St. Lazarus the "One Whom Jesus Loved" - Possible He Wrote the 4th Gospel?

[YoureMyBeloved]

In regards to the bold, I asked for any historic reference that disputed the authorship of John. I see none is forthcoming. Distressing... And it DOES deal with the OP, unless you don't really want anyone to address the idea that it's possible that Lazarus did NOT write the fourth Gospel.

I've read somewhere that Papias said the John who wrote the fourth gospel was a "John The Elder" and people think he isn't the Apostle; besides it seems Papias confirmed he was martyred and killed along his brother James...but I read that this information was in a book and it wasn't found in any report from Papias...if I'm wrong please correct me.
I avoid reading books about this subjects because each author has their own way of seeing things and their sources are wrong sometimes. And some of them change their opinions.

If Lazurus wrote the Gospel of John, he also wrote the Epistles of John.

They were all written by the same person, whoever that might have been.

Maybe it was Mary.

Maybe...if she had a clone.

"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

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I've read somewhere that Papias said the John who wrote the fourth gospel was a "John The Elder" and people think he isn't the Apostle; besides it seems Papias confirmed he was martyred and killed along his brother James...but I read that this information was in a book and it wasn't found in any report from Papias...if I'm wrong please correct me.
I avoid reading books about this subjects because each author has their own way of seeing things and their sources are wrong sometimes. And some of them change their opinions sometimes.

I looked at some of the same last night from other resources as well as the links posted in this thread. Most evidence from ECF's support the Apostle John. Some of the links here appear to be fairly recent and inconsistencies weren't received very well. The only issue (that I fully admit) is that in the Gospel and the Epistles, John does not identify himself by name.

Also, to me, there is a difference between Lazarus being identified as "the one whom Jesus loved", and John being identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved." Why would the author make this distinction if they were one and the same? My thoughts are that the author would want to be consistent to confirm he was the one writing.

 

[Strong in Him]

That would go back to the reality of co-authorship and the reality that many of the authors of scripture would not have been able to know about certain conversations - if assuming they always had to be present in order to have knowledge. As said earlier, some of the events could not have been seen point-for-point by the Apostles since they were elsewhere. Consider how Jesus took a couple apostles and went off to pray some distance from them where they could not hear (Matthew 26:39 and Mark 14:32)...and then they fell asleep and then Jesus went off by himself and prayed the "Let this cup pass" prayer. And he returned to find them sleeping and rebuked them for not staying awqake with him, which led to him being shortly thereafter arrested. If the apostles were sleeping, how do we know what Jesus prayed? As said elsewhere, When reading Matthew 17 (when Christ was transfigured and only took John, James and Peter with him - warning them to not tell others), I had heard of others saying that there's no way to have eye-witness accounts if someone was not there for the entire lifetime of a person.

But again, no one of the apostles was there for all events occurring - thus there's a level of realizing that all apostles had events relayed to them by Christ, which still opens up the reality of others being central in the life of Christ (like Lazarus) who could have helped to narrate events at certain parts just like others did.

Yeah I know. It's possible.
But Scripture doesn't say that Lazarus was either at the Last Supper or on the beach after the resurrection, whereas the disciple that Jesus loved, was.

I feel it's largely speculation and trying to make a case from something we are not told.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

I looked at some of the same last night from other resources as well as the links posted in this thread. Most evidence from ECF's support the Apostle John. Some of the links here appear to be fairly recent and inconsistencies weren't received very well. The only issue (that I fully admit) is that in the Gospel and the Epistles, John does not identify himself by name.

Also, to me, there is a difference between Lazarus being identified as "the one whom Jesus loved", and John being identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved." Why would the author make this distinction if they were one and the same? My thoughts are that the author would want to be consistent to confirm he was the one writing.

Yes, too much information, we cannot be sure what's true or not.

I feel this difference too, I read that even the words in greek were different.
Now I don't know if someone thought about this, but I noticed this:

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" John 13:23

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” John 21:20

These are the only passages in which the author shows the disciple is the one who leaned back against him. Why this necessity? Could it be there were more than one beloved disciple?

That would go back to the reality of co-authorship and the reality that many of the authors of scripture would not have been able to know about certain conversations - if assuming they always had to be present in order to have knowledge. As said earlier, some of the events could not have been seen point-for-point by the Apostles since they were elsewhere. Consider how Jesus took a couple apostles and went off to pray some distance from them where they could not hear (Matthew 26:39 and Mark 14:32)...and then they fell asleep and then Jesus went off by himself and prayed the "Let this cup pass" prayer. And he returned to find them sleeping and rebuked them for not staying awqake with him, which led to him being shortly thereafter arrested. If the apostles were sleeping, how do we know what Jesus prayed? As said elsewhere, When reading Matthew 17 (when Christ was transfigured and only took John, James and Peter with him - warning them to not tell others), I had heard of others saying that there's no way to have eye-witness accounts if someone was not there for the entire lifetime of a person.

But again, no one of the apostles was there for all events occurring - thus there's a level of realizing that all apostles had events relayed to them by Christ, which still opens up the reality of others being central in the life of Christ (like Lazarus) who could have helped to narrate events at certain parts just like others did.

Well in fact the Gospel of John hasn't this passage...neither Judas kiss.

But yes I think I get what you're saying...if only three were at this events so how would the others know? Well I guess they said them...Jesus warned them not to tell anyone what they had seen until after His resurrection.

 

[elliott95]

......


Maybe...if she had a clone.

