Lazarus, author of the book of John?

[Josh]

Most readers and commentators (including me until possibly now) assume "the disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned several times in the book of John (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 21:7, John 21:20) must be John the disciple (son of Zebedee), who is usually supposed to be the author this gospel.

But the first occurance of someone in the book of John being referred to as the "one who" Jesus loves is actually Lazarus in John Chapter 11:

1Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick.

I'm reading an extremely interesting and well supported (at least so far) book by a well-known and respected Jesus scholar (Ben Witherington III) which in fact argues that Lazarus was the author of most of the book of John, with John the Elder (author of 1-3 John) serving as his final compiler (John the Elder is to be distinguished from the John Zebedee, one of the 12 original disciples)

Now, I know when I hear a theory like this I'm highly skeptical, but when I get some time I'll list the main points of the argument, which are, pretty impressive in my opinion.

Here's just one, for now: scholars have debated long and hard about the reasons for the differences between John and the synoptic gospels, from their different theological focus to their inclusion of very different stories.

One difference between John and the Synoptics is that while the Synoptics focus heavily on Jesus' Galilean ministry and his final week, John almost entirely focuses on things Jesus did in Judea.

Lazarus was a disciple of Jesus who lived and stayed in Judea, and would not have been an eyewitness of most of the events in Galilee (until after the resurrection).

The kids are running crazy so I'll have to provide the rest lata...

Comments/ questions in the meantime?

[Josh]

If anyone's interested in more on this, let me know. However, one powerful argument against this line of thinking just occurred to me:

If Lazarus was the author, why did he never once refer to John son of Zebedee in his gospel?

Could it be possible that Jesus loved more than one disciple?

[b]

I had always thought that it was almost a figure of speech. The way that someone today might say "Those guys and best friends" and then mention a different person as being a "best friend" to one of them.

As for the authorship, I have heard some debates kicked around, particularly about revelation. I am still down with Zebedee until proven otherwise.

[apollos]

May 10, 2007 19:02:13 GMT -8 Josh said:

Most readers and commentators (including me until possibly now) assume "the disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned several times in the book of John (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 21:7, John 21:20) must be John the disciple (son of Zebedee), who is usually supposed to be the author this gospel.

Yes, though very few scholars hold this view. The evidence seems to point to someone who lived in the Jerusalem area. This fits Lazarus.

But the first occurance of someone in the book of John being referred to as the "one who" Jesus loves is actually Lazarus in John Chapter 11

Yes, though two verses later it records that Jesus “loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (Jn 11:5). And Lazarus isn't referred to as a disciple. And if it was Lazarus, it seems odd that there would be these cryptic clues. I think the Beloved Disciple was someone well-known as being the Beloved Disciple. The traditions in Ephesus and Asia point to a disciple named John. Some have tried to have John write using the memoirs of Lazarus, but the Asia writers clearly identified John himself as the Beloved Disciple. Culpepper argues that “the Beloved Disciple is introduced as a new character in John 13:23", and he makes the point that Lazarus only “works on the assumption that the intended readers of the Gospel were in the same position as we, that they did not know who the Beloved Disciple was and were forced to rely on clues within the Gospel."

I'm reading an extremely interesting and well supported (at least so far) book by a well-known and respected Jesus scholar (Ben Witherington III) which in fact argues that Lazarus was the author of most of the book of John, with John the Elder (author of 1-3 John) serving as his final compiler (John the Elder is to be distinguished from the John Zebedee, one of the 12 original disciples)

His position is very attractive. I'm not sure if I read it in his article or somewhere else, but someone noted that the BD was reluctant to enter the tomb, and that a head wrap and grave clothes are mentioned both with regards to Lazarus' raising and Jesus' raising. However the story of the raising of Lazarus is told from an observer's point of view. I think the reluctance to enter the tomb can be accounted for in other ways - e.g. that the BD was a priest (as Polycrates informs us), who would have had scruples about entering a place of uncleanness. I think there is a deliberate contrast between the resurrection accounts, with one public, and one private.

One difference between John and the Synoptics is that while the Synoptics focus heavily on Jesus' Galilean ministry and his final week, John almost entirely focuses on things Jesus did in Judea.

Yes, I think we are looking at a Judean, and a priest. But his name must be 'John'.

[Josh]

And if it was Lazarus, it seems odd that there would be these cryptic clues.

I think the theory was that Lazarus might have had good reason to keep his identity under wraps,- a plot by the Pharisees to kill him (again )

I'm not sold on it either, but perhaps John knew Lazarus well and gleaned a lot of info from him.

Yes, I think we are looking at a Judean, and a priest. But his name must be 'John'.

If not John son of Zebedee, why is there no reference to John son of Zebedee in the gospel? BTW, I can't remember off hand, but how many of the disciples are actually mentioned in John anyway?

[apollos]

May 17, 2009 17:16:43 GMT -8 Josh said:

I think the theory was that Lazarus might have had good reason to keep his identity under wraps,- a plot by the Pharisees to kill him (again )

Well he didn't do a very good job - recording his resurrection and the fact that the Pharisees wanted to kill him

Actually I wonder if that's why the synoptics don't give the name - to protect his identity. Perhaps when John wrote, Jerusalem had already been destroyed and/or Lazarus was dead, so that it didn't matter any more.

If not John son of Zebedee, why is there no reference to John son of Zebedee in the gospel? BTW, I can't remember off hand, but how many of the disciples are actually mentioned in John anyway?

I don't know either. I did find this though:

Joh 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

Note it mentions the 'sons of Zebedee' - so I'm not sure there's any significance to the fact that John isn't mentioned in particular.

[Josh]

Well he didn't do a very good job - recording his resurrection and the fact that the Pharisees wanted to kill him

Actually I wonder if that's why the synoptics don't give the name - to protect his identity. Perhaps when John wrote, Jerusalem had already been destroyed and/or Lazarus was dead, so that it didn't matter any more.

Ha! That's right... I was conflating the two in my Sunday afternoon stupor.

I do think that is the best reason for the question of why the story isn't included in the snyoptics (a question which used to bug me something fierce)

Ah, I overlooked the John 21 reference to the sons of Zebedee. That, in and of itself, is a good indicator of someone other than John the son of Zebedee being the author (unless one goes with the theory that the last couple chapters were an addendum by John's disciples)

[apollos]

May 17, 2009 18:39:52 GMT -8 Josh said:

Ah, I overlooked the John 21 reference to the sons of Zebedee. That, in and of itself, is a good indicator of someone other than John the son of Zebedee being the author (unless one goes with the theory that the last couple chapters were an addendum by John's disciples)

Agreed. But by the same argument, it wasn't written by Lazarus either!

A few other arguments - all the other disciples fled and forsook Jesus, but the Beloved Disciple was at the cross. The mother of Jesus and the mother of the Zebedee children were at the cross, yet Jesus' mother became the Beloved Disciple's. The Beloved Disciple appears to have been known to the high priest (Jn 18.6), yet the son of Zebedee wasn't known to him (Acts 4) and the priests and pharisees wanted Lazarus dead, so whoever gained entrance to the courtyard, because he was known to the high priest, probably wasn't either one!