Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John. Oh yes!

[Guide To The Bible]

The attached article shows why the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus (the disciple whom Jesus loved) for many reasons; Not least because the writer of the Gospel repeatedly refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved rather than as John. Here is a snip-it (but please read all of it before posting your rebuttals):

John 20:2
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."

Now if we compare 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.

Acts 4:13
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marvelling, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus.

Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognised, 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.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/john/disciple_jesus_loved.pdf

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The Greek root of "began to recognize" is 'epiginosko'. The sense that it is used in Acts 4:13 is the same as in Acts 3:10 -

And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

That is :

Epiginosko - 2:a: to recognize. i.e. by sight, hearing, or certain signs, to perceive who a person is; by attraction...
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

The same as the people did not need to 'suddenly understand' or 'become acquainted with' the man at the gate for the first time when they saw him healed, the High Priest and all who were gathered did not 'become acquainted with' John and Peter for the first time, but recognized who they were - they perceived (recognized) them as having been with Jesus, as it says.

As to the subject of the OP - I've read the theories of Lazarus being the author of John's gospel. It's quite interesting to see that side of the argument, but not convincing, imo.

 

[miamited]

The attached article shows why the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus (the disciple whom Jesus loved) for many reasons; Not least because the writer of the Gospel repeatedly refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved rather than as John. Here is a snip-it (but please read all of it before posting your rebuttals):

John 20:2
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."

Now if we compare 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.

Acts 4:13
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marvelling, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus.

Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognised, 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.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/john/disciple_jesus_loved.pdf

Hi GTTB,

In John 18 there is no indication that 'another disciple' is the disciple John. We are merely told that Peter and 'another disciple' went to the place of the high priest and that this 'other' disciple was known to the high priest. This 'other' disciple might well have been Judas who betrayed the Lord. He would have been known to the high priest and he was with the men who went out to arrest Jesus. As far as there being any definitive evidence that this 'other' disciple was John, I don't find any.

I merely put that out there as a possibility based on the evidence from the text. I'm not saying that it was Judas. There were still 12 disciples at this point. Peter and eleven others. Any one of the other eleven, as far as the evidence from the text, could have been this 'another disciple.'

As far as the evidence that would support that the text in Acts means to infer that these rulers and elders had only now come to recognize the men for who they were, I also agree that it isn't what the text would necessarily infer. It merely says that they took notice that these men had been with Jesus as a part of their decision process. They had been brought before this body of people in a sort of trial and judgment process for having been preaching to the people. They were being asked to judge whether they were preaching lies to the people and a part of their basis for decision was that they recognized that these men had been with Jesus.

So, I also am not convinced, based on this evidence, that Lazarus was the writer of John's gospel. Could have been, but such a claim can't be supported by this evidence.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Norbert L]

Interesting. I like new shiny things especially if they are of substance and worth. Doesn't mean I would necessarily buy it.

 

[DennisTate]

Interesting. I like new shiny things especially if they are of substance and worth. Doesn't mean I would necessarily buy it.

It is an intriguing theory......
I have to admit that Lazarus being dead for four days would mean that he might be able to write a book somewhat like My Descent Into Death by former Atheist Howard Storm Ph. D. that I read several years ago.

In my opinion, if Lazarus had written a gospel it would probably have been more like Colton Burpo wrote, but that is just my idea.

 

[Ken Rank]

The attached article shows why the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus (the disciple whom Jesus loved) for many reasons; Not least because the writer of the Gospel repeatedly refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved rather than as John. Here is a snip-it (but please read all of it before posting your rebuttals):

John 20:2
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."

Now if we compare 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.

Acts 4:13
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marvelling, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus.

Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognised, 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.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/john/disciple_jesus_loved.pdf

I can tell you this, whoever wrote it (and since there is more than one "John" I think "John" is still a good call here).... the evidence weighs on it being written in Aramaic and to the Qumran community. No, I don't have an Aramaic primacy.... but the first chapter is very telling. I won't be around most of the day and I am leaving tomorrow to MC a conference. But I will try to come back to this thread. Anyone want to take a shot as to why this might have been written to the Qumran community?

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The attached article shows why the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus (the disciple whom Jesus loved) for many reasons; Not least because the writer of the Gospel repeatedly refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved rather than as John. Here is a snip-it (but please read all of it before posting your rebuttals):

John 20:2
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."

Now if we compare 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.

Acts 4:13
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marvelling, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus.

Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognised, 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.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/john/disciple_jesus_loved.pdf

1. Possible to help deny but obviously not exclusive of Lazarus. I would think a person perhaps among many (70 is considered) "unnamed" disciples would have gotten the same name recognition all 12 of the well-known disciples and several other named disciples (including his sisters) did during His ministry if in fact he was to be counted an disciple. His sisters are both named with and doing disciple work and Lazarus is not so name once doing so or called a disciple. Only traditions of the Church name and give further account of Lazarus being a disciple. Being raised from that death being the only NT "claim to fame" that makes his name known both then and now, as we know nothing from the NT of any mission about a disciple with this name later. The same traditions that attest to Saint John's association with and unique expression/perspective in the "Gospel of Love" is based in part with even more traditions attesting to that Apostle being with he Mother of God the rest of her life. Of necessity those traditions arise decades before the last of Gospels written could be composed. We have zero tradition that relationship was actually with Lazarus. The authors idea of "testing" new ideas would apparently be to totally ignore tradition when the vast bulk of it is inconvenient to the "new idea", but demand absolute credence of it when some small aspect might suit his presentation if woven correctly into the script.
   
2. These thoughts actually excludes Lazarus from consideration. All Apostles had to hide after God's arrest because a lot people would recognize them and their hostilities would have fell on them. They risked death or worse being seen. There is only one of the disciples belonging to that group of disciples who is both well know to us now by name and whose name is reoccurring throughout the Apostlic age, both in Scripture and from without, that would have obvious reason to be able to move freely about that night and the nights that followed because of his youth. Lazarus was never said to be a young man and tradition does not support that he was as it does the Apostle. Saint John was very young comparatively and that evident from his having lived to a natural death over most of the century marking the end of the Apostolic age - which naturally people would want to mark/recall. Even if a few recognized Saint John (like a High Priest) his youth itself would offer him more freedom to move about than an older man could without significantly much and far greater risk. Likewise age explaining the reason it is accepted he was the "yute" able to be present at the Cross without being harassed by anyone along side the grieving Mother of the Church. Lazarus then would have the same problem all the others did if he was even in town at all. Even the author emphasizes his fame (and so his face) would make him better known if he was seen there (without need to mention a high priest). To just claim Lazarus can be said to be unharassed not just in public at His trial but also near the foot of Cross being the disciple given Mary as his Mother defies both logic given the hostilities of the crowds and this clearly the depiction we see given of ALL of the Apostles or other disciples, even after Jesus left them and up until the Pentecost - they are all hiding from public view or attempting to, even Perter hung in the shadows. To make such a claim without explaining how that is possible for Lazarus is incredulous, even if one were willing to accept there is no support of this view of him either being there as said from tradition. There are ancient Churches built at least in part on the tradition of the relationship of Mary with the Apostle. Such an assumed false claim to his authorship would not result
   
3. This is rather damning to the theory as well, but perhaps not an excluding. By stark contrast, even if we grant Lazarus was a disciple (and that not even clear from Scripture) absent tradition we know little more than Jesus raised him from a grave and his sisters were followers/disciples. We know far more about men like Mattias and Barnabas from the NT, who by contrast to the author's lament about Lazarus fame would be much less universally known/popular, yet we know stuff about them and nothing about more Lazarus. What more we do know about him comes from tradition, none of which supports he was the "beloved disciple" or in any way associated with the Mother of God. If we did the author would have cited it as he was more than happy to give a single and critical point from tradition (if that point was even valid or accurate) because he obviously felt that detail stood his "test" of this new idea. But we get nothing else.

Then we have the author weaving a story that is not even as tightly pieced together much less as well written as a good X-file conspiracy theme. He begins with an appeal to and need for the reader accept from tradition that the Church made up as myth of Saint John's authorship supposed to stop Gnostics from co-opting and presumably thereby corrupting that Gospel that the author wishes the reader to believe that people by that point (which means tradition too) had forgotten who wrote the Gospel. Ironic openning in that it is a singular and consistent theme from tradition that had to start before the Gospel was written due to the obvious association with the Mother of God who equally or better has attention tradition than Saint John, including that relationship. Where as the most we know about Lazarus comes from tradition, not Scripture and none of it associates him with either the Gospel or Mary. Any way I read more and have notes, but this is long enough already.

 

[prodromos]

Since church history records that Mary did indeed accompany the Apostle John to Ephesus, it would seem to confirm that John was indeed the disciple who Jesus loved.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Since church history records that Mary did indeed accompany the Apostle John to Ephesus, it would seem to confirm that John was indeed the disciple who Jesus loved.

absolutely spot on.

Which if the author is going to have the gall to open and base the validity of his claim on some alleged view from tradition being valid, his appeal to tradition demands that tiny view of it be valid or his story doesn't even get off the ground. Off the ground then he to explain why all the rest of the weight of tradition does not bring his shaky kite immediately crashing down in flames.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Philip_B]

The story of the Black Swan is important.

The late 1st Century Roman Poet Juvenal is generally credited with the earliest written reference to the Black Swan and like so much of his work it was satirical.

He characterised something as being ”a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan” by which he pretty much meant what we might mean when we say it was “as scarce as hens teeth”. As far as we know hens do not have teeth and as far as the non-Australian parts of the world at his time knew there was no such thing as a Black Swan. It is not the only saying of Juvenal we remember. “Who guards the guardians” is another one of his. The phrase Black Swan passed into European use and used to describe things that did not exist.

European scientists also went about establishing the credentials of a swan and were able to determine ‘scientifically’ that all swans were white.

