tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post117008191106342631..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-2494666466822380312009-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:002009-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:00My teacher in New Testament history, who is also ...My teacher in New Testament history, who is also a proponent of the "Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple" theory brought up an interesting speculation. If Lazarus was the BD, perhaps this explains why he didn'tenter the tomb in John 20:5. He would perhaps be reluctant to enter a tomb again, after his resurrection.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10389938539636072460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-40843876214429157322009-03-01T11:02:00.000-08:002009-03-01T11:02:00.000-08:00Has anyone mentioned the book, "Lazarus and the Fo...Has anyone mentioned the book, "Lazarus and the Fourth Gospel Community" by Frederick W. Baltz. (Mellen Biblical Press: 1996). It presents the same thesis--that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple--but goes a step further in identifying Lazarus (Greek for Eleazar) with the former High Priest Eleazar (4 BC to 6 AD), son of Boethus, who, like Lazarus, had two sisters, named Miriam and Martha (with whom he identifies Lazarus' sisters, Mary and Martha). Is his a reasonable hypothesis?wgshusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03428319767694028491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-38181598180289113192008-07-05T23:34:00.000-07:002008-07-05T23:34:00.000-07:00Here we go: http://paulglavic.wordpress.com/2008/0...Here we go: <BR/><BR/>http://paulglavic.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/lazarus-and-the-fourth-gospel-part-two/Julie Glavichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910652406506277994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-34159730636876117552008-07-04T10:00:00.000-07:002008-07-04T10:00:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington,This is great! I had a professor ...Dr. Witherington,<BR/><BR/>This is great! I had a professor at Gordon College, Dr. Steve Hunt, who gave a lecture in which he argued the same thing. (As I remember, the other Biblical Studies professors teased him good-naturedly but mercilessly about the whole thing.) <BR/><BR/>One point that Dr. Hunt made during his arguement was about the connection between Lazarus's grave clothes (specifically his head covering) and Jesus's grave clothes (specifically his head covering). My Greek isn't great, but I remember Dr. Hunt thinking that it was incredible that the same words were used - and that the BD "saw and believed" upon looking at Jesus's used grave clothes. <BR/><BR/>What do you think about this connection (if you think that there is one!)? <BR/><BR/>One other note I remember Dr. Hunt making which he admitted was pure speculation: did the BD outrun Peter at Jesus's tomb because the BD had been restored to incredible vitality after being raised from the dead? An interesting suggestion.<BR/><BR/>-Julie GlavicJulie Glavichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910652406506277994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-66131730418857139252008-04-29T11:38:00.000-07:002008-04-29T11:38:00.000-07:00Thanks Dr. Witherington for a fascinating reading!...Thanks Dr. Witherington for a fascinating reading! I have one question to which your lecture does not give an answer. How is it possible that John 21:1-8 identifies the Beloved Disciple as a fisherman fishing up in Northern Galilee? Your theory does not take into an account this piece of internal evidence which, in my opinion, is the hardest fact to come around with your theory. How a man from nearby Jerusalem may have been identified with a fishing industry?Esa Hyvönenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13250774807323426479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-28622105660509258652008-04-18T16:38:00.000-07:002008-04-18T16:38:00.000-07:00Lazarus?! The poor guy was just raised from the de...Lazarus?! The poor guy was just raised from the dead. How active could he have been? How effective would he have been with Annas, as "the other disciple?" Death takes a lot out of one. If Jesus loved him so much, why did he die? The true beloved disciple, as Peter points out in Jn. 21 was not supposed to die ... but Lazarus, if he was the beloved disciple ... had already died!