The Raising of Lazarus
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
I would like to put some of the scholarly arguments into perspective, from a common sense point of view (something often missed by scholars):
I have a hard time with the idea that Lazarus was such a central character in the life of Jesus and the other apostles—being in the upper room at the last supper* (where the Synoptics only mention the twelve being present—Matt.26:20/Mark 14:17); being one who, along with Peter, first ran to discover the empty tomb (given the apparent close association of Peter and John—Luke 22:8/Acts 3-5); standing at the foot of the cross and being charged with the care of Mary—and yet never mentioned even as a peripheral character in the Synoptics or in Acts. It also seems significant to me that Lazarus was not allowed to enter the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus (only Peter, James and John were—Matt.26:37/ Mark 14:33) if indeed Lazarus was the beloved disciple who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper.
That Luke would mention someone as obscure as Cleopas (Luke 24:18), as one to whom the risen Christ specially appeared, or Barsabas (called Justus) as one who had been closely associated with the apostles from the beginning (Acts 1:23)—despite neither of these men having been mentioned at all in the accounts of the earlier life of Jesus—might argue for or against my objection. On the one hand, we might say that, since these men were clearly "in the picture," though unmentioned, so might Lazarus have been. On the other hand, it could be argued that, if the gospels do mention such obscure disciples, but omit any reference to Lazarus, it would be difficult to see such an unmentioned man as being the disciple who was closer and more significant to Jesus than any of the twelve.
The fact that Mark 10:21 mentions the unnamed "rich, young ruler" as a special recipient of Jesus' love should inspire caution in making too much of the fourth gospel's similar comments about Jesus' love for Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Perhaps we are specially told that Jesus "loved" certain individuals (though we know He loved all people) simply because He was immediately going to disappoint them, and the authors wished for us to know that this was not for any lack of compassion that Jesus had for them. Such notices may be entirely unrelated to the identity of "the beloved disciple" (The fourth gospel says the very same thing about all of Jesus' disciples that it says about Lazarus and his sisters—i.e., that Jesus "loved" them—John 13:1).
The idea that the author of the fourth gospel was a Judean may be correct, although it is based upon the fact that the author shows familiarity with the geography of Jerusalem—a familiarity that might easily accrue to any Jew who had made pilgrimages to that city three times a year since childhood (I could describe as many geographical features of Newport Beach, CA, where my family vacationed half a dozen times in my childhood).
Familiarity with the high priest (John 18:15) also need not be denied a Galilean fisherman, especially if he happened to be a relative of someone in the priesthood. After all, the sons of Zebedee were apparently maternal first cousins of Jesus (compare: Matt.27:56; Mark 15:40 and John 19:25), and we know that Jesus' own mother (and therefore, her sister also, who was John's mother) was related to Elizabeth, who was married to a priest (Luke 1:36). If the priestly clan to which Zebedee's family was related (by marriage—or even possibly by blood) was a large one, then John might easily have been well-acquainted from childhood with members of the high priest's family, and with the high priest himself. The reaction of the Sanhedrin to John and Peter, mentioned in Acts 4:13, does not suggest that John was previously unknown to the high priest. Further, the fact that the chief priests specifically were plotting to kill Lazarus (John 12:10) would render the theory unlikely that he was the man who enjoyed privileged access to the high priest's house on the night of Jesus' arrest.
It may be that we have no definite connection of John to the high priest, but we have no more evidence of such a connection between the high priest and Lazarus. At least we know that John had family connections to the priesthood. We don't know as much about Lazarus. Ben Witherington's suggestion that members of the priestly class were present at Lazarus' funeral (suggesting relationship to him) is based upon John 11:45-46, which says nothing about priests at all. It simply says that some of those who attended the funeral reported to the Pharisees (not the priests, who were mostly Sadducees). The next verse mentions the Pharisees teaming up with the chief priests to plot against Jesus, but nowhere are any priests connected with Lazarus.
In Jesus,
Steve
* I cannot accept that John 13ff is a different meal from the Last Supper—one which was held in Bethany, at Lazarus' home. It is clear that Judas left this meal to collect those who would arrest Jesus (John 13:21-30), and Jesus, at this time, predicted that Peter would deny Him before dawn (v.38)—this must then be the "Last Supper," and can hardly be another.
I have a hard time with the idea that Lazarus was such a central character in the life of Jesus and the other apostles—being in the upper room at the last supper* (where the Synoptics only mention the twelve being present—Matt.26:20/Mark 14:17); being one who, along with Peter, first ran to discover the empty tomb (given the apparent close association of Peter and John—Luke 22:8/Acts 3-5); standing at the foot of the cross and being charged with the care of Mary—and yet never mentioned even as a peripheral character in the Synoptics or in Acts. It also seems significant to me that Lazarus was not allowed to enter the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus (only Peter, James and John were—Matt.26:37/ Mark 14:33) if indeed Lazarus was the beloved disciple who reclined next to Jesus at the Last Supper.
That Luke would mention someone as obscure as Cleopas (Luke 24:18), as one to whom the risen Christ specially appeared, or Barsabas (called Justus) as one who had been closely associated with the apostles from the beginning (Acts 1:23)—despite neither of these men having been mentioned at all in the accounts of the earlier life of Jesus—might argue for or against my objection. On the one hand, we might say that, since these men were clearly "in the picture," though unmentioned, so might Lazarus have been. On the other hand, it could be argued that, if the gospels do mention such obscure disciples, but omit any reference to Lazarus, it would be difficult to see such an unmentioned man as being the disciple who was closer and more significant to Jesus than any of the twelve.
The fact that Mark 10:21 mentions the unnamed "rich, young ruler" as a special recipient of Jesus' love should inspire caution in making too much of the fourth gospel's similar comments about Jesus' love for Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Perhaps we are specially told that Jesus "loved" certain individuals (though we know He loved all people) simply because He was immediately going to disappoint them, and the authors wished for us to know that this was not for any lack of compassion that Jesus had for them. Such notices may be entirely unrelated to the identity of "the beloved disciple" (The fourth gospel says the very same thing about all of Jesus' disciples that it says about Lazarus and his sisters—i.e., that Jesus "loved" them—John 13:1).
The idea that the author of the fourth gospel was a Judean may be correct, although it is based upon the fact that the author shows familiarity with the geography of Jerusalem—a familiarity that might easily accrue to any Jew who had made pilgrimages to that city three times a year since childhood (I could describe as many geographical features of Newport Beach, CA, where my family vacationed half a dozen times in my childhood).
Familiarity with the high priest (John 18:15) also need not be denied a Galilean fisherman, especially if he happened to be a relative of someone in the priesthood. After all, the sons of Zebedee were apparently maternal first cousins of Jesus (compare: Matt.27:56; Mark 15:40 and John 19:25), and we know that Jesus' own mother (and therefore, her sister also, who was John's mother) was related to Elizabeth, who was married to a priest (Luke 1:36). If the priestly clan to which Zebedee's family was related (by marriage—or even possibly by blood) was a large one, then John might easily have been well-acquainted from childhood with members of the high priest's family, and with the high priest himself. The reaction of the Sanhedrin to John and Peter, mentioned in Acts 4:13, does not suggest that John was previously unknown to the high priest. Further, the fact that the chief priests specifically were plotting to kill Lazarus (John 12:10) would render the theory unlikely that he was the man who enjoyed privileged access to the high priest's house on the night of Jesus' arrest.
It may be that we have no definite connection of John to the high priest, but we have no more evidence of such a connection between the high priest and Lazarus. At least we know that John had family connections to the priesthood. We don't know as much about Lazarus. Ben Witherington's suggestion that members of the priestly class were present at Lazarus' funeral (suggesting relationship to him) is based upon John 11:45-46, which says nothing about priests at all. It simply says that some of those who attended the funeral reported to the Pharisees (not the priests, who were mostly Sadducees). The next verse mentions the Pharisees teaming up with the chief priests to plot against Jesus, but nowhere are any priests connected with Lazarus.
In Jesus,
Steve
* I cannot accept that John 13ff is a different meal from the Last Supper—one which was held in Bethany, at Lazarus' home. It is clear that Judas left this meal to collect those who would arrest Jesus (John 13:21-30), and Jesus, at this time, predicted that Peter would deny Him before dawn (v.38)—this must then be the "Last Supper," and can hardly be another.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
Thank you for these observations, Steve.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
Steve,
On your final point (the * point), Witherington doesn't argue that the verses you mentioned happened at some other supper than the last supper, but that the author of the 4th Gospel has tacked on some vital information that came about at a later supper (the last supper) to the events that occurred at this earlier gathering.
Frankly, we know that the Gospel writers 'tack on' information at some points. They were not writing strict chronologies, but theme-based theological biographies. Personally, I take no issue with the idea that the Gospel writers could 'tack on' important events from one story into the telling of another story. And I think Witherington has a pretty good case here.
I do thank-you for your observations. I mentioned some of them in class. Some of his responses were very impressive. Others seemed like quick dismissals. I think his overall case is at least worth having an open mind about. Remember, this is not a liberal argument attempting to late date the 4th Gospel. This is a conservative argument based mostly on arguable internal evidence.
On your final point (the * point), Witherington doesn't argue that the verses you mentioned happened at some other supper than the last supper, but that the author of the 4th Gospel has tacked on some vital information that came about at a later supper (the last supper) to the events that occurred at this earlier gathering.
Frankly, we know that the Gospel writers 'tack on' information at some points. They were not writing strict chronologies, but theme-based theological biographies. Personally, I take no issue with the idea that the Gospel writers could 'tack on' important events from one story into the telling of another story. And I think Witherington has a pretty good case here.
I do thank-you for your observations. I mentioned some of them in class. Some of his responses were very impressive. Others seemed like quick dismissals. I think his overall case is at least worth having an open mind about. Remember, this is not a liberal argument attempting to late date the 4th Gospel. This is a conservative argument based mostly on arguable internal evidence.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
Matt,
Thanks for sharing my reservations with Professor Witherington. I would be interested in his responses, if you can remember them.
Thanks for sharing my reservations with Professor Witherington. I would be interested in his responses, if you can remember them.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
My class was over at the end of June. I did, however, have some of the same common sense objections and asked him about them as time permitted. I will attempt to give Dr. Witherington's take on each of your areas of concern. I'll try to do it argument by argument (SG=Steve Gregg, BW=Ben Witherington)
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to be at the last supper
BW John doesn't record the last supper, but an earlier gathering w/last supper tacked onto the end
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to run to the empty tomb
BW Jesus stayed at their house often, Jesus raised him from the dead, he became central!
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to be at the foot of the cross
BW The Bible says all the twelve abandoned him. A risen Lazarus was not likely to fear death, so he stuck close
SG If Lazarus was so important, why isn't he mentioned in the synoptics
BW The synoptics focus on Galilean ministry, of which Lazarus had barely any part
SG If Lazarus was so important, why isn't he mentioned in Acts
BW The majority of the twelve are only mentioned once in Acts
SG Why wasn't he allowed in Gethsamane
BW He wasn't one of the twelve, who had a special travelling relationship with Jesus
SG Mark 10:21 says Jesus loved the rich young ruler, so why is John 11:3 so significant
BW John was read out loud in an oral culture. 11:3 would have defined 13:23
SG Acts 4:13 doesn't suggest that John was previously unknown to the high priest
BW Actually, that is a pretty good argument
SG They were plotting to kill Lazarus, he wouldn't be allowed access
BW Lazarus probably didn't know they were plotting against him. Plus, he was no longer afraid to die.
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to be at the last supper
BW John doesn't record the last supper, but an earlier gathering w/last supper tacked onto the end
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to run to the empty tomb
BW Jesus stayed at their house often, Jesus raised him from the dead, he became central!
SG I don't think Lazarus was a central enough character to be at the foot of the cross
BW The Bible says all the twelve abandoned him. A risen Lazarus was not likely to fear death, so he stuck close
SG If Lazarus was so important, why isn't he mentioned in the synoptics
BW The synoptics focus on Galilean ministry, of which Lazarus had barely any part
SG If Lazarus was so important, why isn't he mentioned in Acts
BW The majority of the twelve are only mentioned once in Acts
SG Why wasn't he allowed in Gethsamane
BW He wasn't one of the twelve, who had a special travelling relationship with Jesus
SG Mark 10:21 says Jesus loved the rich young ruler, so why is John 11:3 so significant
BW John was read out loud in an oral culture. 11:3 would have defined 13:23
SG Acts 4:13 doesn't suggest that John was previously unknown to the high priest
BW Actually, that is a pretty good argument
SG They were plotting to kill Lazarus, he wouldn't be allowed access
BW Lazarus probably didn't know they were plotting against him. Plus, he was no longer afraid to die.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
All of those arguments may serve to salvage the possibility of Lazarus being the BD, though none of them provide any positive arguments for it, of course (that is not what they are intended to do, but rather to answer objections). Likewise, none of the arguments, except one, offer any reason to exclude John from being the BD. That one exception is:
Yet Peter showed up (after running away) at the high priest's house while Jesus was being tried. Having taken that risk, what would prevent him from following also to the cross? Might John (or others of the twelve, for that matter) have done the same?The Bible says all the twelve abandoned him.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
The problem with that approach is that it equally goes against the son of Zebedee option.steve wrote:All of those arguments may serve to salvage the possibility of Lazarus being the BD, though none of them provide any positive arguments for it, of course (that is not what they are intended to do, but rather to answer objections). Likewise, none of the arguments, except one, offer any reason to exclude John from being the BD.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
Plus the twelve lived in Jerusalem for probably at least a decade or two after Pentecost. John's use of 'sea of Tiberius' might simply be a result of having adapted to the Judean mindset. But there is more to it than this - John apparently knew Jerusalem before the crucifixion, and seems to have known Lazarus and his family. He could have got the information from others, but John knew of the meeting of Jesus at night in Jerusalem with Nicodemus, and records the secret meetings of the pharisees and priests. The last supper occurred in Jerusalem, and I think at the house of the BD. If so, then he wasn't Lazarus, who lived outside the city.steve wrote: The idea that the author of the fourth gospel was a Judean may be correct, although it is based upon the fact that the author shows familiarity with the geography of Jerusalem—a familiarity that might easily accrue to any Jew who had made pilgrimages to that city three times a year since childhood (I could describe as many geographical features of Newport Beach, CA, where my family vacationed half a dozen times in my childhood).
Familiarity with the high priest (John 18:15) also need not be denied a Galilean fisherman, ... The reaction of the Sanhedrin to John and Peter, mentioned in Acts 4:13, does not suggest that John was previously unknown to the high priest.
I can't follow this one - it says that the high priest perceived that John was uneducated when he was brought before him. Had he known John, I can't see how he could have perceived this there and then, as though having no previous knowledge. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but this seems like a slam dunk against the son of Zebedee. The BD must be someone else - I believe Papias' presbyter John.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
Perhaps you have a different translation? My Bible does not mention the high priest's perceptions at Acts 4:13. It mentions the perception of the Sanhedrin. The fact that the high priest was the presiding leader of the Sanhedrin does not translate into the council as a whole being acquainted with all of the members of his personal circle of acquaintances. Unless your translation reads differently, I not only fail to see this as a "slam dunk," but I also fail to see it as having any bearing on this argument at all.
Re: The Raising of Lazarus
I was focusing on verse 6 as the controlling verse:steve wrote:Perhaps you have a different translation? My Bible does not mention the high priest's perceptions at Acts 4:13. It mentions the perception of the Sanhedrin. The fact that the high priest was the presiding leader of the Sanhedrin does not translate into the council as a whole being acquainted with all of the members of his personal circle of acquaintances. Unless your translation reads differently, I not only fail to see this as a "slam dunk," but I also fail to see it as having any bearing on this argument at all.
But you're right - it was a larger group (vs. 5-6):And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
In light of this, I think I need to reconsider the implications.And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.