disciple” in John 18 seem to have an “open door” to enter the court. If this “other disciple” is indeed the author then, based on my present understanding, it would eliminate Lazarus as the writer. I’m not saying it’s impossible; I just can’t reconcile it in my mind right now.

On the other hand, I’m not convinced that John 18’s “other disciple” is referring to the author. This would be the only time the author didn’t refer to himself as the “one whom Jesus loved”. Of course it’s possible that this could be the only exception but I hesitate to draw a conclusion without a compelling reason to do so. Further, it’s not conclusively proven that the word “the” precedes “other disciple” in vs 15….although it’s possible.

If John 18’s “other disciple” is not referring to the writer then the possibility of Lazarus being the author would still be open and subject to further investigation in my mind.

Of course, as I learn more about this I may completely change my mind.

Dean Wrote

I think a man named John, a priest of Jerusalem, wrote it.

I should add that if the “other disciple” in John 18 is the writer then it would seemingly help Dean’s argument. On the other hand, he can still make the argument that a priest named John wrote it even if John 18’s “other disciple” isn’t the writer…. notwithstanding other arguments pro and con of course

maybe someone mentioned this already( I skimmed quick but didnt see it)- but wouldnt it be strange for John not to have been named in the Gospel if he was not the author?

TK

Interesting point TK