What's your explanation for why the 4th gospel doesn't mention John then?
What? because in the gospels he's mentioned as the brother of James and his intimacy with Jesus was exaggerated because he was seen as the beloved disciple. It's explicit in the gospels he's one of the inner circle of the three and Acts shows he's often with Peter, their leader. Even if he isn't the author of the fourth gospel, his importance in the early church is undeniable.
Indeed - and for anyone that actually read through the article itself referenced in the OP by Dr. Ben Witherington (as noted in Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple? ), it it is rather foolish for anyone assuming that those advocating Lazarus as the dominant influence in John's Gospel either don't understand that it's a theory - or that they have not understood the traditional arguments for why others believe John was the author. People need to deal with information as it is BEFORE choosing to speak rather than jumping into a thread speaking without dealing with the argument. Even the oldest manuscripts marked "According to John" don't do anything in argumentation since the same dynamic has occurred in other Scriptures which were attributed to others even though they had other people influencing them - with the act of attributing something to others being a means of showing how they'd approve (as it concerns a stamp of leadership) or showing they were the final word - or showing association. We can see this same dynamic in the debates over books like II Peter - as the debate has happened for a long time and others have felt it was actually Jude who wrote the Epistle on BEHALF of Peter....more shared here and in the following:
Gxg (G²);66535052 said:Irenaeus came in the 2nd generation after the Apostle John and he states unequivocally that John is the author of the Gospe - yet he consistently refers to the author of the gospel, as well as of Revelation, as "the disciple of the Lord," while he referred to the others as "apostles" - meaning that Irenaeus distinguished John, the author of the 4th gospel, from John the apostle.
If saying "Well, most of the Early Church said this about the Gospel of John", one has to go back to understanding what issues the Early Church felt were either open to discussion based on the evidence they had - or other issues which were matters of DOGMA. The apostleship of John was not one of them. And as it concerns disagreements, we see where They also debated on what books to consider Cannon and those debates are part of why there are differences between the EO, OO, Assyrian Church of the East and other groups - even within the Jewish world, as mentioned before (more here and here).
As it concerns calling it "The Gospel of John", the reality is that debates occurred on what was important when it came to that issue - and as said before, part of the thoughts others had were that Lazarus and John worked together on writing the book.....Lazarus writing other key details and John building upon that - no different than it was with Peter and the other Epistles that had significant help. As said earlier and
As another wisely pointed out (for brief excerpt) with regards to the potential for Lazarus writing the 4th Gospel, "one should not consider this view either liberal or heretical. For one, the Gospel of John is anonymous (like the rest of the Gospels and the Letter to the Hebrews). Speculation regarding authorship of these writings is not the same as speculation on the authorship of epistles attributed to an author in the text itself (such as the epistles of Paul, Peter, etc)....With Lazarus, it is not as if one cannot speak of themselves in the text without mentioning their name...and as said earlier, there are many reasons to consider Lazarus when seeing how he's the only man in scripture to be seen enduringly as "the one whom Christ loved."It is possible, that although the Beloved Disciple could be Lazarus, the Gospel may have been written by someone else. The epilogue of the Gospel appears to connect the author and the Beloved Disciple (Jn 21.24), yet the first person plurals in this verse suggest the presence of a community or other influences behind the author. Perhaps the situation is much like the Gospel of Mark. Peter himself did not write the Gospel, but tradition suggests that he oversaw Mark’s composition. Considering the parallels of language between the Fourth Gospel and the epistles of John (which are attributed to a figure named John), perhaps the Apostle John helped to oversee Lazarus’ composition of the Fourth Gospel?"[/URL]Gxg (G²);66535707 said:I'd not assume that having someone write the Gospel of John (like Lazarus) means that the Epistles of John were also by the man - as there's a distinction others in the Early Church and other latter eras noted when it came to seeing the Epistles of John made by John the Elder and the Book of John made by the Apostle John.
