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

[Radagast]

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.

A fragment of Papias (c. 140 AD), which appears to reflect what he was told by John, seems to emphasise Peter's role: "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

 

[ImaginaryDay]

A fragment of Papias (c. 140 AD), which appears to reflect what he was told by John, seems to emphasise Peter's role: "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Thanks for that. If anything, this whole thing has me interested in doing some studying.

 

[rick357]

As a note the author not refering to himself by name has always been seen by me as a form of humbleness...the author wished his focus to be on Jesus not on self.....yet much of this thread seems to portray the author as doing the opposite and claiming this love as a position of authority...

 

[Radagast]

Thanks for that. If anything, this whole thing has me interested in doing some studying.

The significant thing is that Mark and John are eyewitness accounts (by Peter and John respectively). Luke admits to being based on older accounts (see Luke 1:1-3). For Matthew, there is debate as to whether Matthew wrote the gospel we now have, or merely some of the source material on which it is based.

But yes, early church history and early church writings are well worth exploring further.

Irenaeus of Lyons, who I quoted before, was a student of this man (who was a student of John):

Polycarp: Destroyer of Gods - Teaser Trailer - YouTube

I'm looking forward to the film.

 

[Radagast]

As a note the author not refering to himself by name has always been seen by me as a form of humbleness...

That's the traditional view -- and in my opinion the best explanation.

As to who the author is, it would have to be an important disciple not otherwise identified by name -- John, in other words.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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

Claiming "faulty premise" is is radically different than dealing with the whole of one's argument or showing a premise to be off (if actually quoting directly from the man, as requested). There have been several others who have noted this.

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.

And as said before, if one is harping against an issue, it is upon them to show that a protest is true. Someone claiming "I don't believe the Church Fathers advocated for the use of Icons or supporting books such as I-II Maccabbees or the Shepherd of Hermas" doesn't have a platform to demand others prove to them otherwise - especially if freely coming into a discussion where they already disagreed......noting they don't like the disagreement....and then claiming of others to "prove it" to them.

And as said before, it was never dogmatic on several points as it concerns the authorship of the Gospels - with John, there were debates on the authorship just as it was with the Epistles/Book of Revelation being made by another John - or II Peter being written by Jude....and Jude's Epistle being considered as written by the Apostle Thaddeus writing under a Surname. The same goes for John Mark writing the Gospel of Mark (never mentioning his name whatsoever) and yet the debates amongst the Fathers assumed he was either discipled by Peter or writing on behalf of Peter.

Thus again, it is said that much of your response is based on a provided is tenuous background that doesn't deal with the info as the early Church saw it - no matter how much one claims to be for tradition. Claiming to be for tradition anyhow only goes so far if not truly in line with the Orthodox Church or the practices of those in Church history who'd debate you being a Protestant as quickly as you would on the authorship of John.

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.

Of course one may be a theologian and still be off - as that was never denied - but merely claiming one is wrong without actually showing their argument as it is (as opposed to any exaggeration of what they said - or reducing it to something it never was) is not the same as addressing the theologian. Moreover, rather than dealing in generalities, part of addressing their argument is bringing it up in specific. It'd be no different than someone posting a link to an article on Dr. King's speech on the Vietnam War and then claiming "Dr. King was so wrong to support terroristS!" but not giving any kind of direct quote (or addressing the context) to show where the generality was ever valid.

This is why I noted others center primarily on what Dr. Ben said, quoting him if having an issue or supporting him - textual criticism just as it occurs in literature class when you deal directly with what an author said in order to make a case rather than speak around it or filter it through a slogan.
.

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.

There were several quotes where Mark was already described as an interpreter. Some of them referenced here - Paipias being one of them who noted such. The one given to you was showing where the Church Father did not see it where John Mark did not share what was given to him by Peter - trying to claim "He wasn't a scribe since he handed down preaching by Peter" is moot seeing that it was common language to consider handing down concepts as connected with what happened when scribes jotted down information. Some times it meant sharing what someone had said in memory and other times it meant sharing WORD for WORD in the moment - and to go past that is splitting hairs.

