Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?

[steve7150]

In John 20 it says the "other disciple" first believed at the empty tomb yet in Mark 16 it says the eleven did not believe until Jesus appeared to them. It sounds like the other disciple was not one of the eleven.

[Apollos]

This idea seems to be gaining in some circles, particularly since Ben Witherington III came out supporting it.

[steve7150]

1) the rulers of the Jews wanted to kill Lazarus (Jn 11:57), and he probably went into hiding. But the Beloved Disciple was known to the high priest and was able to gain access to the court of the high priest.






I think in John 11.57 they wanted to kill Jesus not Lazarus but the BD was in fact known to the high priest yet it appears John was not. In Acts 4.13 " Now they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men , they were amazed and began to RECOGNIZE THEM as having been with Jesus."
There appear to be many seemingly insignificant things that point to Lazarus like when he saw and believed (John 20.8) he already knew the tomb was empty but he went in and saw the linen wrappings which when Lazarus was himself resurrected , linen wrappings would also have been the first thing he saw. It sounds like it was those linen wrappings that triggered his belief and Peter had not yet believed. Lazarus would be fiercely loyal to Jesus for resurrecting him and would feel like a beloved disciple and would be motivated to be the one male who would remain at the cross along with his sister.
The raising of Lazarus could easily have been described to him by his sister Mary and that could account for the eye-witness account. Another point is Lazarus was described by Mary as someone that Jesus loved, a term not used to describe any other specific person as far as i know.

[Apollos]

We both agree it's not John the son of Zebedee, and even though the high priest's relatives were with him on the occasion of Acts 4, I think he is the focus and would be included, and therefore I think these verses rule out the son of Zebedee.

[steve7150]

Anyway - here's where they wanted to put Lazarus to death:

Joh 12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death




OK very good point but it's possible that since Lazarus was just resurrected and many jews were talking to him the Pharisees wanted to kill him right then, but later they no longer viewed him as threatening as he faded into the backround.
It's true that Lazarus lived in Bethany and that Jesus came with the 12 to the Passover dinner in Jerusalem but that does'nt exclude Lazarus or others to also be present at the dinner. It never says that Jesus and the 12 were the only folks at the dinner in fact Jesus sometimes dined with a lot of people. In fact when they asked him who would betray him he said "it was one of the 12" instead of saying "it is one of you" which suggests there were others at the dinner.

[Apollos]

The problem with Lazarus is that the evidence from seating arrangements suggests that the BD was the host, and that other evidence drawn from Luke, John, and Acts tells us that the house of the Last Supper was in Jerusalem, and belonged to the BD.

[steve7150]

I think caution should be exercised. But this thing is far, far bigger than just John bar Zebedee vs Lazarus. Scholars have made many suggestions, including Mary Magdalene (Grassi), Matthias (Titus), Joseph of Arimathea (Braun), John Mark (Parker), Thomas (Charlesworth), the Rich Young Ruler (Swete) and others.






Thanks for your excellent points and i want to add that when i first heard about this i was not happy for like most people i like certainty and believing the Apostle John is the author is seemingly much more authoritative then being in limbo on this.
I'm still in flux but i'm starting to think that possibly this is a collaberation between Lazarus and Mary and perhaps another person or persons. This is the "love gospel" and sometimes appears to have a feminine touch. Anyway i'll try to respond to your other points ASAP.

[Apollos]

Well, I think we have to have one male author, since it says 'this is the disciple who testifies, and we know his testimony is true'.

[steve7150]

I find this subject fascinating and i think that despite the legitimate issues you raised it is more then likely Lazarus as the primary author for other reasons i have not had the time to present yet.
For now i just want to mention that this "other disciple" must have had extraordinary courage to risk his life and follow Jesus into the palace of the high priest (John 18.15) because they knew he was a disciple so whether Lazarus or not, his life was at risk. Standing at the cross took extraordinary courage because they easily could have grabbed him too therefore it would have taken someone radically transformed who would have not been afraid of death. Lazarus would be the one person radically transformed and not afraid of death because he experienced something no one else did and it would be hard not to be radically transformed.

[Apollos]

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