There were many named Judas in the Early Church and that era, one of them being the brother of Jesus and another being a part of the 12 known as Judas son of James while another was a prophet - all of them being besides Judas Iscariot who betrayed Christ (Matthew 13:55, Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Acts 15:22 )- but that doesn't mean that a book made by Judas automatically means that any work made by someone named Judas means it's the same person. Likewise, there's no reason assuming the Apostle John had to have written the Johannine Epistles because the name "John" is present.....and even with the Gospel of John, giving a name to a book was also a means of showing dominance in influence as well as approval (i.e. having your name attached to a story showing you gave approval to that story) - which also harmonized with other accounts where others co-wrote a book with another using that person's testimonies and allowing them to write certain stories relevant to the narrative before the individual of greater influence chose to sign off on it.....both including eye-witnesses/stories he learned from others and that were written by others while also writing other parts of the story himself. Many feel the Gospel of John was written in stages, with John the APostle doing things at one point but then others took over at later points.
But even with that, where many trip up over John misses a lot since John himself was never confirmed to be the one who named the book. It was simply attributed to the work long afterward - in the same way others attribute the Book of Hebrews to being made by Paul when it never says explictly. As another noted wisely:
Of the New Testament works, only Revelation names its author explicitly as “John.” Revelation is written in much poorer Greek than the Gospel and letters are, and it even spells the name Jerusalem in Greek differently than the Gospel does. So it is extremely unlikely that the same person wrote all of these books. Some scholars therefore refer to the author of Revelation as “John the seer” or “John of Patmos” to distinguish him from the purported author of the Gospel and letters. Given that apocalyptic works were typically written pseudonymously in the names of earlier authorities, as though those individuals had predicted current and future events, the possibility must also be considered that Revelation was written by someone pretending to be John the apostle predicting the events of Nero’s time and thereafter.
The Gospel and letters do not name their author, or authors. The titles affixed to these books in modern Bibles (for example, the “Gospel according to John”
The Gospel and letters may or may not be by the same author (and in the case of the Gospel, the “author” could be someone more like a final editor working with various source materials). But the shared style and terminology indicates that if these books are not by the same author, then they must be by authors who were part of a community that shared certain traditions and emphases.
Even outside of that, we have to consider other factors as well:
- 1 John: no author is named or referred to throughout the text.
- 2 John and 3 John: the author is self-identified as “the elder.”
SImply because he is traditionally identified as “John the apostle, son of Zebedee” does not mean that's correct. Interestingly enough, one of the Church Fathers known as Origen frequently quotes John at the author of the first letter (as seen in Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.26 and others) - but he also states that it is unknown if the second and third letters are genuine (Eusebius's Church History 6.25.10). We can also see how St. Jerome noted that John the apostle wrote the first letter but also felt that John the elder wrote the other two, basing this on the quotation of Papias (Illustrious Men 9).
Maybe it was one of the twelve (at least I feel it)-except Peter but really, why one of the most prominent apostles isn't mentioned in a gospel when he's in the synoptics?
I've argued with a believer of the Lazarus theory that saw John as a minor apostle
Except the Early Church doesn't mention any Lazarus as the author of any Gospel.
And even if you just want to use scripture, Lazarus isn't mentioned as an disciple. Just someone Jesus loved and Jesus loved more people in the other gospels too.
Unless you believe in some Conspiracy Theory, there are two things that refute Magdalene as the author.
The disciple is clearly male and Magdalene talks with Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Essentially - and seeing that none of us was there, all of us are going on a level of faith anyhow with any tradition we adhere to.
Generally, it seems that any time this is mentioned, one of the main responses is that Lazarus was not noted to be a disciple - but it's a very limited argument that isn't consistent since MANY people in the scriptures were never written to be disciples and yet we understand that their life and devotion are a reflection of their intimacy with Christ.
Gxg (G²);66520859 said:Lazarus was someone deeply connected to Christ - and for someone that is seemingly unimportant to the narrative of the 4th Gospel, it does go out of the way to indicate his significance - especially to those in the priesthood which he was well known:
John 12:16-19
Jesus Anointed at Bethany
12 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.”