But on Peter and the Gospel of Mark, there are several good academic resources noting the Church Fathers in their debates on Mark and Peter's relationship - just as there were debates on the nature of the II Peter being written by Jude. For reference:

• Who Wrote 2 Peter? | Desiring God (by Dr. John Piper)

• https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm

• The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition - Thomas C. Oden - Google Books

• https://suscopts.org/coptic-orthodox/church/saint-mark/

• WHO WAS ST. MARK? - Orthodox Christian Bible Studies

• The ?Strange? Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference – Biblical Archaeology Society

As another noted wisely and CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Mark (for brief excerpt):

Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark (“John, also called Mark,” Ac 12:12,25; 15:37). The most important evidence comes from Papias (c. a.d. 140), who quotes an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter—preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; (3) Mark accurately preserved this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by Mark (see note on Ac 10:37).​

St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, Church History VI.14). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work (Church History II.15). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter.​

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

When you do not do as the instructions for the OP or any OP by others note (as it concerns boundaries for discussion), it is and always will be off-topic.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As a note the author not refering to himself by name has always been seen by me as a form of humbleness...the author wished his focus to be on Jesus not on self.....yet much of this thread seems to portray the author as doing the opposite and claiming this love as a position of authority...

Some have noted, of course, that part of the earlier views also involved noting that claiming oneself to be "the disciple that Jesus loved" would not necessarily invoke humility - specifically when contrasting yourself against others. And with having the name of the author at the Top of the Gospel (if removing a name meant humility), then there should have been no mentioning of John as being whom the book was made on behalf for.

Of course, humility would ultimately be seen in whoever the Book points to - and it doesn't point to John or any of other other characters impacted by Christ as the ultimate sources of humility. It points to the exalted Christ. Claiming of oneself (if being Lazarus) that he was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" would already be consistent with the theme of humility anyhow since he didn't mention his name as the author or in the text when making that reference - and giving John credit for the reference would be even more humility since it showed deference to others helping in the eye-witness accounts that make up the book. Moreover, pointing to the sacrifice of Christ is what makes all the difference - and from raising the dead to making wine out of nothing and saving the world, the person of Christ is exalted.

There's nothing saying that the author had to be an important disciple among the 12 who was not identified by name since other important disciples also wrote key books - as is the case with John Mark and the Gospel of Peter (as the Early Fathers noted) and the 12 are mentioned often within the Book of Mark (meaning all of them are noted even when names are absent).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So I'm working through Dunn's second volume in The Making of Christianity, Beginning from Jerusalem, and after that my plan was the read Raymond Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple and James Charlesworth's The Beloved Disciple. I guess I'm going to be adding this to my list.

I'm not certain if Charlesworth ever made a sequal to his work entitled "The Beloved Disciple" but I do hope that to be the case.

 

[Radagast]

There's nothing saying that the author had to be an important disciple among the 12 who was not identified by name since other important disciples also wrote key books

The author of the gospel gives a lot of details that only someone travelling with Jesus would know (e.g. John 4:6). He was at the Last Supper, and thus one of the Twelve. More than that, the phrase "beloved disciple" implies someone close to Jesus -- one of the "inner circle." The "beloved disciple" was probably also the un-named disciple in John 1:35-40, and hence an early recruit. He clearly was not one of the explicitly named disciples -- not Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel/Bartholomew, Thomas, Jude, or Judas. Lazarus is also ruled out because he is mentioned explicitly by name when he appears.

And once again, John was (according to the Synoptics), one of the "inner circle" of disciples. If John was not the "beloved disciple," then his total absence from the 4th gospel needs to be explained.

Finally, as Kylissa has pointed out, tradition is a very strong argument here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The author of the gospel gives a lot of details that only someone travelling with Jesus would know (e.g. John 4:6).

