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

[~Anastasia~]

If Lazarus wrote John, someone would have to fill him in about most of the parts about himself, since he got sick and died (and clearly wasn't with the party of Jesus when he died). And whether he was on hand to witness many of the things that happened is pure speculation, since he really isn't named that much in the NT otherwise as being with Jesus and His group.

In contrast, we know that Peter, James, and John especially were with Jesus for many important events.

Not only that, but John the Apostle is featured heavily in Acts, but Lazarus disappears after the Gospel accounts?

If Lazarus was important enough to be the author of a Gospel, why wasn't he associated with the growth of the Church in any other way? Especially a Gospel given a fairly late date of authorship? What was Lazarus doing all those years in the meantime? If he was important enough to be a gospel-writer.

This seems to hinge largely on Lazarus being mentioned as "one whom Jesus loved" but he has to share that honor with others. And when it mentions him relining at the table it says he was one of the ones who reclined at the table with Jesus.

It's not a huge deal to me, honestly. If it turned out that Lazarus did write the Gospel, it makes the Gospel no less true.

I just think the "evidence" is composed of some rather tenuous connections. At the same time I still think it flies in the face of logic, seeing as how John - one of the "inner circle" - is completely absent from mention in the Gospel if he is not the beloved disciple.

 

[~Anastasia~]

the Book of Mark being written by John Mark from his perspective, even though Peter was potentially the one he was trained under).

The difference is that I think it is well understood historically, the relationship between John Mark and Peter. We even have Scriptural support for it.

Those are basic facts, which goes back to the issue of seeing how illogical it is claiming Lazarus could not have written John because of where he attributed the name of the 4th Gospel to John.

I would much more easily believe that Lazarus wrote the book "as told by John" or something similar. But there is still the following issue:

but had Lazarus written it, it would have been completely fine for him to mention John in the text while being the one whose account was transpring.

If it were John's account, and he were giving it to Lazarus, and John said "I heard this ... " or "I saw that ... " then I would EXPECT Lazarus to mention John's name. Not only that it would be fine for him to do so. But if he took John's account and wrote it from a personal perspective, without even mentioning John ... well, that's just odd, really. I don't think he's trying to usurp John or take credit, so why would he avoid all mention of John, even once? - if he were relating John's account?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If Lazarus wrote John, someone would have to fill him in about most of the parts about himself, since he got sick and died (and clearly wasn't with the party of Jesus when he died). And whether he was on hand to witness many of the things that happened is pure speculation, since he really isn't named that much in the NT otherwise as being with Jesus and His group.

If claiming that another is doing speculation, one needs to be free from speculation. Thus far, you've not done that - for As said before, one must be consistent in argumentation if they are going to protest. For what you're saying is akin to saying that Luke HAD to have been present for the conversation on the Road to Emmaus with Cleophas and the other disciple (who was not one of the 12) in Luke 24. Luke was not present, Kylissa, but that's not a problem since we know that he was filled in. The same is more than logical WITH Lazarus at certain points - but if we're going to claim one thing about Lazarus needing to be present, one needs to apply the same logic to ALL cases. Otherwise, there's blantant selective argumentation.

The same dynamic can be said of John 4 during conversation with the woman at the Well. None of the Apostles were present in John 4 since they ALL went to go get food and came back AFTER the intimate conversation Jesus had with her.

Who heard the conversation, Kylissa? John and all the other apostles were not even there - thus meaning that eye-witness does not require them to always be present at all events. And if it could be possible with them in those events, it's the same possibility with Lazarus. The same dynamic could be said of the Apostles Peter, James and John when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane during Mark 14:32-42 and Luke 22:40-45. Jesus asked them to come pray with him - but he went further past where they were as they were fast ASLEEP from sorrow - they did not hear what he was praying repeatedly to the Father as he was sweating blood and had to wake them up from sleep before he was accused. There's no logical way for it to be the case that they heard him if they were deep asleep and away from hearing distance - yet by your logic, they were automatically recording the entire event because the text mentions them. That would be needless - and likewise, it is needless assuming Lazarus had to have been present during John 11 in recording an event about what happened to him. That ONE event is the not the entire book of John - and Lazarus recording from others an event that he was in the grave for does not logically mean he was never there for other events or not able to write from eye-witness what Christ was recorded to do throughout the Book of John.