9 Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.
.......16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.
17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”
As it concerns intimacy - for others claiming "Lazarus was not a disciple", there's a good bit of intellectual dishonesty going on in saying that. For scripture never says the Mother of Christ was a disciple explictly but it is seen plainly in her association with Christ, traveling with him, doing ministry and helping to provide for him. If it is not the case that Mary was not considered a non-disciple simply because it was not always attached to her name, it's equally off to assume Lazarus was not close to Christ when seeing where scripture repeatedly notes Jesus DEEPLY loved Lazarus - was grieved for his loss - and was noted by others to truly be one whom Christ loved much, as well as one who held fellowship with Christ in dinner....and in Eastern culture, hospitality and food are BIG DEAL
Culture makes a world of difference in how biographies are understood. Minus the fact that there were already ghost writers in the early Church (as others noted how Jude was seen as writing on behalf of Peter in II Peter and other similar events happened), the same dynamic has happened a lot in current times. Making a biography on the life and times of people in the South - with MLK, Ella Baker or other prominent authors either signing off on it after giving their views/collecting that of others OR having it attributed to them in honor of them after another collected their thoughts but they passed before it was completed - that's not a new reality.
) where someone made lyrics/music and it was attributed to another who proclaimed it on stage. It's no different with the Gospel of John - we already see plainly where even the Book of Revelation was debated by the Church Fathers and they were never in agreement as to John the Apostle writing it, with others attributing it to another John...just as they felt II Peter was attributed to Jude (as noted before here)....or just as others in the early Church felt that Thaddeus or Thaddaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3, KJV) believe that he actually penned the Book of Jude and used "Jude" as one of his surnames (as Thaddeus is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus - St. James the Less - as goes the tradition, more noted in CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle of Saint Jude and Thaddeus, Apostle of the Seventy - Beauty of the Saints - Ukrainian Orthodoxy).Having someone else record events while attributing it to someone else is not the same as not having a witness - for the facts are presented even though the authorship is disputed. John never claimed he was the author anyhow - but what was noted was that others would believe Christ - so to claim the witness he pointed to (which is the LIFE of CHrist) was not real because of a name attribution issue is a misapplication of scenarios. Others have believed the 4th Gospel even when they did not associate it with being written by the Apostle John - so the witness is still having power and changing people.
Not a problem if it doesn't make sense to you - although I see no need for why that is the case. And of course, I did not take it personal in any way. That's the nature of debate.
Gxg (G²);66542279 said:
On your theory, Lazarus would also have removed all mention of John from the book. That's hardly "using St. John's perspective when consulting," nor is it consistent with the book being "in honour of John."
In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
. Having removed all mention of John from a book is illogical when it comes to associating a work with another while being largely responsible for it - just as it is with John Mark being the author of the Gospel of Mark even though it was said that he himself was influenced by Peter. As already said, it would be foolish acting as if the Gospel of Mark could not have been seen as being written by St. John Mark due to those whom tradition ascribed them to be (as the Gospel of Mark was assumed to be written by St. Peter originally since Church fathers believe that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel - even though there was never any evidence of this and others in the Church felt John Mark was at best a disciple of Peter and presented his assessment as well as facts gathered from Peter...with John Mark being the young man who ran off naked as noted in Mark 14:51 and connected with his mother whose house the Apostles used in Acts 12:1-11, indicating there were ALWAYS more than the 12 keeping watch over events, more shared in Gospel of Mark and Is Mark?s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity).I am well aware of Matthew 27:55-56/John 19:25 and how one view is that John and Jesus were cousins (as I have argued that myself in the distant past here, for example and here too) - for no one questions whether Jesus and John were close. I have also noted where John and Peter would be close to Christ due to John and James being fishing partners with Peter (as noted in Luke 5 and Mark 1 and as I addressed in-depth here and here).
Gxg (G²);66511233 said:[*]Rethink: John was NOT the disciple whom Jesus loved.