When the dutch sea captain Willem de Vlamingh sailed up a river on the west coast of Australia, which he would name the Swan River, on the 10th of January 1697 he encountered the improbable, indeed to his mind, the impossible.

Of course, today, we know that there are Black Swans and it is easy for us miss the importance of this. The Aboriginal People of Australia always knew about Black Swans. The problem is when that which you know is true is radically overturned it is confronting and disturbing, possibly also an opportunity to grow, but it is quite unsettling.

So, whilst I think that the article opens a possibility in terms of the authorship of 4G, it is far from compelling. The wide acceptance of the Gospel in the second century (the 100's) is testament to it being accepted as genuine, and the associated apostolic authorship understood in tradition needs to be given due weight. If it was possibly the work of Lazarus whom Jesus called out from the grave I believe that would have been carried in the tradition and would have been sufficient for the work to be valued.

There is some speculation that 4G was originally penned in Aramaic, however it is more likely that it was written in Greek by someone who also spoke/thought Aramaic.

At this stage in the life of the Church I believe far more important that the authorship of the fourth gospel is the message pf the fourth gospel.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Lararus had already died before, so people...the disciples would
not have spoken as to him tarrying and not dying before the Lord
Jesus Christ returns.

I get the point, but nothing in Scripture tells us Lazarus is dead at that point. The last we know absolutely from the NT is learning Lazarus shared a meal with Jesus just days before Jesus death at the household Lazarus apparently shared with his sisters. After that, unless one believes this author's theory scripture is absolutely silent on Lazarus. Tradition is not silent, but Scripture is.

The author makes a single appeal to tradition to actually help him discredit the rest of tradition. Does so by letting his appeal to tradition () suggest we be "open" to the "testing" the new very modern idea that Lazarus wrote the 4th Gospel instead of an Apostle. Claims tradition shows the Church had reason to falsify the alledgedly "unknown" writer as being Saint John's work. Why anyone would think that having a disciple write it instead of an Apostle helps to "rescue" the Gospels from Gnostics is left to the imagination, but seems he thinks people would buy that appeal to and twist on tradition to help us "open" our minds. Tradition is far from silent on who wrote the Gospel, and this the author totally ignores.

Anyway, to your point, yes Lazarus died but Jesus then raised him. Traditions about famous people from the NT get muddled over time sometimes, but are in agreement about him being very active in spreading the Good News and Church ministry with a death (either natural or losing his head) around the middle of the century, long after the events in at the end of the 4th Gospel. Never mind all the tradition around Saint John being the author and about Saint and him (not Lazarus and the Mother of God), Lazarus death places a rather good hurdle to clear for his being around long enough for when the 4th Gospel is said to have been written (near the end of the century).

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

John 11 is where the story of Lazarus is as to he is dead. It is much later that we find this...
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

Lazarus had already died once. It would seem odd to try to place him much later as the disciple whom Jesus loved that others thought was not going to die.

John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?

John 12:9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

John 12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Lazarus is never mentioned as a disciple and it would be odd to speak of a person that had already died once before as if he tarry till I come.

We are in agreement, Saint John is the beloved disciple. I do agree with you that him dying once already would not appear to be someone who is going to hang around for a while. The author does not address that, and even traditions about Lazarus do not seem to allow him hanging around long enough to write this Gospel.

And yes, ONLY tradition calls Lazarus a disciple and records events from a ministry lasting to around mid-century. If we went with Scripture only his sisters have better claim of being disciples than he does. The OP's author had to assume that because Jesus essentially said he loved that whole family, that any mention of a beloved disciple after that had to be talking about Lazarus. But that logic is flawed as we know He often told whole groups of disciples that He loved them, groups that had to also include names we are very familiar with. So it cannot be said Jesus never told Saint John He loved Him, as He is shown saying that to disciples and certainly including His Apostles a lot.

Whether the stories are to believed or not, tradition also records Lazarus was able to evade the attempts on his life - which carries on with and supports the theme of John 12:10. What tradition NEVER records, which was also part of my point against the OP theory, is Lazarus having anything to do with Saint Mary or writing the 4th Gospel and that is IMO a death blow to the theory, in addition to all the Scripture support you have correctly given and the things I mentioned from Scripture.

Recall also that John records 3 different Passovers during the ministry of Jesus. The last one mentioned, starting in John 11 with the meal shared with Lazarus said to occur six days before Passover is the last and also the Passover that Jesus dies on before the end of the Gospel. So everything from the meal in John 12 to John 20 in real time occurs in a little over a week's time. But we are in agreement the author takes many leaps and liberties attempting to "prove" the OP's stated theory.

Why it is so important to the OP that Lazarus be the writer and not Saint John we can only guess - I have my opinions from other discussions with the OP. It is rather ironic/funny to me why the author thinks we would give up the opinions of scholars on the matter and "become" Bereans given the very poorly written and woven together conspiracy theory presented. The article would not be convincing to anyone familiar with Scripture as yourself and certainly not anyone also familiar with Church history or tradition.