Outside of that, there are multiple reasons showing where its FAR from speculation that someone other than ST. John wrote the account when seeing that the book DID NOT have Galillean influence (even though he was a Galillean) - nor did it have the same language as the other accounts, nor was it the case that John would have been present for other events. This was all addressed in the article I asked all others to first investigate first (Proverb 18:17) before coming into the thread - as said before:

One prominent scholar in the world of NT Studies - known as Ben Witherington - had a very insightful thesis on the issue of what Lazarus, which others can discover if going here to Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?


....I liked how another summed it up, as seen in the following (for brief excerpt):

Firstly, the beloved disciple is never equated with John the son of Zebedee in the fourth Gospel. Instead, the sons of Zebedee are mentioned in John 21.2 do not seem to be equated with the beloved disciple. Secondly, the apostle John was, like Jesus’ other disciples, a Galilean. However, the fourth Gospel includes only one of the major Galilean miracles which the synoptics include (the feeding of the 5000 in John 6). If the beloved disciple was an eyewitness from Galilee, we would expect more of Jesus’ Galilean miracles to be included. Thirdly, in the synoptic gospels, all of the twelve abandon Jesus at his crucifixion. However, in John, we are told that the beloved disciple was present at the crucifixion. If John (one of the twelve) and the beloved disciple are the same, then we have to solve the discrepancy. If, however, the beloved disciple was Lazarus, not one of the twelve, then the discrepancy disappears. Fourthly, the first appearance of an expression similar to “the disciple that Jesus loved” appears in John 11 when Jesus is told: “he whom you love is ill” (Jn. 11.2). This is a reference not to the apostle John, but to Lazarus. If this is a precursor to “the disciple that Jesus loved” then it would suggest that this beloved disciple is in fact Lazarus, and not John. Fifthly, in John 18, it seems that the beloved disciple is known by the high priest. This would be highly unlikely if the beloved disciple was a Galilean. Rather, this suggests that this disciples was well known in the Jerusalem area. Lazarus lived in Bethany, which was just by Jerusalem. It would make more sense for this disciple to be Lazarus if the high priest knew him.

Sixthly, Lazarus as the beloved disciple could help to explain the incredibly high christology of John. If you had been dead for 4 days and then raised by Jesus, that would change your worldview in a very dramatic way. This could account for the boldness with which the fourth Gospel proclaims Jesus as God, as opposed to the more cryptic way the synoptics suggest it.

​

.......As it concerns the article from the beginning by Ben Witherington, I do ask that others read through the article first/all the rebuttals given BEFORE speaking since it will help everyone be on the same page with what's actually being advocated with Lazarus as the author of John. I would hate for others to come into the thread speaking past what the intent of the OP is - but that has happened before in other places. Hopefully, it will not here - but with that said, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear. Blessings....

I suspect you've not even read the article, K - as many of your points don't even address what was already noted and speak past issues. If you're going to comment, please deal with what was noted rather than speaking past it further.

In contrast, we know that Peter, James, and John especially were with Jesus for many important events.

There were MANY people present, K, for important events. That's the main point you've been avoiding, as there were already others casting out demons in the same way the Apostles were commissioned to do (Luke 9:1-8) and being successful at it unlike the Apostles were in Luke 9:44-50 even BEFORE Jesus empowered the 70 others in Luke 10. There were others casting out demons with the same authority as the Apostles LONG before larger groups were commissioned - and as noted with people like Cleophas in Luke 24 on the Road to Emmaus, he and other disciples were present for key events in the life of Christ and this was evidenced by how they easily recognized him as they were used to being with him. Additionally, Peter/James and John being present for many important events does not mean they were present for ALL important events.

Not only that, but John the Apostle is featured heavily in Acts, but Lazarus disappears after the Gospel accounts?

A lot of people disappeared in the Acts account, K. We can start with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (from Matthew 27:57 and John 19:38-44) - or the Demoniac who was healed in Mark 5/spread the Gospel greatly afterward - or Zachhaeus the Tax Collector from Luke 19....or the Woman at the Well who was the first female evangelist in John 4 and many others. You also don't see the name Nathanael outside the Book of John - nor do we hear of others from the Gospels, even though they were prominent. The list goes on.

We cannot make a rule after the fact saying "Well John was mentioned A LOT in Acts (made by Luke - not John ) and then say that means John the Apostle HAD to have written the Book of John. That would be working backward - or judging others in importance by how often they are mentioned, as if it's a numbers game

If Lazarus was important enough to be the author of a Gospel, why wasn't he associated with the growth of the Church in any other way? Especially a Gospel given a fairly late date of authorship? What was Lazarus doing all those years in the meantime? If he was important enough to be a gospel-writer.