...As said in one of the aforementioned link references (for brief excerpt):[/COLOR]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]And as another noted (for another brief reference):
So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father‑in‑law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. [John 18:12-14]The context for this is during the trial of Jesus. We see that Jesus was being followed by Peter, which everyone knows about, and our second mysterious disciple make another appearance. Peter would not have been able to gain access by himself, but rather it was the “other disciple” who was known to the High Priest and he was the one who got Peter in. If you read John 20 you will see that the “other disciple” is “the disciple whom Jesus loved:
And Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought in Peter. [John 18:15-16]
And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” [John 20:2]At this point we will build a case against the “beloved disciple” being John. When we contrast John 18 to Acts 4 I think we will see that this “other disciple” could not be John. Acts 4:1-23 tells us what happened to Peter and John following the healing of a crippled man. Peter and John were seized and brought before the “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas” in order to be questioned about this miracle.
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. [Acts 4:13]Here is where it gets interesting. Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognized. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood that these men had been with Jesus. The principal thing that we need to get out of this passage is that it was at that point that the high priest and the other rulers became acquainted with Peter and John for first time. But our text in John 18 tells us that the “other disciple” was known by the High Priest. This teaches us that the high priest did not know John [or Peter] before this incident. So the “other disciple” could not have been John! Furthermore, and building upon this, we see in John 20 that this “other disciple” was the first to believe after the resurrection:
So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. [John 20:8-9]This happened early on the first day of the week “the other disciple saw and believed” but later that day notice what Mark tells us:
And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. [Mark 16:14]When he is speaking of “eleven” he is speaking of the“twelve” minus Judas. These eleven did not believe but the “other disciple” had believed that morning. This fits really well because while we are told that “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” believed, Peter did not believe, but would believe a little later, as we see in Mark 16. The other disciple was clearly not one of the eleven and could not have been John, because John was counted among the eleven who were rebuked for not believing, while the disciple whom Jesus loved, Lazarus, had already believed!
(1) If John 18:15-18 is talking about an actual relationship with the high priest, then is it necessary to conclude that the chief priests would have known of the relationship as well, or even took part of it? Several commentaries I've read said that this trial in the passage is an informal one in the high priest's room, not necessarily with the chief priests present. Maybe the high priest wasn't aware of the plot to kill Lazarus. I don't know...my knowledge is limited on such questions and subjects of trials and the Sanhedrin.
The 2nd option seems more plausible to me:
(2) John 18 isn't talking about a relationship with Annas (or Caiaphas), but rather just stating that Annas knew who Lazarus was (of course! he was a celebrity). Perhaps he was let in as a witness to the things Jesus did, and since he was so close to Jesus throughout his ministry, he (Lazarus) could be questioned on the subject..
__________________
Gxg (G²);66542379 said:
Not according to logic (and please cease splicing what I've said OUTSIDE of the context I said things in plainly), as you already avoided where other epistles were attributed to others BESIDES those it was written in the name of (i.e. Jude seen as writing II Peter rather than Peter himself and the Book of Mark being written by John Mark from his perspective, even though Peter was potentially the one he was trained under). As I said, Lazarus writing the Book of John and noting it to be attributed to John would be directly in line with NT Practice since the same has occurred already - as is the case with with John Mark being the author of the Gospel of Mark even though his name was NEVER mentioned in the text and it was said that he himself was influenced by Peter. As already said, it would be foolish acting as if the Gospel of Mark could not have been seen as being written by St. John Mark due to those whom tradition ascribed them to be (as the Gospel of Mark was assumed to be written by St. Peter originally since Church fathers believe that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel - even though there was never any evidence of this and others in the Church felt John Mark was at best a disciple of Peter and presented his assessment as well as facts gathered from Peter...with John Mark being the young man who ran off naked as noted in Mark 14:51 and connected with his mother whose house the Apostles used in Acts 12:1-11, indicating there were ALWAYS more than the 12 keeping watch over events, more shared in Gospel of Mark and Is Mark?s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity).
Gxg (G²);66506157 said:
