There were many secretaries at work under Peter and Paul and John...

Gxg (G²) said:

Expecting Lazarus to mention John's name is no more logical than expecting a Ghost-Writer to mention the name of themselves when they write a book for another - and as said before, you cannot claim otherwise logically while avoiding where this was a present reality in the early Church. As I said before, this has been addressed before when it came to Church History - as seen with the Book of Jude. Specifically, Jude was seen as writing on behalf of Peter in II Peter....AS others in the early Church 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). 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. Even others such as rap artist 50 Cent was noted to have written a biography - but it was written BY another person in truth. , with his approval after narration. The same dynamic has occurred even with music. And as another noted, "see all those celebrity autobiographies — the memoirs of actors, athletes and politicians? Chances are, they're the work of a ghostwriter." There was even a recent movie on the matter called "Let It Shine" (with Tyler James Williams ) 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

• Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite - L. Michael White - Google Books

No one finds it a matter of trying to "usurp" because of John Mark writing the Book of Mark (even though others feel Peter was the one John Mark relied on) or Jude possibly writing II Peter (without ANY mention of Jude in II Peter) and thus, there's no reason finding it odd for Lazarus to have written the 4th Gospel.....unless, of course, one is already determined to not even consider Lazarus simply because of what they are used to believing and thus applying selectively rather than across the wall with all categories.

With John not being mentioned by name, if having an assumption that Lazarus was trying to wipe out John, one would first HAVE to prove that writing a text on behalf of another meant that one had to mention the name of that person in a text - and that was far from the rule in those times. Someone writing an eye-witness of events (as another saw them largely) does not need to mention the name of that person since the assumption is that the events are true and the person it is attritbuted to approves - so if Lazarus wrote an entire text with John's name later ascribed to it, it doesn't mean Lazarus did not appreciate John nor does it mean that Lazarus would have offended John - especially considering that what mattered was the account itself.

Of course, it makes more sense that Lazarus wrote the account of John and left out key events due to the fact that he was not present for them - for there's no account of His transfiguration (Matthew 17, Luke 9:28-34), but as Lazarus would not have been there for that as would Peter/James and John, it's logical that was not brought up.

Gxg (G²) said:

I don't see where Cleophas in Luke 24 was mentioned in the other Gospels besides that account - but that doesn't take away from his importance. The same goes for others present in one text that were not present in another book. If we go into it assuming there was some kind of golden rule for how many times someone HAS to be mentioned in order to show relationship, we can end up missing the ways letters/writings were written organically and not with the same emphasis at all points.

On the issue, some good presentations that may aid on the subject:

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually author the gospel accounts? - YouTube

Does the Gospel of John hold any historical value? - YouTube

11. Johannine Christianity: The Gospel - YouTube

12. Johannine Christianity: The Letters - YouTube
http://full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2011/04/kontakion-on-raising-of-lazarus-by-st.html

​

Gxg (G²) said:

There are a lot of good reasons to assume such, IMHO..

• Did John write the Fourth Gospel? - Theological Perspectives
• Rethink:Who was the disciple whom Jesus Loved? Part I ..
• Rethink: John was NOT the disciple whom Jesus loved.

For in John 11 we have three references to Christ love for specifically named individuals - and all three references can be seen in connection with the death of Lazarus as well as Christ raising him from the dead.

John 11:5: Jesus loved Martha and her sister (Mary) and Lazarus.

John 11:3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love (Lazarus) is sick."

John 11:36: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him (Lazarus)!"


​

As said in one of the aforementioned link references (for brief excerpt):

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]
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]
​

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 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!



​

And as another noted (for another brief reference):

(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, and maybe even put on trial himself. If Lazarus is the author of John, we know of his extreme loyalty, boldness, and braveness. He probably wouldn't have thought twice about getting into the high priest's room to 'back up' Jesus despite the threat it posed on his own person.

​

​

__________________

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...