Again, if applying your argumentation to any other character, then your point can stand. However, your point already avoids the reality of what John says plainly:

John 11:45-47

Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”



John 12:8-11
12 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.


...7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ....

9 Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.​

What does the text explictly say, Kylissa? Many WERE coming into the Church BECAUSE of Lazarus. Additionally, even outside of that, there were others who greatly contributed to the building of the Church in the Gospels - but they are NOT seen in the Book of Acts. We do not assume with them that they are neither important or that they fell away and were never believers since the Book of Acts was a continuation that sought to focus on other stories besides them (from Philip the Evangelist to Apollos to Paul to James the Just - the Brother of Christ who was NEVER mentioned in the Gospels at all but a few times as an unbeliever and yet is the head of the entire Church itself as seen in Acts 15, Acts 21 and the Book of James ).

This seems to hinge largely on Lazarus being mentioned as "one whom Jesus loved" but he has to share that honor with others. And when it mentions him relining at the table it says he was one of the ones who reclined at the table with Jesus.

Nonetheless, when reading the ENTIRE text, it notes where he was already more significant than others since he was leading others to trust in Christ - and it was at his home. Not all simply reclined with Jesus nor was the text unintentional when it comes to specifiying him as "the one Jesus loved" in a larger context. In the Book of John, Lazarus is the one who recieves the "one whom Christ loves" the most in the text numerous times throughout John 11.

It's not a huge deal to me, honestly. If it turned out that Lazarus did write the Gospel, it makes the Gospel no less true.

I'm glad it's not a huge deal to you - but at the rate it seems you seem insistent it could not have been him, it seems there's more going on with having to believe it's John. I'm glad for the Book of John and have argued that it was he who wrote it - but I'm equally good noting that Lazarus wrote it as well, as the evidence seems to favor him more so anyway when I examine the facts.

I just think the "evidence" is composed of some rather tenuous connections.
At the same time I still think it flies in the face of logic, seeing as how John - one of the "inner circle" - is completely absent from mention in the Gospel if he is not the beloved disciple.

I understand your reasoning why - even though I think some of the rebuttals are tenuous in many respects even as they see other connections as "tenuous" and that there's some looking past the text for the sake of holding to a long-standing view. The logic is not present with saying John was one of the inner-circle and yet ignoring where Jesus already had others he was close to besides his 3 (including his own mother as well as others) - and the concept of Ghost Writing as novels and written works could have another's name associated with it without the name of the person mentioned in the text .....and when applying arguments selectively, the logic never lines up.
__________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The difference is that I think it is well understood historically, the relationship between John Mark and Peter. We even have Scriptural support for it.

That is again a moot issue, seeing that it was debated throughout history how extensive John Mark had of relationship WITH St. Peter - and the logic is again selective when it comes to not addressing the fact that others were also disciples of John, as well as others being disciples of Christ who knew John (Lazarus being one of them). This goes back to begging the question and alreayd having a bias AGAINST a character (such as Lazarus) as a primary reason for not considering the ability to write/addressing what the text of John says even before things are dealt with.

I would much more easily believe that Lazarus wrote the book "as told by John" or something similar. But there is still the following issue:


If it were John's account, and he were giving it to Lazarus, and John said "I heard this ... " or "I saw that ... " then I would EXPECT Lazarus to mention John's name. Not only that it would be fine for him to do so. But if he took John's account and wrote it from a personal perspective, without even mentioning John ... well, that's just odd, really. I don't think he's trying to usurp John or take credit, so why would he avoid all mention of John, even once? - if he were relating John's account?

Expecting Lazarus to mention John's name is no more logical than expecting a Ghost-Writer to mention the name of themselves when they write a book for another - and as said before, you cannot claim otherwise logically while avoiding where this was a present reality in the early Church. As I said before, this has been addressed before when it came to Church History - as seen with the Book of Jude. Specifically, Jude was seen as writing on behalf of Peter in II Peter....AS others in the early Church felt II Peter was attributed to Jude (as noted before here)....or just as others in the early Church felt that Thaddeus or Thaddaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3, KJV) believe that he actually penned the Book of Jude and used "Jude" as one of his surnames (as Thaddeus is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus - St. James the Less - as goes the tradition, more noted in CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle of Saint Jude and Thaddeus, Apostle of the Seventy - Beauty of the Saints - Ukrainian Orthodoxy). The same dynamic has happened a lot in current times. Making a biography on the life and times of people in the South - with MLK, Ella Baker or other prominent authors either signing off on it after giving their views/collecting that of others OR having it attributed to them in honor of them after another collected their thoughts but they passed before it was completed - that's not a new reality. Even others such as rap artist 50 Cent was noted to have written a biography - but it was written BY another person in truth. , with his approval after narration. The same dynamic has occurred even with music. And as another noted, "see all those celebrity autobiographies — the memoirs of actors, athletes and politicians? Chances are, they're the work of a ghostwriter." There was even a recent movie on the matter called "Let It Shine" (with Tyler James Williams ) where someone made lyrics/music and it was attributed to another who proclaimed it on stage. It's no different with the Gospel of John