<BR/><BR/>The disciples whom Jesus loved were John Mark and his mother Mary, who were the John and Mary at the cross of Jesus. Alterations by heretics have fooled us all these years. Read my take: http://tanata.squarespace.com<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RCGRandall Carter Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10285935323650599516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-69708196678338916202007-12-22T19:49:00.000-08:002007-12-22T19:49:00.000-08:00no i don't believe so. we know nothing of his char...no i don't believe so. we know nothing of his character or personality. i believe the beloved disciple is nathanael. we know from john 1 that he has no guile. you can trust what he says. we have3mtches from what we are told about the b.d.. i have a two page essay i mail out free by usps.lmwal931https://www.blogger.com/profile/06514784976726374738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-39539618373778925502007-11-12T18:09:00.000-08:002007-11-12T18:09:00.000-08:00Ben- If the Gospel of John was authored by Lazarus...Ben- If the Gospel of John was authored by Lazarus, who himself was resurrected from the dead, why/how do you suppose God would not allow Lazarus to testify more specifically in the Gospel as to his personal experience in the tomb? Obviously, Lazarus held in his grasp some power to clarify human thought on the death experience. I find myself thinking that, had I been Lazarus, I would have included something of this in my account.Michael Princehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16031198605927491446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44160394085615712522007-10-20T08:47:00.000-07:002007-10-20T08:47:00.000-07:00Here's something else that may be a bit of a stret...Here's something else that may be a bit of a stretch, but still seems interesting:<BR/><BR/>John 20:8 "Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead."<BR/><BR/>I've heard it argued that the writer of the gospel wants superiority over Peter, and that's why he says he got to the tomb first, but that seems childish, and totally inconsistent with the mature and reflective style of this author. I wonder if it's more a play on words, in that the writer, presumably Lazarus, had "reached the tomb first" in death, which Peter had not, and therefore was more able than Peter to see and believe. However, the line about not understanding that he must rise from the dead totally baffles me.<BR/>--Andrew WoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-46647701779759977642007-10-18T19:46:00.000-07:002007-10-18T19:46:00.000-07:00One other thing: I think another blow against the ...One other thing: I think another blow against the idea of John son of Zebedee as the author are words directly from Christ. When James and John ask Jesus for special positions in the kingdom, and when they say that they are truly able to drink from the cup Jesus will drink from, and be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with, and Jesus agrees with them, it seems to me that Jesus is talking about his martyrdom and that he is telling the brothers that they, too, will indeed be martyred. He probably knew this because these guys were the Sons of Thunder, and were more likely to really upset people and get in their face. Didn't they want to bring fire down on the Samaritans?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-76882075304032061432007-10-18T19:22:00.000-07:002007-10-18T19:22:00.000-07:00One other thing: The way Jesus talks in Galilee, a...One other thing: The way Jesus talks in Galilee, and the way he talks in Jerusalem are different. I wonder if some of this is because Galilee is the country, and Jerusalem is the big city. I grew up in the country, and live in the big city, and I know I talk differently depending on where I am. I can imagine Jesus in Jerusalem would be talking to some very educated Jewish men, and he would be using different sorts of discourse. The parables and aphorisms take place in the country, and I am very aware of all the great tales and classic aphorisms from the people in my small hometown. You don't get that in the big city.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-53763963261215302932007-10-18T19:05:00.000-07:002007-10-18T19:05:00.000-07:00I agree that the Beloved Disciple would obviously ...I agree that the Beloved Disciple would obviously have known about Mark, or maybe even read it. This was obviously a man of enormous intelligence and talent, and to think that he wouldn't be interested in what his contemporaries were writing about The Man seems ludicrous. Most authors read their contemporaries, or at least want to. I can at least imagine the Beloved Disciple asking a traveler from a community where Mark was known many questions about what that gospel was up to. <BR/><BR/>Also, I find it fascinating to wonder how Jesus and Lazarus may have gotten to know each other. Maybe when Jesus first met him, Lazarus showed him something he'd written, and when Jesus looked at it he knew the special way this young man would remember him. He would be his witness to the truth, as it were. Maybe Lazarus kept a journal, and wrote in it at night, and pondered over all the things Jesus said that day. If he was rich, he could probably afford the writing utensils. Also, I wonder sometimes if Lazarus was taught by Nicodemus, since Nicodemus is a "teacher of Israel."<BR/><BR/>Also, does anyone think it's strange that the parable in Luke that mentions Lazarus actually has a name in it? I don't know of any other parable that has a name. It would be really odd for this tradition to stay alive for so long without a name that everyone seemed to know. Was Jesus using Lazarus' name in this parable because Lazarus had "sores" on his body? Was he including his young friend in his teaching? Also, the end of the parable mentions how there will be unbelief, even if someone rises from the dead. Any thoughts?<BR/>--Andrew WoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57103298405496752182007-10-04T13:28:00.000-07:002007-10-04T13:28:00.000-07:00I am a fool for question the conclusions of Dr. Be...I am a fool for question the conclusions of Dr. Ben, whom I greatly admire. This is very interesting, but ... My only problem with Lazarus as the BD is that the synoptics clearly say that it was “the twelve” who were in the upper room, and John 13 clearly puts the BD there leaning against Jesus' breast. The only way around this is to say that John 13 is not the upper room and last supper. (After all, there is no story of communion.) However, Jesus saying that the one who will betray him is the “the one to whom I will give this piece of bread, when I have dipped it in the dish” makes it clear that this is the upper room story. Mark 14:20 is too close a parallel. Also, why would Jesus need to tell them that one of them would betray him twice – once in Bethany and once in the upper room? As Dr. Ben says, "They were the Duh-ciples," but that is a little to much duh for me. To me that is a fatal flaw. <BR/>But then again, I am pretty much a "Duh-ciple" too.<BR/>Thanks Dr. Ben for stretching our minds. Mike ChildsMike Childshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07912799052680332173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-51023625692495591182007-09-08T21:53:00.000-07:002007-09-08T21:53:00.000-07:00A reference that corroborates the idea that the be...A reference that corroborates the idea that the beloved disciple was Lazarus is J.N. Sanders, "Who was the Disciple Whom Jesus loved?" in F. L. Cross, ed., Studies in the Fourth Gospel (1957), pp. 72-82. Corroboration of this idea may also be found in the work of Oscar Cullmann and of Floyd V. Filson. For corroboration of the idea that Simon the Leper was the father of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary and a member of the Sanhedrin, one need only consult the article on Lazarus in Smith's Bible Dicitionary.Richard M Risshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997805882781385449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19130675546888532892007-05-13T07:07:00.000-07:002007-05-13T07:07:00.000-07:005/13: Since I haven’t seen a response to my 5/8/0...5/13: <BR/>Since I haven’t seen a response to my 5/8/07 post, let me explain it a little better. In the BD passages of the Gospel of John, the author tells us about a pretty amazing disciple, one who was closer to the Lord and spiritually more perceptive than even Peter. Because of this, he is a trustworthy witness (21:24). The above website proposes that these statements about the BD are not John bragging about himself while totally ignoring his brother who ranked above him. Nor were they written in an attempt to elevate some outsider above the Twelve who were specifically chosen by Jesus. Instead, John is the author, and his trustworthy witness is James, the disciple who in the first two gospels is Peter’s competitor for the most favored position in Jesus’ kingdom (Matt 20:21; Mk 10:37). We know from Acts that John later continued to work with Peter, while James apparently separated himself from the other two. When James died, he apparently left written records containing “these things” that John translates from Aramaic with comments.<BR/><BR/>We also know, from the other gospels, that 21:2 alludes to four anonymous disciples, two of whom (“those of Zebedee”) we can identify as James and John. In the view of the above website, they are anonymous because they are the source and the author of the Gospel, respectively, and because of John’s humility. (The other two anonymous persons are to prevent readers from identifying the author and the Beloved Disciple by the process of elimination, unless they already know the truth of the matter.) John’s humility keeps him from any mention of himself in his Gospel. James’ anonymity is also partly because many people felt that he had been discredited by the rumored prophecy that he would not die, which turned out to be false. Readers would not accept his testimony until after John corrects this rumor. Then and only then, John and his amanuensis reveal James’ role and attest to his veracity (“we know that his testimony is true”). John can attest to this because he was present with James at most of the events reported here. If Luke is the amanuensis, as I think likely, he can add his own attestation (“we” instead of “I” in 21:24) because of his own research into the origin of the gospel accounts. As the amanuensis, he would also have seen John’s sources, witnessed the translation process, and been able to ask questions.<BR/><BR/>I believe there’s a special significance to the epithet “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” because knowledgeable readers find at the end that this disciple is someone whom the church did NOT love, because of his alleged insubordination to Peter. Readers need to know that Jesus himself had told Peter that he had plans for James which were none of Peter’s business (21:22); therefore, James was not in rebellion.<BR/><BR/>I’m unclear why so many people look for a different candidate, or conclude that the eyewitness whom we can all trust is not an actual person. Certainly the rumor referred to a specific person who was already well known as a leader during Jesus’ ministry, probably based on the Synoptics. I think this eliminates everyone except James.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Witherington, please help us out.<BR/><BR/>Bobbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029170324334074896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-38064093617554962007-05-07T08:54:00.000-07:002007-05-07T08:54:00.000-07:00Believe it or not, one “new” suggestion regarding ...Believe it or not, one “new” suggestion regarding the identity of the BD has not yet been refuted, although it has been mentioned superficially for centuries. Anyone who is interested can check it out http://www.clementdialogue.org/Robinson.htm . Comments, anyone?<BR/><BR/>Bobbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029170324334074896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-24724043498279930312007-03-22T03:26:00.000-07:002007-03-22T03:26:00.000-07:00Hi BenMark Stibbe hereI have been teaching that La...Hi Ben<BR/><BR/>Mark Stibbe here<BR/><BR/>I have been teaching that Lazarus was the BD for 20 years, and have written about this in at least three of my books on John. From a reading of the final form of the FG narrative, the implied reader HAS to conclude that BD is Lazarus... for all the reasons you outline and others too<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in your take on Bauckham's dismissal of such views. In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses he says it makes no sense for FG to introduce Lazarus and then immediately engage in a strategy of protective anonymity through the BD epithet<BR/><BR/>What do you make of that?<BR/><BR/>GB<BR/><BR/>Mark StibbeDr Stibbehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16308060629526475095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21864736638205497022007-03-14T01:36:00.000-07:002007-03-14T01:36:00.000-07:00Hi Ben!Interesting work you did. Our group has com...Hi Ben!<BR/><BR/>Interesting work you did. Our group has come up with a similar interpretation but it is somewhat different. Here it is:<BR/><BR/>"The gospels tell of the disciple whom Jesus loved in several places...<BR/><BR/>23 There was reclining in front of Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him (John 13).<BR/><BR/>26 Therefore Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, said to his mother: Woman, see! Your son!<BR/>27 Next he said to the disciple: See! Your mother! And from that hour on the disciple took her to his own home (John 19).<BR/><BR/>20 Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: Lord, who is the one betraying you?<BR/>21 Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: Lord, what will this [man do]?<BR/>22 Jesus said to him: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.<BR/>23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?<BR/>24 This is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true (John 21).<BR/><BR/>Now we must beg the reader to worship God with his mind and not to worship the long established Roman Catholic Church with all its glitter and status in this world. So please take off your Papal Mitre and put on your Sherlock Homes Deer Stalker once again and let us obey the law given to Moses, that Jesus made into the first commandment. It is still in force today, to serve not a church of men but our creator, Jehovah, our God, with our whole heart our whole mind our whole soul and our whole strength. <BR/><BR/>Now the Catholics would have us believe that only Jesus and the apostles were present at the last supper. They would further have us believe that Jesus had a favourite apostle, namely John. He loved him more than the rest they say, because he wrote John 21 and so he was the one whom Jesus used to love as can be seen from verse 24. This seems to make sense because we all know that Leonardo Da Vinci only had Jesus plus 12 at the last supper and because John did see Jesus come in vision as recorded in Revelation.<BR/><BR/>But there are a few problems with that interpretation. <BR/><BR/>1. People in the world do have favourites, but one doesn't imagine that Jesus would be like that.<BR/><BR/>2. Nowhere in scripture is 'the one whom Jesus loved' called an apostle, he is always called a disciple.<BR/><BR/>3. Jesus gave this person to his mother as her fleshly son. This means he must have had authority to do that, which means he must have been his fleshly father in some sense. Jesus was John's father is spirit, but not in flesh. Furthermore Jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and Joseph being dead, gave his mother to the one whom he loved. Mary then went to live in his home. Why did he not give her to the secondborn son? Jesus had 4 brothers...<BR/><BR/>55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13). <BR/><BR/>He was making 'the one whom he loved' the head of his family, the head of his fleshly house. So he was giving his birthright to this one. So this one must have been his firstborn fleshly son. But how could Jesus who never got married, have a fleshly son?<BR/><BR/>Answer: Lazarus. He was the father of the body that Lazarus received upon his resurrection. So Lazarus, being the firstborn by resurrection of the firstborn by holy spirit of Mary, was the legitimate head of the household once Jesus died. Jesus could not sin and break the law and give his mother and family to an imposter. <BR/><BR/>This interpretation explains why Lazarus was leaning back upon Jesus bosom at the last supper. He was his son, and sons are in the bosom of fathers in the bible...<BR/><BR/>18 No man has seen God [Jehovah, unbegotten] at any time; the only-begotten God [Jesus, the first angel to become a God to be worshipped, the only begotten God] who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him (John 1).<BR/><BR/>But this raises the question: How could Lazarus be at the last supper? Surely only the 12 were there with Jesus...<BR/><BR/>18 He said: Go into the city to So-and-so and say to him, The Teacher says, 'My appointed time is near; I will celebrate the<BR/>passover with my disciples with/towards you.<BR/>19 And the disciples did as Jesus ordered them, and they got things ready for the passover.<BR/>20 When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the 12 disciples (Matthew 26).<BR/><BR/>At first sight it just looks like Jesus celebrated the passover with his 12 disciples. Not with 13 disciples, but with 12. But So-and-so was a Jew as were Jesus and the 12 disciples, so they would all have celebrated the passover together. And Jesus would not have excluded So-and-so or his family from celebrating with him. Indeed such a thing would have been unlawful. <BR/><BR/>But who was this guy So-and-so and why is he given this non descript designation? Well, in John 12 we read that...<BR/><BR/>1 Accordingly Jesus, 6 days before the passover [The last supper], arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised up from the dead.<BR/>2 Therefore they spread an evening meal for him there, and Martha was ministering, but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with him (John 12).<BR/><BR/>Now there is a thing. 6 days before the last supper Lazarus is reclining with Jesus at the table at an evening meal. Imagine you were Lazarus and you had been raised from the dead by Jesus and you had eaten an evening meal with him 6 days before the passover. Would you not want to eat the passover with him too? The law said that the passover should be eated in Jerusalem. So Lazarus would have gone up to Jerusalem to a friend's house there to eat the meal with his sisters. But why So and so? Well further on in John 12 we read...<BR/><BR/>9 Therefore a great crowd of the Jews got to know he was there, and they came, not on account of Jesus only, but also to see Lazarus, whom he raised up from the dead.<BR/>10 The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also,<BR/>11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going there and putting faith in Jesus (John 12).<BR/><BR/>So Lazarus could not go around openly or he would be killed. So for security reasons Jesus and presumably the disciples as well referred to him as So-and-so. In this way people overhearing their conversation would not realise that Lazarus was there and would not be tempted to betray Lazarus to the chief priests who presumably would pay them silver money for the information.<BR/><BR/>So actually at the last supper were the 12 apostles, Jesus, Lazarus, Mary, Martha and the family of whoever owned the house which had the upper room where it was celebrated. So now the last supper ceases to be a sterile apostolic refection, and becomes a loving family affair. Certainly if Martha minstered at the evening meal 6 day previously, why would she not do the same thing at the passover itself? Perhaps the women ate at a different table, but these girls were saints of the New Covenant, so in theory they would have partaken of all the cups, as did the apostles. Lazarus however could not die, since he was now in a non adamic body. By which we mean he would be raptured the minute he died physically, he would not see Hades for a second time. <BR/><BR/>Consider these scriptures...<BR/><BR/>5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus (John 11)<BR/><BR/>33 Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping and the Jews that came with her weeping, groaned in the spirit and became troubled;<BR/>34 and he said: Where have you laid him? They said to him: Lord, come and see.<BR/>35 Jesus gave way to tears.<BR/>36 Therefore the Jews began to say: See, what affection he used to have for him! (John 11).<BR/><BR/>Now Jesus most likely wept because he saw the distress of Mary, the one who had wept at his feet and wiped her tears off with her hair. And what man would not? But nonetheless the scripture says referring to Lazarus: See what affection he used to have for him!