"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

There were many disciples of Jesus in the gospels name Mary, including his mom.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

There were many disciples of Jesus in the gospels name Mary, including his mom.

Yes, but when someone talks about a Mary concerning this subject, usually is Magadalene

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryDay

I looked at some of the same last night from other resources as well as the links posted in this thread. Most evidence from ECF's support the Apostle John. Some of the links here appear to be fairly recent and inconsistencies weren't received very well. The only issue (that I fully admit) is that in the Gospel and the Epistles, John does not identify himself by name.

Also, to me, there is a difference between Lazarus being identified as "the one whom Jesus loved", and John being identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved." Why would the author make this distinction if they were one and the same? My thoughts are that the author would want to be consistent to confirm he was the one writing.
​

Originally Posted by YoureMyBeloved

Yes, too much information, we cannot be sure what's true or not.

I feel this difference too, I read that even the words in greek were different.
Now I don't know if someone thought about this, but I noticed this:

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" John 13:23

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” John 21:20

These are the only passages in which the author shows the disciple is the one who leaned back against him. Why this necessity? Could it be there were more than one beloved disciple?
.....................................[/QUOTE/]The greek texst are virtually identical in those to verse...IMHO
​

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus

John 13:23
hn de anakeimenoV eiV twn maqhtwn autou en tw kolpw tou ihsou on hgapa o ihsouV

John 21:20
pistrafeiV de o petroV blepei ton maqhthn on hgapa o ihsouV akolouqounta oV kai anepesen en tw deipnw epi to sthqoV autou kai eipen kurie tiV estin o paradidouV se



.

 

[elliott95]

Yes, but when someone talks about a Mary concerning this subject, usually is Magadalene

That would be so Dan Brown of me to go there.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah I know. It's possible.
But Scripture doesn't say that Lazarus was either at the Last Supper or on the beach after the resurrection, whereas the disciple that Jesus loved, was.

I feel it's largely speculation and trying to make a case from something we are not told.

That's the case, however, that goes for all - for scripture doesn't say explictly that women and servants weren't present for the Last Supper either and yet we understand where that was common practice in Jewish culture (with women preparing meals), plus we already see where the disciples were pointed to another disciple in the city who already help with making preparations (Luke 19:29-34 ) - as they were using HIS house (servants, rooms and all) to host the Passover event. And women were the ones who made meals then. And the women were disicples who supported Christ out of their means/funded the entire mission - in addition to the fact that it never says that other disciples were not present besides the 12. Thus, it'd be inferring more beyond what the text calls for. There's no way to really say Lazarus was not present anymore than one could say other household servants weren't present in the building.

Moreover, we still have the issue to contend with as it concerns how it's physically impossible (if limiting all events to the 12) to say that the apostles were present for all events - some are impossible to see. No one - if it was solely the 12 present - could be able to see what happened to Judas and the EXACT conversations he had when he got up to betray Jesus:

Matthew 26:14-16

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”



Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus
14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. 16 From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

The Last Supper
17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”

22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely you don’t mean me, Lord?”

23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”​

As the disciples did not even know it was Judas' intent to get up and betray Jesus and they did not follow him, it's logical to note that someone else was following - the prescence of others beyond Jesus or the 12 is very real. And going back to Lazarus, when the Lord spoke during the Last Supper, it was said of the one who would betray Him that "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mark 14:20).

Logically, this would be HIGHLY odd of a response if only the twelve apostles were present - as it would be redundant. For Christ to make such a distinction suggests there must have been others in the room - but if there were only the twelve there, why would He distinguish the betrayer as one of the Twelve? With Lazarus, it makes sense to be open to the possibility of him being present since the Book of John already sets precedence for him being present alongside other disciples with the 12 in communal dinners - as at supper just prior to the Last Supper (at the event where Mary anoints Christ, Judas calls it out and is rebuked - with Judas then deciding to go betray Jesus - John 12-13), we see where Lazarus is noted as being "one of them that sat at the table with him"

I appreciate the ways that another pointed it out best - as seen in the following (for brief excerpt):

It is somewhat awkward that right after this Last Supper, just when the Lord was disclosing unto them that "the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table", that then the Apostles should be discussing "which of them should be accounted the greatest" (LUKE 22:24). An interesting explanation is offered by C. F. Burney in his book entitled The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, page 144. Although he believes that the mystery guest "leaning on Jesus' bosom...whom Jesus loved" was a John different than the Apostle, the reading is still most enlightening. Read it here (I took the liberty of translating the Greek into English, and my comments are in red).

hen, after Yeshua's capture in the Garden of Gethsemane, Mark's Gospel mentions "a certain young man" following them (MARK 14:51). His name is not given, but that he was not one of the Twelve seems likely. The Companion Bible gives the following note concerning him.

That this might be Lazarus, is probable: (1) because the Lord had returned to Bethany each preceding night of that week; (2) because Lazarus would be looking out; (3) because of the linen robe, betokening his social position; (4) and especially because he was wanted: "The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death" (John 12:10). None of the apostles were arrested. Peter (though suspected) and another (John 18:15) were unmolested; (5) his name is not given here by Divine guidance, because Lazarus was probably still alive and therefore in danger.​

​

How could Lazarus be at the last supper? Surely only the 12 were there with Jesus...

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
passover with my disciples with/towards you.
19 And the disciples did as Jesus ordered them, and they got things ready for the passover.
20 When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the 12 disciples (Matthew 26).

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.

But who was this guy So-and-so and why is he given this non descript designation? Well, in John 12 we read that...

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.
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).

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...

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.
10 The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also,
11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going there and putting faith in Jesus (John 12).


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.

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.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well in fact the Gospel of John hasn't this passage...neither Judas kiss.

But yes I think I get what you're saying...if only three were at this events so how would the others know? Well I guess they said them...Jesus warned them not to tell anyone what they had seen until after His resurrection.

Specifically, as it concerns the Garden when Jesus prayed (and the other disciples were sound asleep while Jesus was not within hearing distance of them), there is really no way for John, James and Peter to know exactly what Jesus said - or know what actually happened, as is the case in Luke 22 when it notes his sweat became like blood and an angel had to come/stregthen him as he repeatedly prayed. The Matthew 17 account deals with the Transfiguration and the 3 disciples were present but sworn to silence till after Christ rose - but many other events besides that, NO ONE ELSE could have been present to record it.....unless there was really a third party watching it all from a distance.

I've read somewhere that Papias said the John who wrote the fourth gospel was a "John The Elder" and people think he isn't the Apostle; besides it seems Papias confirmed he was martyred and killed along his brother James...but I read that this information was in a book and it wasn't found in any report from Papias...i

To be specific, as said elsewhere, We already have it where early church historian Eusebius said that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, with the Gospel assigned to the Apostle and the Book of Revelation to the presbyter (more noted in CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius) and NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library). Additionally, we have it where we can see how Irenaeus's witness is based on Papias represention of the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is said to have resided (more in CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.11 (St. Irenaeus)) - as 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.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's the case, however, that goes for all - for scripture doesn't say explictly that women and servants weren't present for the Last Supper either and yet we understand where that was common practice in Jewish culture (with women preparing meals), plus we already see where the disciples were pointed to another disciple in the city who already help with making preparations (Luke 19:29-34 ) - as they were using HIS house (servants, rooms and all) to host the Passover event. And women were the ones who made meals then. And the women were disicples who supported Christ out of their means/funded the entire mission - in addition to the fact that it never says that other disciples were not present besides the 12

Yes - so the only people we can say for certain were at the Last Supper are Jesus and the 12. Anyone else is "maybe", "not unlikely", "it seems possible that .....".
Matthew tells us that Jesus told a man "I am going to celebrate the Passover today, with my disciples, at your house." He doesn't tell us that this homeowner was there also, to wait on them. In fact both Matthew and Mark make it clear that it was the disciples who were making all the Passover preparations.

It reads to me as though Jesus and the 12 were alone for that meal, and that would make sense. Jesus was facing the cross; it is entirely reasonable that he wanted some peace and the company of his friends. According to John, he washed their feet immediately after the meal - he still had things to teach them. We don't know that this was the case and there was no one else there, Scripture doesn't say. But neither does it say that there were a crowd of people in the background.

After the resurrection a group of disciples went fishing, and later, Peter saw "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and asked Jesus about his future. Again, we don't know that Lazarus was there; we know that John was, but don't know the names of two of the others. We can guess and say that it seems possible, but we don't know.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes - so the only people we can say for certain were at the Last Supper are Jesus and the 12. Anyone else is "maybe", "not unlikely", "it seems possible that .....".
Matthew tells us that Jesus told a man "I am going to celebrate the Passover today, with my disciples, at your house." He doesn't tell us that this homeowner was there also, to wait on them. In fact both Matthew and Mark make it clear that it was the disciples who were making all the Passover preparations.

It reads to me as though Jesus and the 12 were alone for that meal, and that would make sense. Jesus was facing the cross; it is entirely reasonable that he wanted some peace and the company of his friends. According to John, he washed their feet immediately after the meal - he still had things to teach them. We don't know that this was the case and there was no one else there, Scripture doesn't say. But neither does it say that there were a crowd of people in the background.
.

Nonetheless, that still would not go fully with the text when it comes to the fact that the Disiciples making preparations was never seen as the disciples doing the work that was given to women. Contacting others is as far as it would go - but society was fairly structured with roles done only by certain groups. Homeowners did not leave homes when they allowed others to use them for celebration purposes - nor were servants who maintained the home and were present at ALL times in the event of emergencies ever absent. That goes to the matter of reading the text within the timeframe it occurred in. Not having a crowd of people present in background isn't the same as saying no one else was present as normal conditions occurred.

This is what the text says on preparations:

Matthew 26:17-23
17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”

Luke 22:7-14
The Last Supper
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.

10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.”


Mark 14:11-19
The Last Supper
12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”

16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.
​

They talked to the man who owned the house - who kept it furnished. The preparations beyond that were not about keeping the house in order or all others out of it. That's as far as preparations would go. If something went wrong, you always had servants on stand-by to ensure things went smoothly - that was simply part of how things went since Jesus and Co (as well as any other party that would come at any time of the year) were guests - not the owner. Although the owner of the house in which was the upper room of the Last Supper is not mentioned in Scripture, we know he must have been one of the disciples, since Christ told Peter and John to say, "The Master says",,,and some say it was Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the mother of John Mark. Regardless, we know the Master was on Deck...

• Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder? – Biblical Archaeology Society

• Who Was the Mysterious Owner of the Upper Room for the Last Supper? - Orthodox Christianity

And going back to Lazarus, when the Lord spoke during the Last Supper, it was said of the one who would betray Him that "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mark 14:20).

Logically, this would be HIGHLY odd of a response if only the twelve apostles were present - as it would be redundant. For Christ to make such a distinction suggests there must have been others in the room - but if there were only the twelve there, why would He distinguish the betrayer as one of the Twelve? With Lazarus, it makes sense to be open to the possibility of him being present since the Book of John already sets precedence for him being present alongside other disciples with the 12 in communal dinners - as at supper just prior to the Last Supper (at the event where Mary anoints Christ, Judas calls it out and is rebuked - with Judas then deciding to go betray Jesus - John 12-13), we see where Lazarus is noted as being "one of them that sat at the table with him"

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't know ... it's quite a bit of supposition.

Did every home have servants, for example? Did Joseph an Mary have servants?

And we're applying a present-day understanding onto a Biblical conversation from 2000 years ago.

In fact, I CAN imagine a case in which it might make sense to use the exact construct Jesus used, even in the absence of others.

Imagine a boardroom with only the upper executives present. There has been company betrayal. The president of the board has found out who the culprit is. And he says, "It is one of my own board members, the one sitting in that chair at the end." He is emphasizing in this case that the betrayal came from one of the ones closest to him, one of the ones least expected.

Now, my statement isn't "proof" and I don't mean to suggest that it is. I'm only saying that it's very tenuous to build too much on the fact that Jesus said "one of the twelve" and then going on from there and building other assumptions on top of it. This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that may be an entertaining distraction, and might even lead to truth, but is far from concrete enough for me to base beliefs upon.

I can't help but return, more than anything, to the early Church's apparent attaching of John's name to the Gospel, and that seems the most direct statement. If you were arguing for a different John that might even make more sense, but ... why call it "The Gospel according to John" if they knew it was written by Lazarus?

I can't make sense of that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Did every home have servants, for example? Did Joseph an Mary have servants?

And we're applying a present-day understanding onto a Biblical conversation from 2000 years ago.

Before asking "Did every home have servants?", one has to first know what kind of homes were able to have servants - and they have to deal with the culture as it is when it came to that reality, as opposed to being closed off BEFORE even dealing with the information.
We already know the home had servants since the disciples were asked to follow one of them - who would take them to a house which had the OWNER present whom they were to speak to. This is seen in Luke 22:7-14 when it says “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’. The man carrying water was a servant, who took them to the owner of the house they were to speak to.

Avoiding that would be Begging the Question where the conclusion is already done before investigation. Saying a household removing all present just so others in a select group could celebrate is essentially placing a 21st century perspective onto the text of 2,000 yrs since Jewish families WERE NEVER opposed to having large gatherings when it came to communal culture. We have to deal with knowing Jewish culture, as were Jesus and the 12 disciples - they would all have celebrated the Passover together. And Jesus would not have excluded family from celebrating with them just as other Jewish families didn't - even though there were other members more prominent who were in the picture. Such a thing would have been unlawful.

One can bring up Joseph and Mary - but the fact is that as they were family, they too would have been PRESENT with Jesus even without servants - just as it would be with the Last Supper. Not mentioning Mary does not mean she wasn't there since families celebrated together - and the text simply notes the main issue of Jesus speaking to the 12. Highlighting others in an important point never means that no others were present - for again, excluding the Mother of Christ from an intimate event would not be fathomable for CHrist.

And in light of that, we also have to remember what it took in order to rent out a home - as a Jewish person - to other people even as you're preparing to celebrate Passover with your family. Those with little to offer did not have many rooms in their homes - but those well-off did and could afford to do so. This is not the same as Mary and Joseph, who were impoverished...although a lot of things in our visual imagery are not accurate since Joseph and Mary were not necessarily poor - even as far back as the Nativity scene (which is something not reflected well in the Early Church since it was not in a BARN that Jesus was born despite the tradition), as said before:

Though it was written by a Presbyterian minister, I am wondering if it draws from Orthodox sources:

Amazon.com: Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (9780830825684): Kenneth E. Bailey: Books

Joseph had royal blood/had relatives that would have taken care of them in his hometown (as it'd be dishonorable for relatives to turn away blood/family at crucial times and hospitality is key). Moreover, as Baily shared, Middle/Near-Eastern culture is radically different than what others often think and hygiene has to be seen from their perspective of what was actually done. There were not a concept of "barns" where all the animals stayed seperate from the people in all contexts (more shared here in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels - Page 31 )

​

In peasant homes of the time, mangers were located in the main part of the house. As Kenneth Bailey points out, “Each night into that designated area, the family cow, donkey and a few sheep would be driven. And every morning those same animals were taken out and tied up in the courtyard of the house. The animal stall would then be cleaned for the day”. The animals are put in the house because, “they provide heat in winter and are safe from theft”.

The Bible even reveals this practice of keeping animals in the house:

• 1 Samuel 28:24 (ESV) — 24 Now the woman had a fattened calf in the house, and she quickly killed it, and she took flour and kneaded it and baked unleavened bread of it,

• Judges 11:31 (ESV) — 31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” Jephthah assumed it would be one of his animals not his daughter.

• Luke 13:15 (ESV) — 15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? As stated earlier, the animals are taken out of the house (untied) every morning and led out of the house – even on the Sabbath. Interestingly, the phrase used by Luke 13:12, “you are freed” literally means “untied”.And the earliest Arabic version of the NT from the 9th century translates Luke 13:15 as, “does not every one of you untie his ox or his donkey from the manger in the house and take it outside and water it?”


​

It would not have been odd for Joseph and Mary to be in the same room as many of the animals since that was common during that time. Of course, in two story homes, there could be rooms above where the animals were so as to add heat to the rooms were....but to be amongst the other animals in the same room would not have been odd. ...

• The Manger and the Inn
• Away in a Manger, But Not a Barn - Bible Study Magazine
• The Nativity According to Luke - Biblical Archaeology Review

That said, I definately think that "Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes" is a GREAT read

Just a thought...approaching the text thinking Christ was a beggar with NO friends of wealth/influence tends to make of think in terms of "less" rather than more. Houses were nothing to play with in the early Church - more shared in The Eucharistic Liturgy in Ancient House Churches ? On Behalf of All

The president of the board has found out who the culprit is. And he says, "It is one of my own board members, the one sitting in that chair at the end." He is emphasizing in this case that the betrayal came from one of the ones closest to him, one of the ones least expected.

Now, my statement isn't "proof" and I don't mean to suggest that it is. I'm only saying that it's very tenuous to build too much on the fact that Jesus said "one of the twelve" and then going on from there and building other assumptions on top of it. This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that may be an entertaining distraction

No offense - but there is the reality of looking past the obvious because what may be obvious may be too surreal to address. For one would have to go through A LOT of hoops saying "It is one of the 12" was meant to mean intimacy with a group when the common usage of saying "It is one of the select group" was always seen as redundant - you would not need to do that when it is already assumed that the group is intimate...and with Christ, before he even said "It is one of the 12", he said "One of you will betray me..."...and adding a numerical clarification is typically used to indicate more specifics.

A board member who leads doesn't say "It is one of the 15 executives here who will betray me" after he has already noted "One of you has sold out the company" - unless, of course, there are 30 other people there and there has to be a a narrowing down so that others will see more clearly. Likewise, trying to argue past "It is one of the 12" really goes past the text. There's never anything entertaining about it - and if bringing the word "entertaining" into it, I'd say one needs to pause.

D

I can't help but return, more than anything, to the early Church's apparent attaching of John's name to the Gospel, and that seems the most direct statement. If you were arguing for a different John that might even make more sense, but ... why call it "The Gospel according to John" if they knew it was written by Lazarus?

Not all in the early Church had agreement and it'd be an elephant in the room to speak past that as if it was ever final - thus, we have to deal with the facts as they are. We already have it where early church historian Eusebius said that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, with the Gospel assigned to the Apostle and the Book of Revelation to the presbyter (more noted in CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius) and NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library). Additionally, we have it where we can see how Irenaeus's witness is based on Papias represention of the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is said to have resided (more in CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.11 (St. Irenaeus)) - as 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]

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

I don't know ... it's quite a bit of supposition.

Did every home have servants, for example? Did Joseph an Mary have servants?

And we're applying a present-day understanding onto a Biblical conversation from 2000 years ago.

In fact, I CAN imagine a case in which it might make sense to use the exact construct Jesus used, even in the absence of others.

Imagine a boardroom with only the upper executives present. There has been company betrayal. The president of the board has found out who the culprit is. And he says, "It is one of my own board members, the one sitting in that chair at the end." He is emphasizing in this case that the betrayal came from one of the ones closest to him, one of the ones least expected.

Now, my statement isn't "proof" and I don't mean to suggest that it is. I'm only saying that it's very tenuous to build too much on the fact that Jesus said "one of the twelve" and then going on from there and building other assumptions on top of it. This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that may be an entertaining distraction, and might even lead to truth, but is far from concrete enough for me to base beliefs upon.

I can't help but return, more than anything, to the early Church's apparent attaching of John's name to the Gospel, and that seems the most direct statement. If you were arguing for a different John that might even make more sense, but ... why call it "The Gospel according to John" if they knew it was written by Lazarus?

I can't make sense of that.

Yes, but there's a theory that Lazarus other name was John...I don't know how this theory was reached.

As the gospels not saying explicitly there weren't more people at the Supper...well when the Apostles were together with more people it is said:

"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles." (Luke 24:10)

Oh well if only the Gospel of John or the synoptics had said the name...lol

That would be so Dan Brown of me to go there.

This theory was around long before Dan Brown. :o

 

[Strong in Him]

Nonetheless, that still would not go fully with the text when it comes to the fact that the Disiciples making preparations was never seen as the disciples doing the work that was given to women.

And washing the feet was the work given to a slave, but Jesus did it.

Contacting others is as far as it would go - but society was fairly structured with roles done only by certain groups. Homeowners did not leave homes when they allowed others to use them for celebration purposes - nor were servants who maintained the home and were present at ALL times in the event of emergencies ever absent. That goes to the matter of reading the text within the timeframe it occurred in. Not having a crowd of people present in background isn't the same as saying no one else was present as normal conditions occurred.

But we can't say for certain that that was the case, because Scripture doesn't say.
Far less that Lazarus was there with them all.

They talked to the man who owned the house - who kept it furnished. The preparations beyond that were not about keeping the house in order or all others out of it. That's as far as preparations would go. If something went wrong, you always had servants on stand-by to ensure things went smoothly - that was simply part of how things went since Jesus and Co (as well as any other party that would come at any time of the year) were guests - not the owner. Although the owner of the house in which was the upper room of the Last Supper is not mentioned in Scripture, we know he must have been one of the disciples, since Christ told Peter and John to say, "The Master says",,,and some say it was Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the mother of John Mark. Regardless, we know the Master was on Deck...

If you like - but we're not told, so it's supposition.

And going back to Lazarus, when the Lord spoke during the Last Supper, it was said of the one who would betray Him that "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mark 14:20).

Logically, this would be HIGHLY odd of a response if only the twelve apostles were present - as it would be redundant. For Christ to make such a distinction suggests there must have been others in the room - but if there were only the twelve there, why would He distinguish the betrayer as one of the Twelve? With Lazarus, it makes sense to be open to the possibility of him being present since the Book of John already sets precedence for him being present alongside other disciples with the 12 in communal dinners - as at supper just prior to the Last Supper (at the event where Mary anoints Christ, Judas calls it out and is rebuked - with Judas then deciding to go betray Jesus - John 12-13), we see where Lazarus is noted as being "one of them that sat at the table with him"

Like I said; if you like. But Scripture doesn't say.

Are you saying that Lazarus must have been present because Scripture says he previously dined with Jesus?? That doesn't make it so - many people did.
Also, what about going fishing, and on the sea shore after the resurrection? Again, Scripture doesn't name Lazarus. You may be able to make a case, I suppose, but we aren't told.

Maybe I'll find out when I get to heaven that you're all right - but at the moment a) I don't see how you can prove what you want to prove when Scripture doesn't tell us, b) tradition is that the author of the Gospel was John the apostle, and I can't personally see a reason to question that and c) does it really matter?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If Lazurus wrote the Gospel of John, he also wrote the Epistles of John.

They were all written by the same person, whoever that might have been.

Maybe it was Mary.

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”) first appear in manuscripts a century or more after these works are thought to have been written.

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).

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And washing the feet was the work given to a slave, but Jesus did it.

And just because Jesus did it does not mean other servants in the house were dismissed - that again goes past the basics of how houesholds were set up when it came to Passover, especially for those who owned homes. Jesus also worked with women who wanted to anoint him like the Woman who washed his feet in Luke 7 - but that didn't mean every home he went into allowed for women to do the same...as Christ respected social classes (more discussed here). One thing being true in one setting doesn't change the dominant culture at large, as that's going past the text in its historical setting. To do so is speculating past the text or ignoring how the text would have been interpreted in the time it developed in.

But we can't say for certain that that was the case, because Scripture doesn't say.

Scripture doesn't speak on all subjects and issues at any given time - that would be bibioidolatry. THat would be like saying that Scripture didn't record animals like birds flying during the Passover and thus no animals were present - but that doesn't come close to addressing the fact that scripture was never a POINT-FOR-POINT text covering all issues. Many things were inferred and you could not cover all. THus, one cannot say that certain things did not happen for certain when the cultural practices that were normative are well-known.

There's no evidence saying Lazarus was not present with them, nor would it even be a linchpin to hold to on the issue since him not being present for the Last SUpper is far from the central issue in showing whether or not he wrote the Gospel of John.

If you like - but we're not told, so it's supposition.

It's only speculation when looking past what the entirety of the text - thus it is begging the question in the name of avoiding supposition. You have no evidence going on "Well we're not told" since we're also NOT told that John wrote the Gospel of John when he never identified himself whatsoever - nor are we told many other events. We already know Masters DID NOT leave their homes abandoned when it came to renting them out - thus meaning that the logical understanding is that the homes had others present as normative practice like.

Like I said; if you like. But Scripture doesn't say.

Scripture never argued that things were true only if Scripture mentioned it - one of the basics in Scripture when it comes to not divorcing scripture from the setting it developed in and the historical realities behind it. Scripture already says plainly "It is one of the 12 who will betray me" - indicating there were more than 12 present, otherwise the quote is redundant. You only specify in order to give more certainty in a larger group - so we have to go with the scriptures rather than choosing to avoid the immediate context due to us not wishing to believe something.

Are you saying that Lazarus must have been present because Scripture says he previously dined with Jesus?? That doesn't make it so - many people did.

Many people dined with Christ - but not in the way that Lazarus was when he was clearly noted to be "the one whom Jesus loved"....in the SAME exact way that the phrase is used in conjuction with "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It is not as if Christ dining with Lazarus is the same as Christ dining with everyday sinners/the common public in Luke 15 and other places in scripture - so it'd not make sense to avoid that context.

Also, what about going fishing, and on the sea shore after the resurrection? Again, Scripture doesn't name Lazarus. You may be able to make a case, I suppose, but we aren't told.

Where does it say at any point that it had to be John whom Jesus was referring to? And again, where is it the case that Lazarus was ever excluded in the conversation? You do know there were two other disciples present who were never named....but even in noting them to not be Lazarus, it would not address the issue of showing that Lazarus was not the author of the Gospel of John. His not being present at the FISHING shore (if arguing for that) does not show he was not present at other key events - nor does it take away from the fact that others such as Lazarus could have had significant influence on the writing of many events.

And we already have plenty of reasons to factor in Lazarus since we know other disciples were present whom Christ spoke to OUTSIDE of the 11 during the Resurrection - as noted before here:

Reading the whole of scripture, it is very difficult for one to assume that Christ does not share the intimate parts of his life with others. We can see examples of this in places like Luke 24 when it comes to the disciples he met on the road:

Luke 24:13-22
On the Road to Emmaus

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.​

We need to consider the reality of Cleopas - one of the two disciples who were going to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection (Luke 24:18), as Some think the same as Cleophas who was the husband of Mary standing at the cross (John 19:25)....It never says that Cephas or his companion were ever one of the 12 disciples - yet they were seen plainly to have a relationship with him that indicated intimacy with the Lord (as they knew him well by his prayers/how he blessed the food and bread) and how he did things. When they saw what the Lord Christ had done for them, they went in search of who? The Eleven - indicating plainly that it was NOT two of the Twelve whom the Lord was intimate with.

Within the SAME book we can see clear examples of where Christ was intimate with others outside of the 12 - as seen plainly in the example of the man whom the other 12 felt jealous at for casting out demons.
Reading through the scriptures shows how the Lord personally selected his Apostles rather than someone else - and when he did so, He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so (Luke 6:12-13 )....but even Christ himself didn't always hand-pick people who walked in the power that the apostles did.

Mark 9:37-39Mark 9
36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Luke 9:49-51

Jesus Predicts His Death a Second Time

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
​

It is what it is....

Maybe I'll find out when I get to heaven that you're all right

Respectfully, Really couldn't care less as to what's found out - as all are on their own journey and all that matters is following Jesus. As it concerns what happens down here below, things are shared for those who either agree or have been processing - and if one disagrees, they can simply move on in life.

- but at the moment a) I don't see how you can prove what you want to prove when Scripture doesn't tell us, b) tradition is that the author of the Gospel was John the apostle, and I can't personally see a reason to question that and c) does it really matter?

Seeing that you already avoided scripture on several points, I don't see a) how scripture is being noted when it is not taken for what it is and b) tradition also differs on a number of things (including authors of books and Canon) and thus appealing to it would not be consistent if trying to make it out as if it was airtight when that was far from the case) and b.) one should not really be in a thread one is choosing freely to come into if they disagree - as no one is forcing you here. People discuss authorship as it concerns facts and wrestling through the Word of God for accuracy - just as it is with many other things.

 

[Strong in Him]

And just because Jesus did it does not mean other servants in the house were dismissed - that again goes past the basics of how houesholds were set up when it came to Passover, especially for those who owned homes. Jesus also worked with women who wanted to anoint him like the Woman who washed his feet in Luke 7 - but that didn't mean every home he went into allowed for women to do the same...as Christ respected social classes (more discussed here). One thing being true in one setting doesn't change the dominant culture at large, as that's going past the text in its historical setting. To do so is speculating past the text or ignoring how the text would have been interpreted in the time it developed in.

Scripture doesn't speak on all subjects and issues at any given time - that would be bibioidolatry. THat would be like saying that Scripture didn't record animals like birds flying during the Passover and thus no animals were present - but that doesn't come close to addressing the fact that scripture was never a POINT-FOR-POINT text covering all issues. Many things were inferred and you could not cover all. THus, one cannot say that certain things did not happen for certain when the cultural practices that were normative are well-known.

There's no evidence saying Lazarus was not present with them, nor would it even be a linchpin to hold to on the issue since him not being present for the Last SUpper is far from the central issue in showing whether or not he wrote the Gospel of John.


It's only speculation when looking past what the entirety of the text - thus it is begging the question in the name of avoiding supposition. You have no evidence going on "Well we're not told" since we're also NOT told that John wrote the Gospel of John when he never identified himself whatsoever - nor are we told many other events. We already know Masters DID NOT leave their homes abandoned when it came to renting them out - thus meaning that the logical understanding is that the homes had others present as normative practice like.

Scripture never argued that things were true only if Scripture mentioned it - one of the basics in Scripture when it comes to not divorcing scripture from the setting it developed in and the historical realities behind it.

Are you saying that Lazarus must have been present because Scripture says he previously dined with Jesus?? That doesn't make it so - many people did.
Also, what about going fishing, and on the sea shore after the resurrection? Again, Scripture doesn't name Lazarus. You may be able to make a case, I suppose, but we aren't told. Scripture already says plainly "It is one of the 12 who will betray me" - indicating there were more than 12 present, otherwise the quote is redundant. You only specify in order to give more certainty in a larger group - so we have to go with the scriptures rather than choosing to avoid the immediate context due to us not wishing to believe something.
Respectfully, Really couldn't care less as to what's found out - as all are on their own journey and all that matters is following Jesus. As it concerns what happens down here below, things are shared for those who either agree or have been processing - and if one disagrees, they can simply move on in life.
Seeing that you already avoided scripture on several points, I don't see a) how scripture is being noted when it is not taken for what it is and b) tradition also differs on a number of things (including authors of books and Canon) and thus appealing to it would not be consistent if trying to make it out as if it was airtight when that was far from the case) and b.) one should not really be in a thread one is choosing freely to come into if they disagree - as no one is forcing you here. People discuss authorship as it concerns facts and wrestling through the Word of God for accuracy - just as it is with many other things.

I haven't exactly avoided Scripture; I just can't see the point of having an academic argument about this.
Maybe it is really important to you, or maybe you have stumbled upon some great discovery which shows that Lazarus is the probable author of the 4th Gospel. But, to me, it doesn't matter that much, and I don't particularly want to spend time on what, at the end of the day, IS speculation, or simply probabilities.

In John's Gospel we are told there is "a disciple whom Jesus loved". I believe that he loved all of them, personally, so I'm not quite sure why that phrase is used - unless he was especially close to that disciple. (And if it is that, then Peter, James and John were in his inner circle more than the others). So was it John; was it Lazarus; who knows? I, personally, don't think it was Lazarus who wrote the 4th Gospel, but if one day I find out that it was, so be it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I haven't exactly avoided Scripture; I just can't see the point of having an academic argument about this.
Maybe it is really important to you, or maybe you have stumbled upon some great discovery which shows that Lazarus is the probable author of the 4th Gospel. But, to me, it doesn't matter that much, and I don't particularly want to spend time on what, at the end of the day, IS speculation, or simply probabilities.
.

If one doesn't feel the point of having an academic argument on the issue, that's not a problem. The issue, of course, is that those wishing to do so have the freedom to do so and explore what is possible within the Scriptures when it comes to study - and if one doesn't believe in something or see a point to it, then there's no point for them to be going back-and-forth on the matter as has been occurring. The fact that one does show tends to give room to the concept that one has more vested in expressing why they don't believe something to be true than they do in not seeing a need to have academic debate.

Again, all of this goes back to the article from the OP by another well-respected scholar in the Christian world - as seen here:

• 
  Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

If one did not agree with the article (provided they actually read the review in its fullness to understand the argument BEFORE commenting as the OP noted), then that would be the end of it. But again, the OP was never made for others only wishing to note that they did not believe - it was made for engagement of the issue. Thus, to be respectful, one doesn't need to comment on something unless it's important to them - but if it's not important, don't go back and forth and switch later saying it's more important to another giving rebuttal. Moreover, there's little room talking on speculation being something one doesn't want to engage in when most of the arguments given are speculation (including claiming "I believe John wrote the Gospel" and other things of which there is NO evidence for in the text immediately) - it's one thing to have issue with another feeling it's Lazarus....but it's another claiming only those disagreeing are speculating. That would be inconsistent on several levels - All that's a focus in the thread is accuracy - and for those whom it matters, that is what the thread is for.

In John's Gospel we are told there is "a disciple whom Jesus loved". I believe that he loved all of them, personally, so I'm not quite sure why that phrase is used - unless he was especially close to that disciple. (And if it is that, then Peter, James and John were in his inner circle more than the others).

Peter, James and John were never the only ones Christ was close to - even though they were privy to key events. This goes back to seeing what the scriptures say fully on the ways Christ related to others.

Reading the whole of scripture, it is very difficult for one to assume that Christ does not share the intimate parts of his life with others. We can see examples of this in places like Luke 24 when it comes to the disciples he met on the road:

Luke 24:13-22
On the Road to Emmaus

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.​

We need to consider the reality of Cleopas - one of the two disciples who were going to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection (Luke 24:18), as Some think the same as Cleophas who was the husband of Mary standing at the cross (John 19:25)....It never says that Cephas or his companion were ever one of the 12 disciples - yet they were seen plainly to have a relationship with him that indicated intimacy with the Lord (as they knew him well by his prayers/how he blessed the food and bread) and how he did things. When they saw what the Lord Christ had done for them, they went in search of who? The Eleven - indicating plainly that it was NOT two of the Twelve whom the Lord was intimate with.

Within the SAME book we can see clear examples of where Christ was intimate with others outside of the 12 - as seen plainly in the example of the man whom the other 12 felt jealous at for casting out demons.
Reading through the scriptures shows how the Lord personally selected his Apostles rather than someone else - and when he did so, He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so (Luke 6:12-13 )....but even Christ himself didn't always hand-pick people who walked in the power that the apostles did.

Mark 9:37-39Mark 9
36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Luke 9:49-51

Jesus Predicts His Death a Second Time

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
​

Who was the man casting out demons in the name of CHrist as the apostles did? Who knows..but it's interesting that he was doing things that Christ had comissioned the apostles to do---and even if saying (as some do) that the man could've been one of the 70 empowered for ministry after the apostles were, the reality is that this situation was done BEFORE that time frame. What you have is a man casting out demons in the name of CHRIST (as the apostles were doing) long before Christ had the 70 sent out for ministry in Luke 10 and right after the 12 had been commissioned for ministry to heal the sick/cast out demons in Luke 9:1-3 .

I would be curious to see who that man was that Christ told the apostles to leave alone...as they were thinking that He hadn't handpicked that man for work they felt qualified alone to do, but not all of God's dealings are ever listed fully in scripture. We can't rule out the ways the Lord has often spoken to people who may've seemed disconnected from others. Christ could have come to the man when the apostles were unaware and told him things, or the Lord could have revealed it in a dream what he was to do. And the man did well on something that even the apostles struggled with later inLuke 9:37 even after Christ commissioned them:

You never know the people God has in place...

As another noted best on the situation of Luke 9:49-51 (even though it was from a Baptist perspective - but still engaging, IMHO):

Acts 19:13-17 "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified."
​

These sons of Sceva and others, took it upon themselves to try to accomplish something that they were not authorized to do. The verses above declare the results of their insolence. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the same sort of fate would have befallen the man in Luke 9:49 if he was not working in the authority of Jesus? I believe so. Plus, Jesus would never have endorsed this man’s work if it were being done on his own, separate and apart from the authority of Jesus. I might also mention here that, although the Holy Spirit was not given in the fullness spoken of in John 14 and fulfilled in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit indwelled Christ’s church, the disciples of Jesus worked within the bounds of His limited commission.

​

__________________


There are other examples besides this - but the reality of the matter is that Christ himself did not simply rely on or share his life with the 12 disciples ALONE. He had many - but the 12 were simply chosen to be APOSTLES - representatives of who the Lord was.

Just a thought...

So was it John; was it Lazarus; who knows? I, personally, don't think it was Lazarus who wrote the 4th Gospel, but if one day I find out that it was, so be it

We'll all square away on Judgment Day...