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

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

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

Of course, it makes more sense that Lazarus wrote the account of John and left out key events due to the fact that he was not present for them - for there's no account of His transfiguration (Matthew 17, Luke 9:28-34), but as Lazarus would not have been there for that as would Peter/James and John, it's logical that was not brought up. This has been addressed in the article from the OP I asked all to first check out before jumping in - entitled Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple? - and as said before, I would ask you please read it in full before speaking on the issue since it covers a lot of the points you were raising.

 

[Radagast]

I just think the "evidence" is composed of some rather tenuous connections. At the same time I still think it flies in the face of logic, seeing as how John - one of the "inner circle" - is completely absent from mention in the Gospel if he is not the beloved disciple.

I agree 100% with that.

If it were John's account, and he were giving it to Lazarus, and John said "I heard this ... " or "I saw that ... " then I would EXPECT Lazarus to mention John's name. Not only that it would be fine for him to do so. But if he took John's account and wrote it from a personal perspective, without even mentioning John ... well, that's just odd, really. I don't think he's trying to usurp John or take credit, so why would he avoid all mention of John, even once? - if he were relating John's account?

Exactly!

 

[Radagast]

Expecting Lazarus to mention John's name is no more logical than expecting a Ghost-Writer to mention the name of themselves when they write a book for another

I think you're a little confused here. Ghost-writers always mention the name of the person they're writing for.

Also, you're trying to overturn a 2000-year consensus that John wrote the gospel that bears his name. It's up to you to make the case.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sorry, GxG, I don't seem to be making my points well.

I am not saying that there must be witnesses for everything - as we know there are not.

But much of the mention of Lazarus in the Gospel of John involves things he could not have known himself.

It seems you are suggesting Lazarus wrote from John's input - and yet Lazarus doesn't mention himself overmuch from his own recollection, nor does he ever mention John.

And I wasn't charging Lazarus (if he wrote the Gospel of John) of trying to usurp - quite the opposite. But that's my point. If he's not (and I wouldn't think he would be) ... then why NOT mention John?

But it seems we've reached a dead end.

As you wish - if you don't want me to pursue this. It seems not very profitable anyway.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The fact is that the Witherington article all begins from (and continues with) the faulty premise that "the one whom Jesus loved" (Lazarus) is synonymous with "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The connections are tenuous at best, even from a scholarly perspective. Support from questionable blogs does not make the supposition any more true or false. Now the subject of the Gospel of Mark is being brought into the discussion. It may be true that John Mark learned from and was a disciple of Peter, but to suggest that Mark merely "relied on" or penned his Gospel from the words of of Peter is just as tenuous.

 

[Radagast]

As you wish - if you don't want me to pursue this. It seems not very profitable anyway.

The theory does surface from time to time. It generally seems to be associated with an attempt to weaken some of the claims of the fourth gospel.

 

[Radagast]

It may be true that John Mark learned from and was a disciple of Peter, but to suggest that Mark merely "relied on" or penned his Gospel from the words of of Peter is just as tenuous.

Well, that theory at least has some tradition behind it:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [Aramaic], while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." -- Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, c. 180 AD

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The fact is that the Witherington article all begins from (and continues with) the faulty premise that "the one whom Jesus loved" (Lazarus) is synonymous with "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The connections are tenuous at best, even from a scholarly perspective. Support from questionable blogs does not make the supposition any more true or false. Now the subject of the Gospel of Mark is being brought into the discussion. It may be true that John Mark learned from and was a disciple of Peter, but to suggest that Mark merely "relied on" or penned his Gospel from the words of of Peter is just as tenuous.

The fact is that Witherington went from more than "the one whom Jesus loved" - for anyone actually reading the article. Claiming connections as "tenuous at best" doesn't address the argument as Dr. Witherington noted. Moreover, claiming something as "questionable" is silly in light of where mutliple others in the history of the Church already noted the same thing and even what was claimed to be "questionable" was far from it - meaning that one bringing that up is doing a red-herring/non-sequitur that has yet to be addressed. When you make questionable claims all based on a string of comments dedicated to showing you don't like a topic (as if anyone made you be here), that will always be highly questionable.

Moreover, harping on John Mark's writing on behalf of Peter is no more tenuous than remembering the tradition of the Book of Revelation being written by another John (John the Elder) rather than John the Apostle or ascribing the name "Book of John" to the 4th Gospel due to tradition. John Mark being seen as recording Peter's Words/accounts was noted repeatedly by the Church Fathers (as well as debated) and it'd be falsehood to claim otherwise as well as not addressing the facts squarely.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [Aramaic], while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." -- Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, c. 180 AD​

One has to do better than claiming tenuous for anything they don't like - otherwise it is merely airing opinions....and there's no place for that in the thread. If you disagree, one needs to actually show from the Church Fathers where a well-documented idea was not present or debated.



It'd benefit you to not be quick to speak before dealing with the facts...

That said, as I noted to you before, off-topic comments are NOT meant to be in the thread since they go counter to the OP. As I already said:

One prominent scholar in the world of NT Studies - known as Ben Witherington - had a very insightful thesis on the issue of what Lazarus, which others can discover if going here to Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?



.......As it concerns the article from the beginning by Ben Witherington, I do ask that others read through the article first/all the rebuttals given BEFORE speaking since it will help everyone be on the same page with what's actually being advocated with Lazarus as the author of John. I would hate for others to come into the thread speaking past what the intent of the OP is - but that has happened before in other places. Hopefully, it will not here - but with that said, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear. Blessings....

That said, you were already addressed earlier/told directly (after making several off-topic comments/flaming remarks that had zero to do with the OP issue) to either deal with the topic or leave. Making off-topic comments is not allowed - and if you continue in another off-topic post, it will be reported for what it is and taken further to Members Complaint for being disrespectful. Please be respectful on the subject..

 

[~Anastasia~]

I did read the article, btw.

You seem to be quite upset that people's responses (sometimes to each other) are "off topic" because you don't like the points we address, though they all relate to your question.

This is turning into quite an unproductive discussion, and I'm not sure why you're threatening everyone, GxG.

I believe I'll bow out, thank you.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I did read the article, btw.

You seem to be quite upset that people's responses (sometimes to each other) are "off topic" because you don't like the points we address, though they all relate to your question.

This is turning into quite an unproductive discussion, and I'm not sure why you're threatening everyone, GxG.

I believe I'll bow out, thank you.

Kylissa,

I already noted several times that all discussion points (if others were going to be on the same page) needed to be based on the article. I'm glad you read the article as requested. However, what was noted was actually making points based directly on what the article said - not making them on things the author of the article did not even state directly (even if bringing up a quote on one key part of what he said or showing where he did not address an issue in his article), lest we do slander on others. When others make accusations and don't even deal with the facts as they are presented and speak past you, it is off-topic. Several times has this occurred and it does not deal with the issues - plus it takes things off course. When others claim "This person wants to weaken the Gospel", that is a flame. When someone claims something is questionable and another wants to make others doubt the Gospel, that's a problem.

When someone says "Jesus only had the three, James/Peter and John" and another notes "The Scriptures show in Luke 24 where Christ fellowshiped with others beyond the three or 12" and the scriptures are avoided only with more "Where does scripture say"...to be frank, it comes off as intentionally wasting people's time - or being intentionally dense on the matter as some seem to be. Seriously, No one who disagrees has to be in the thread. Nonetheless, if being here, people need to address the issues - otherwise they are showing it's more of an issue for them than they wish to admit.

I asked you several points to address what I had said. You skipped over it - and that's fine, but those in the thread (if wanting to actually discuss the topic instead of claiming "Well it's not a big deal" while insisting it has to be John) need to deal with what others have said. Otherwise, they are arguing a false argument. This is not complicated, IMHO.

 

[Radagast]

and the scriptures are avoided only with more "Where does scripture say"...to be frank, it comes off as intentionally wasting people's time

In other words, you refuse to answer that question?

Nonetheless, if being here, people need to address the issues

So please do address the issues that have been raised.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In other words, you refuse to answer that question?



So please do address the issues that have been raised.

Reported - for as I said, any other off-topic points are going to be reported. Questions were already dealt with - and flamming comments are needless, just as it's needless with ad hominemns that don't deal with the issues. Deal with the OP respectfully - or leave graciously. Or continue to be reported for insisting on going off-topic when you were asked several times to deal with the subject.. It's that simple.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Kylissa,



I asked you several points to address what I had said. You skipped over it - and that's fine, but those in the thread (if wanting to actually discuss the topic instead of claiming "Well it's not a big deal" while insisting it has to be John) need to deal with what others have said. Otherwise, they are arguing a false argument. This is not complicated, IMHO.

Well ... my apologies. I don't know that I skipped points you wanted addressed. But there are times I read your posts when you immediately post them, and later I see that you have added to them. I may have missed additions.

Where I have addressed your points, you don't seem to like my answers. And you don't address the issues I bring up either.

Perhaps our style is just too different. Maybe what you want is a highly controlled discussion of just certain points? But that doesn't suit me - not to be able to address issues I see as more relevant.

I saw the article as consisting mostly of the kind of suppositions (such as assuming that the family had leprosy) and building from there of things that might be, but we most certainly do not know to be true. It's the kind of speculation that might be enjoyable on a favored subject, but IMO ought never to be relied upon to arrive at conclusions that are then considered to be established.

Part of the argument even starts by bringing John the Presbyter into it, only for the sake (apparently) of weakening the suggestion of the ECFs who do claim John as author. How is that a step towards Lazarus? I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

As I said, the series of speculations and the trail of reasoning based on them - it's FAR too slippery a path for me to ever consider establishing it as a foundation for truth. Most especially when it does go against what has been established to some degree as Tradition.

This seems to be very important to you for some reason. I suppose it does't matter who one believes wrote the Gospel of John. I think we need to agree to disagree. I'm more comfortable where I am.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Report away.

But all I'm seeing is the argument ad baculum. You haven't dealt with the fatal flaw in the argument (that if Lazarus is the beloved disciple, John -- a key disciple -- never gets mentioned in the 4th gospel), and you seem to be working hard to control the debate to avoid answering it.

If we're discussing the text and authorship of the 4th gospel, I fail to see how legitimate questions (like: if Lazarus is the beloved disciple, why does John -- a key disciple -- never get mentioned in the 4th gospel?) are off-topic.

Another reported, as CF has already noted when it comes to off-topic comments. And as already said, John was among those when the scriptures say "The 12 disciples" (John 20:24) as well as other places. It is already understood that John was among the 12. Thus, one is making things up as they go along.

The discussion was on the article - direct quotes from Ben Wingtherton - on what he said. That has not occurred on your part or others - and as said before, it's off topic.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Well, that theory at least has some tradition behind it:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [Aramaic], while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." -- Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, c. 180 AD

I don't disagree. I just wonder if the suggestion wasn't that Mark merely parroted what was being dictated to him and tradition ascribed the gospel to him, when it was really Peter's.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well ... my apologies. I don't know that I skipped points you wanted addressed. But there are times I read your posts when you immediately post them, and later I see that you have added to them. I may have missed additions.

Where I have addressed your points, you don't seem to like my answers. And you don't address the issues I bring up either.

Perhaps our style is just too different. Maybe what you want is a highly controlled discussion of just certain points? But that doesn't suit me - not to be able to address issues I see as more relevant.

I saw the article as consisting mostly of the kind of suppositions (such as assuming that the family had leprosy) and building from there of things that might be, but we most certainly do not know to be true. It's the kind of speculation that might be enjoyable on a favored subject, but IMO ought never to be relied upon to arrive at conclusions that are then considered to be established.

Part of the argument even starts by bringing John the Presbyter into it, only for the sake (apparently) of weakening the suggestion of the ECFs who do claim John as author. How is that a step towards Lazarus? I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

As I said, the series of speculations and the trail of reasoning based on them - it's FAR too slippery a path for me to ever consider establishing it as a foundation for truth. Most especially when it does go against what has been established to some degree as Tradition.

This seems to be very important to you for some reason. I suppose it does't matter who one believes wrote the Gospel of John. I think we need to agree to disagree. I'm more comfortable where I am.

Like I said...

If it really WASN'T important to you on the authorship of John, you'd not be here in the thread insisting it was him. Nonetheless, as you're still here (even after claiming to bow out), it seems rather evident you have more issue (IMHO) with others believing it could be someone else besides John the Apostle than you're admitting. Thus, it really isn't consistent to claim "This seems to be very important to you for some reason" - and as it concerns posts, there are times I have noted a post is being worked on after it was given out. Sometimes, of course, it was written in full and never tackled

This is why it was noted that you ALREADY do and did much speculation on several points, even though you felt others were doing speculation - and thus, your claim was inconsistent in showing speculation to be what you're not for..