<BR/><BR/>1 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the memorial tomb early, while there was still darkness, and she beheld the stone already taken away from the memorial tomb.<BR/>2 Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, for whom Jesus had affection, and she said to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the memorial tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him (John 20).<BR/><BR/>The wording of John 20:2 is such that Jesus loved Peter as a son as well. In fact he loved Peter as the head of his wife to be more precise! Obviously Lazarus being in a brand new non adamic body, actually being a son of Isaac in a 240 year max lifespan body, could run a bit faster than poor old Peter!<BR/><BR/>7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus used to love said to Peter: It is the Lord! Hence Simon Peter, upon hearing that it was the Lord, girded about himself his top garment, for he was naked, and plunged into the sea (John 21)<BR/><BR/>So Lazarus could hear more distinctly than the other disciples as well! Nice body! He had a human body x2 in Personal Computing terminology! There is no other named person in the Gospels that Jesus was said to love and so for us that decided things.<BR/><BR/>Who wrote John then?<BR/><BR/>This problem was what prevented us from accepting the research at first. But then we put the last verses of John 20 together with the last verses of John 21...<BR/><BR/>30 To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll.<BR/>31 But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name (John 20).<BR/><BR/>25 There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written (John 21).<BR/><BR/>The end of each chapter is saying the same thing, namely that Jesus did a whole load more things that are not written in this scroll. So if we have two endings then we have two authors. John wrote chapters 1 - 20 and Lazarus wrote chapter 21. With this understanding we can now make sense of the last 5 verses of the chapter of Lazarus.<BR/><BR/>20 Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love [Lazarus] following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: Lord, who is the one betraying you?<BR/>21 Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: Lord, what will this [man do] [seeing as he has already died once and been resurrected]?<BR/>22 Jesus said to him: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.<BR/>23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?<BR/>24 This [Lazarus] is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things [wrote John 21], and we know that the witness he gives is true ['we' being Christians of higher authority than Lazarus, the pillars of the church, Peter, James and John].<BR/>25 There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.<BR/><BR/>So the Gospel of John runs from chapter 1 to chapter 20. Then we have the book of Lazarus which is presently called <BR/>John 21. This one chapter is not a gospel since it covers events after Jesus' death. We know there are only 4 gospels. However we now have a new bible writer and a new book of the bible.dieschwingishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04314585044304712746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-24420107788456392742007-03-13T07:34:00.000-07:002007-03-13T07:34:00.000-07:00Wow. Thank you for making available such a powerfu...Wow. Thank you for making available such a powerful piece of scholarship on the web. <BR/><BR/>And I am quite impressed by the level of comments as well.<BR/><BR/>We are studying the Gospel of John in our adult sunday School and I will be printing this out and making copies for the members.<BR/><BR/>QUESTION: Does the John who edited the Gospel have to be the same John who wrote the Book of Revelation? Could it be that the Revelation author is John the Apostle, while the Gospel editor is John the Presbyter? I don't know Greek, but from what everyone says, the language of the two is so different. Plus the whole style/content seems so different it seems hard to associate them with the same persons.CPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06803551934971285722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170786932160942262007-02-06T10:35:00.000-08:002007-02-06T10:35:00.000-08:00Sorry Ben that is 'witness as' not 'witness of' an...Sorry Ben <BR/><BR/>that is 'witness as' not 'witness of' and 'now predisposed' not 'not predisposed'tony garroodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592512679614750683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170767445548663192007-02-06T05:10:00.000-08:002007-02-06T05:10:00.000-08:00What about specifically Johannine material that is...What about specifically Johannine material that is not Judaean in origin, like the material about John the Baptist, miracle at Cana, the woman at the well in Samaria, the discourse in John 6? This appears to be part of the same witness of the Judaean sections that you attribute to Lazarus having access to because he was living in and around Jerusalem, with Simon his father and his sisters at Bethany. The attraction of John Zebedee being the author of the gospel is that as one of Jesus's three most intimate disciples and earliest he would have been around for the events and teaching in Galilee and Judaea. <BR/><BR/>So who was the eye-witness to the events and teaching in Galilee on your understanding?<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I have the same sort of feeling reading this that I had reading Orchard on the Synoptics, that I am not predisposed to an idea I had given little creedence to before.tony garroodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592512679614750683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170423643673168712007-02-02T05:40:00.000-08:002007-02-02T05:40:00.000-08:00Thank you for sharing this. I've never heard this ...Thank you for sharing this. I've never heard this theory and it's very plausible. There is nothing really, other than tradition, that warrants the belief that John was the author and BD. And if he were not the author, the only implication to the NT is that it's another book not written by an "Apostle" but still written by an eyewitness of the risen Lord.<BR/><BR/>I started to look through John this morning and had a few thoughts I would like to share. I saw that only David mentioned one of them in the 3rd comment above mine.<BR/><BR/>Before that, I know that it will be said that my argument is one from silence. This seems to be a standard reply here... The whole premise that Lazarus = BD is also one of silence. Jesus is said to have loved a lot of people - not just Lazarus. It may not have been the exact phrase, but we should keep in mind that the identification of <I>anyone</I> with BD is ultimately one of silence since we are never told who he is.<BR/><BR/>First of all, in the Synoptics, Jesus asked Peter and John to meet an anonymous man with a jar of water who would take him to his master - the home of the person to prepare the Passover. Why not just tell them to go to Lazarus' house since they were just there? I know the key was secrecy and that Jesus likely planned for the meal ahead of time with the owner of the house and wouldn't want Judas to know too early where they would be for the meal. And I will admit that there may be no better time to have planned this next meal than the place Jesus ate just 6 days before the Passover. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, the plot was already in place prior to the passover to kill Lazarus. It's entirely possible that the chief priests would have had someone keeping an eye on Lazarus. But, again, this could be mere speculation. But in this debate, it's certainly something to consider.Chris Whisonanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10880112709247835926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170310022643302842007-01-31T22:07:00.000-08:002007-01-31T22:07:00.000-08:00Roger asked, Could be Lazarus, but since they want...Roger asked, Could be Lazarus, but since they wanted to kill him also, would Lazarus really have led Peter into Caiphas' courtyard?<BR/><BR/>Sure! This "friend" who "Jesus loved" is the ONE person that would be the LEAST likely to fear death, for at this point for Lazarus death was -- Been there. Done that.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060791739554874873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170281803801347242007-01-31T14:16:00.000-08:002007-01-31T14:16:00.000-08:00Here is a little footnote to this entire discussio...Here is a little footnote to this entire discussion. I was looking again at John 20 when the Beloved Disciple visits the tomb of Jesus. A new thought struck me-- if the BD is Lazarus then the reason he believed without seeing Jesus at the tomb, but simply seeing the tomb empty with grave clothes left behind is that he himself had experienced resurrection personally. It was not the empty tomb that convinced him in itself, but the reminder of his own experience when he went there. <BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1170244747273129002007-01-31T03:59:00.000-08:002007-01-31T03:59:00.000-08:00Well John, I can't find a single commentary that t...Well John, I can't find a single commentary that thinks Judges is a chiasm either, so I am afraid such chiasm's are in the eyes of the beholder. <BR/><BR/>My position is indeed that the Beloved Disciple wrote the epistles, which explains the similarities with the Gospel. You seem to have missed that point. <BR/><BR/>John 13 is a composite account just as John 14-17 is. The latter involves discourses given at several junctures during that last week, John 13 combines several meal stories. Jesus and his disciples of course had meals all through that week. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together. <BR/><BR/>What is clear is that the dating of this early in the week meal, coupled with the absence of the footwashing in the Synoptics at the last supper, and perhaps the location of this meal make it clear it is not the last supper meal, which took place within the city walls of Jerusalem.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com