Counter to your claim, It was never about not liking your answers - what was the central issue was that you didn't address the points, or scripture....and that will never count as an answer. That doesn't mean I didn't have points you said I didn't like - but a couple of them were flatly against what was even noted in John or the other epistles.

You didn't address how John was present for John 4 when Christ was talking in private with the woman at the well. and the disciples were not even there
...if claiming Lazarus couldn't have been writing the 4th Gospel when he was recorded to be in the Grave (John 11).

You didn't address how John would have had ANY concern for the Jerusalem context when his languagae/culture was from Galilee - counter to Lazarus.

You didn't address how it was possible for John, Peter and James to be SOUND ASLEEP in the Gospels and yet be able to record Jesus when he was in the Garden praying a distance from them .

You've not addressed where John Mark never is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark (even when the EArly Church had debates on his being discipled by Peter) - so claiming to have issue with John being written by another has to be addressed equally. Otherwise, it comes off HIGHLY disingenious and intellectually dishonest in not willing to even apply a consistent critique - as if one can agree with the ECF at one point while denying them at another and saying "Well it's different" when all that's occurring is equivocation.

We already see where the ECF never claimed to be in agreement with all issues and that would be misrepresenting what they were about. There's no basis trying to dismiss Lazarus as a possible author when we already see where some of the EFC had disagreements on other issues - some issues not being discussed didn't mean they were not issues. The same goes for St. Jude writing the Epistle of II Peter - or some of the Early Saints claiming the Book of Jude was written by Thaddeus using a surname. These things will not go away no matter how uncomfortable we get with them - they are simply facts in the Church. If you don't believe those things, then you'll understand why others don't see it as an issue when it comes to saying Lazaurs potentially wrote the Book of John.

There's nothing remotely in the Early Church that ever saw the Apostleship of St. John for the Book of John as Dogmatic when it comes to Tradition - and if Tradition is that essential for you, you'd also be willing to note where many traditions were debated in the Church and NEVER concluded. We already see where most of the consensus was that St. John the Apostle did NOT write the Epistles or the Book of Revelation - do you disagree with that or are you willing to fight for over that as much as the authorship of the GOspel of John?

And like I already said (since I've argued both for John being the author and Lazarus as well), it's simply addressing the facts as best as possible. What matters is the power of the Gospel - and the authorship, as has been debated for centuries (and NEVER confirmed directly) has not been a factor in taking away from the Gospel. If you cannot acknowledge what I just said, you've not been listening - at all. I hope you see this simple reality.

I was never against "Agree to Disagree" - but if you really agree to disagree, don't claim that and still post in the thread acting as if only one side is concerned with the point, Kylissa.

The focus of the OP was primarily on what Dr. Ben said - and on the subject, it was asked for others to investigate/show they investigated his work. Not skimming over it or generalizing - but addressing his very in-depth points. This is evidenced in simple things avoiding making points on things the author of the article did not even state directly (even if bringing up a quote on one key part of what he said or showing where he did not address an issue in his article), lest we do slander on others. When others make accusations and don't even deal with the facts as they are presented, they are not dealing with the author.

Anyone and everyone can claim "I want to be free to address whatever issues I see more relevant" - that has been claimed by several on any thread where things got derailed....including your own, lest I remind you on your many discussions on several topics - be it Scripture/Word of God or Church History. If you wanted others to stick to the topic when you spoke, I'd expect you to do the same in the threads of others.

With the article by Ben Wintherinton, if one cannot show directly from the article where something was slippery, it doesn't do anything to claim something's slippery - one has to do more than that.

Sorry, GxG, I don't seem to be making my points well.

I am not saying that there must be witnesses for everything - as we know there are not.
But much of the mention of Lazarus in the Gospel of John involves things he could not have known himself.

Kyliss a, I don't think you're not making your points well and I apologize if it came off as if I was saying such.

What was noted, however, is that it's speaking outside of both sides of the mouth (equivocation) to claim that mentioning Lazarus's influence on the Gospel of John can't be true because of events he couldn't of known himself when the same is true of the Gospels as a whole!

As said before:

How did the disciples KNOW all things Jesus said to the Woman at the Well in private when they weren't even present until AFTER Jesus had gotten finished speaking with her - with John 4 saying they showed up afterward finding Christ?

How did the disciples KNOW in the Gospels what Jesus prayed in Luke 22 in the Garden when they (James, John and James) were ALL Asleep and outside of hearing distance?

How could the disciples KNOW - IN John 6 or Matthew 14:23 or Mark 6:46 - that Jesus went on a mountainside to pray after he dismissed them to the other side?

How could ANY of the disciples know the conversation Christ had in the wilderness when he was being tempted in Luke 4 and Matthew 4?

Even John 5 - after Christ healed the cripple by the Pool of Bethesda - involves Christ operating ALONE....with no sign of his Apostles present for those events when he was speaking or addressing others.

The bottom line is that there are several points where Christ has no interaction with others and no one - NO APOSTLE - could have known much of the events of Christ's life...unless, of course, Christ revealed them later. If that could be the case for them, the same could be the case for St. Lazarus in many accounts where it's assumed he was not present - and as said before, this goes back to Lazarus writing the account of Gospel of John with using eye-witness accounts and seeing what the Apostle John had to say

It seems you are suggesting Lazarus wrote from John's input - and yet Lazarus doesn't mention himself overmuch from his own recollection, nor does he ever mention John.

John was already included by the fact that the 12 disciples are all mentioned - John already noted in the other Gospels to be a part of the 12 (as he is also noted to be in other Gospels like Luke 6:12-17) - as seen in John 20:24 and John 6:70-71 when even Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”

And I wasn't charging Lazarus (if he wrote the Gospel of John) of trying to usurp - quite the opposite. But that's my point. If he's not (and I wouldn't think he would be) ... then why NOT mention John?

And again, if the Gospel Message is what John was focused on - pointing to Christ - then why would it MATTER if John was mentioned? There were already other Gospels mentioning John - and not every account you hold to (if another is writing it for your behalf) HAS to have your name written it in order for you to be represented.....no different than another ghost-writer sharing a story on behalf of another (with their name as the title) and yet the story NEVER mentioning the person by name which the title is based on.

But it seems we've reached a dead end.

As you wish - if you don't want me to pursue this. It seems not very profitable anyway.

Like I said, I DID not say you did not need to pursue the issue. What was noted was that if you disagree, then of course disagree and move on - but if you disgaree and insist, then at least read through the ARTICLE in the OP ....and quote from it on whatever you had issue on in order to show what there was issue with. Saying "it seems too slippery" is a slogan and not dealing explictly with the text of another so we all know where you're coming from - or at what point you're pointing out something. I hope this makes sense...

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The fact is that Witherington went from more than "the one whom Jesus loved" - for anyone actually reading the article.

I don't dispute that. I read the article. But to start from a faulty premise sort of poisons the stew.

Claiming connections as "tenuous at best" doesn't address the argument as Dr. Witherington noted. Moreover, claiming something as "questionable" is silly in light of where mutliple others in the history of the Church already noted the same thing and even what was claimed to be "questionable" was far from it - meaning that one bringing that up is doing a red-herring/non-sequitur that has yet to be addressed.

I would suggest that the burden is on the one who has gone against the common understanding of centuries of the Christian faith, whether they be Theologians or blog writers. I stand by my comment that much of the source material that you've provided is tenuous.

When you make questionable claims all based on a string of comments dedicated to showing you don't like a topic (as if anyone made you be here), that will always be highly questionable.

This topic merely struck me as interesting from the point of something I'd never considered. And to be presented with blog posts amidst one link to a Theologian's observations just struck me as odd. One may be a Theologian, and well respected at that, but still be wrong in the conclusions he may glean.

Moreover, harping on John Mark's writing on behalf of Peter is no more tenuous than remembering the tradition of the Book of Revelation being written by another John (John the Elder) rather than John the Apostle or ascribing the name "Book of John" to the 4th Gospel due to tradition.

The subject was brought up and I made a response.

John Mark being seen as recording Peter's Words/accounts was noted repeatedly by the Church Fathers (as well as debated) and it'd be falsehood to claim otherwise as well as not addressing the facts squarely.

Show me where John Mark is described as some sort of 'scrbe' who merely "recorded Peter's words/accounts". The quote below does not state that. It says he "also handed down...in writing what had been preached by Peter". Big difference. Also interesting in the quote concerning John. You wanted proof from ECF's. You just posted it yourself.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect [Aramaic], while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." -- Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, c. 180 AD​

That said, as I noted to you before, off-topic comments are NOT meant to be in the thread since they go counter to the OP. As I already said:

​

That said, you were already addressed earlier/told directly (after making several off-topic comments/flaming remarks that had zero to do with the OP issue) to either deal with the topic or leave. Making off-topic comments is not allowed - and if you continue in another off-topic post, it will be reported for what it is and taken further to Members Complaint for being disrespectful. Choose wisely.

So far, I've not gone off topic, nor flamed/made direct comments toward you, nor insulted you personally.