Speaking outside both sides of the mouth will never suffice in argumentation - as one cannot claim one had to be with Jesus in order to know key events and yet avoid scripture where the disciples were clearly NOT present. You started with John 4:6 - yet the scripture DOESN'T even deal with what you noted. In full:

John 4:1-6

Jesus Talks With a Samaritan Woman
4 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

4 Now he had to go through Samaria. 5 So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon.
​

Jesus was entirely alone when he left to go through Samaria and his disciples were never even present for the event. Thus, speaking of the Apostle John HAVING to be present doesn't fit the immediate context anyhow. And the disciples don't show up until AFTER the entire intimate conversation Christ had with the woman - as noted in John 4:27-31:

John 4:27-31
27 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”​

Seriously, as said before, if you're going to speak on the need to deal with the scriptures, then one must deal with the scriptures in their entirety.

As said earlier, 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

He was at the Last Supper, and thus one of the Twelve.

As said already - regardless of how many times it's avoided on your part - there were already other people present at the Last Supper besides the 12. The Twelve being present doesn't mean that no one else was around. As another before:

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 time frame 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"

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

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.
​

[/INDENT]

It is what it is....

[/INDENT]

We have to deal with the scriptures in their fullness if we're going to try making an isolated case..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

"beloved disciple" implies someone close to Jesus -- one of the "inner circle." The "beloved disciple" was probably also the un-named disciple in John 1:35-40

Beloved disciple does not indicate one of the 12 automatically seeing that there other disciples who were beloved and yet in Jesus' family (such as Mary His Mother and others). Thus trying to harp on the "beloved disciples' having to mean "inner-circle" is speculation - and as it is, there were other disciples BEYOND the 12 anyhow whom followed Christ. THis is already noted in John 6 when it came to the many of the disciples who even left Christ - with Jesus looking back to the 12 in the end. Women also followed Christ/supported him, even till death (Matthew 27:55/Luke 8:1-4)

He clearly was not one of the explicitly named disciples -- not Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel/Bartholomew, Thomas, Jude, or Judas. Lazarus is also ruled out because he is mentioned explicitly by name when he appears.

One can't assume (whenever the 12 are noted explictly in the Gospel of John - such as John 6:60-70 or John 20:24) that there must be an explicit mention of the name "John" in order for John the Apostle to b present. Lazarus was never ruled out nor others in light of how other disciples followed Christ at key events - as seen clearly in John 6 when it notes the many who were ALREADY THERE at the occassion Christ called Himself the Bread of Heaven - with many choosing to no longer follow him, even though other disciples stayed....including the 12. Again, this goes back to failing to prove that only the 12 followed Jesus wherever he went.

Lazarus being mentioned explictly by name does not mean he was not present for events since there were MANY not mentioned explictly by name who were part of the 12 - as noted in examples like the fact that nowhere do you see James son of Alphaeus OR Thaddeus or Matthew the tax collector or Simon the Zealot (even though all were already mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18 as well as Luke 6:15). It notes that the 12 were present in John without ever having to mention names of all of them - and likewise, it notes other disciples having been present besides the 12 without ever having to specify their names at EACH and every occassion (as is the case with Lazarus - one who is mentioned by name many times but never absent in influence).

And once again, John was (according to the Synoptics), one of the "inner circle" of disciples. If John was not the "beloved disciple," then his total absence from the 4th gospel needs to be explained.

Once again, as said before - there were already other disciples close to Jesus BESIDES those who were in the circle of the three and the Synoptics point this out on several occassions. As said before, 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
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.

The man 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 .

The disciples felt 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:

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.


Thus, there's little basis assuming John HAD to have been "the beloved disciple" if actually dealing with the Biblical examples.

But as Dr. Ben noted to bring his words to bear on the situation (for brief excerpt):

Notice now the chain of things—Lazarus is identified in Jn. 11 as the one whom Jesus loves, and here ‘the other disciple’ (see Jn. 20.1-2) is identified as the one whom Jesus loves, which then allows him to be called ‘the other disciple’ in the rest of this segment of the story, but at 21.2 we return once more to his main designation—the one whom Jesus loved=Lazarus. All of this makes good sense if Jn, 11-21 is read or heard in the sequence we now find it.... of course the old problem of the fact that the Synoptics say all the Twelve deserted Jesus once he was taken away for execution, even Peter, and record only women being at the cross, is not contradicted by the account in Jn. 19 if in fact the Beloved Disciple, while clearly enough from Jn. 19.26 a man (– called Mary’s ‘son’, and so not Mary Magdalene!) is Lazarus rather than one of the Twelve.
​

Additionally, as Dr. Ben noted from the article in the OP:

At John 13.23 we have the by now very familiar reference to a disciple whom Jesus loved (hon agapa this time) as reclining on the bosom of Jesus, by which is meant he is reclining on the same couch as Jesus. The disciple is not named here, and notice that nowhere in John 13 is it said that this meal transpired in Jerusalem. It could just as well have transpired in the nearby town of Bethany and this need not even be an account of the Passover meal. Jn. 13.1 in fact says it was a meal that transpired before the Passover meal. This brings us to a crucial juncture in this discussion. In Jn. 11 there was a reference to a beloved disciple named Lazarus. In Jn. 12 there was a mention of a meal at the house of Lazarus. If someone was hearing these tales in this order without access to the Synoptic Gospels it would be natural to conclude that the person reclining with Jesus in Jn. 13 was Lazarus. There is another good reason to do so as well. It was the custom in this sort of dining that the host would recline with or next to the chief guest. The story as we have it told in Jn. 13 likely implies that the Beloved Disciple is the host then. But this in turn means he must have a house in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This in turn probably eliminates all the Galilean disciples.​

Finally, as Kylissa has pointed out, tradition is a very strong argument here

Talking on Tradition is hollow in light of the fact that there were many things within the Early Church which were never dogmatic - including the authorship of John's Gospel, as well as the authorship of the Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation.

If you are already believe (as TRADITION goes) that another person BESIDES St. John wrote the Epistles and the Book of Revelation, then one can speak on Tradition being strong. If you already believe (as TRADITION Goes) that St. Jude was most likely the one who wrote II Peter despite it being attributed to Peter, then one can speak on tradition being strong. The same goes for believing that Thaddeus was the one who penned the Epistle of Jude - if you truly believe in and wish to use the "tradition is strong" argument, then you will acknowledge those things. This also goes for accepting Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas (used among the Early Church Fathers) as well as I-II Maccabees and many other scriptures noted.

Nonetheless, if unwilling to even submit FULLY to what the Church Fathers espoused in their fullness - including their customs and practices which are the foundation of Ancient Christianity/Apostolic Witness - then it is not consistent speaking on tradition. For in that instance, one is trying to appeal to "tradition being strong" as an argument when already showing in practice they don't really submit to tradition as the Church Fathers noted it.

But on the subject of tradition, John himself was noted to have passed long before the book of John was ever completed. As Dr. Ben noted (for brief excerpt):

As most scholars have now concluded, Papias was an adult during the reign of Trajan and perhaps also Hadrian and his work that Eusebius cites should probably be dated to about A.D. 100 (see the ABD article on Papias), which is to say only shortly after the Fourth Gospel is traditionally dated. All of this is interesting in several respects. In the first place Papias does not attempt to claim too much, even though he has great interest in what all the apostles and the Twelve have said. His claim is a limited one of having heard those who had been in contact with such eyewitnesses. In the second place, he is writing at a time and in a place where he ought to have known who it was that was responsible for putting together the Fourth Gospel, and equally clearly he reflects the influence of the millennial theology we find only clearly in the Book of Revelation in the NT and not for example in the Fourth Gospel. This suggests that the John he knew and had talked with was John of Patmos, and this was the same John who had something to do with the production of the Fourth Gospel. It is significant that Hengel after a detailed discussion in his The Johannine Question concludes that this Gospel must be associated with the elder John who was not the same as John son of Zebedee. More on this in due course. As I have stressed, while Papias’ testimony is significant and early we must also give due weight to the internal evidence in the Fourth Gospel itself, to which we will turn shortly. One more thing. Papias Fragment 10.17 has now been subjected to detailed analysis by M. Oberweis (NovT 38 1996), and Oberweis, rightly in my judgment draws the conclusion that Papias claimed that John son of Zebedee died early as a martyr like his brother (Acts 12.2).

​

Additionally, as Dr. Ben noted on the fatal flaw of having NO mentioning of John present within the text (for brief excerpt):

One of the things which is probably fatal to the theory that John son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple and also the author of this entire document is that none, and I do mean none, of the special Zebedee stories are included in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. the calling of the Zebedees by Jesus, their presence with Jesus in the house where Jesus raised Jairus’ daughter, the story of the Transfiguration, and also of the special request for special seats in Jesus’ kingdom when it comes, and we could go on). In view of the fact that this Gospel places some stress on the role of eyewitness testimony (see especially Jn. 19-21) it is passing strange that these stories would be omitted if this Gospel was by John of Zebedee, or even if he was its primary source. It is equally strange that the Zebedees are so briefly mentioned in this Gospel as such (see Jn. 21.2) and John is never equated with the Beloved Disciple even in the appendix in John 21 (cf. vs. 2 and 7– the Beloved Disciple could certainly be one of the two unnamed disciples mentioned in vs. 2). Also telling is the fact that this Gospel includes none or almost none of the special Galilean miracle stories found in the Synoptics with the exception of the feeding of the 5,000/walking on water tandem. The author of this document rather includes stories like the meeting with Nicodemus, the encounter with the Samaritan woman, the healing of the blind man, the healing of the cripple by the pool, and the raising of Lazarus and what all these events have in common is that none of them transpired in Galilee.

...The story as we have it told in Jn. 13 likely implies that the Beloved Disciple is the host then. But this in turn means he must have a house in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This in turn probably eliminates all the Galilean disciples. This identification of BD= Lazarus in fact not only clears up some conundrums about this story, it also neatly clears up a series of other conundrums in the Johannine Passion narrative as well. For example: 1) it was always problematic that the BD had ready access to the High Priest’s house. Who could he have been to have such access? Surely not a Galilean fisherman. ....2) If Lazarus of Bethany is the Beloved Disciple this too explains the omission of the Garden of Gethsemane prayer story in this Gospel. Peter, James and John were present on that occasion, but the Beloved Disciple was not; 3) It also explains Jn. 19.27. If the Beloved Disciple took Jesus’ mother ‘unto his own’ home (it is implied) this surely suggests some locale much nearer than Galilee, for the Beloved Disciple will show up in Jerusalem in John 20 immediately there after, and of course Mary is still there, according to Acts 1.14 well after the crucifixion and resurrection of her son.

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My friend who worked under him for a few years loaned it to me to get an objective evaluation of it. Looking forward to finally getting to it.

Let me know when you recieve the evaluation of the book your friend promised you - as I'd love to investigate it sometime.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

Ben Witherington is mentioned in another thread and since you bring him up:

I was almost persuaded first at his theory, then I read carefully the gospel and conclude it can't be. Mr. Witherington only pushes the evidence that fits his theory. He still has to explain John 21, which shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman. And I'm appalled how he says the twelve deserted him when the synoptics don't say it expressly. Peter and other disciple went back. Just because they fled from the garden it doesn't mean they deserted him completely.

Also, the synoptics say all the disciples fled, not only the twelve. So if he considers Lazarus a disciple (which he isn't even called in the gospel, just someone Jesus loved, and He loved many people) then he contradicted himself.

Even if it isn't John, Lazarus can't fit on it.

We have to think by ourselves before believing modern scholars. Just because he's a prominent scholar it doesn't mean he's right in all he says. I've seen many other theories who seem good at first but then it wasn't as good as it looked. Recently I saw a theory about Paul being the beloved disciples...because he said "God loves me"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ben Witherington is mentioned in another thread

Not certain as to what thread you're speaking of...

I was almost persuaded first at his theory, then I read carefully the gospel and conclude it can't be. Mr. Witherington only pushes the evidence that fits his theory

Again - as said before - if you feel he has not shared something, one can quote him directly to show in his own writings where something was left out. THere's no need for generalizations, as they don't deal with the scriptures.

. He still has to explain John 21, which shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman.

John 21 never showed that the disciple whom Jesus loved was a fisheman - and that was something which you were already pointed earlier -in the event you missed what was said. For many of the disciples themselves travelled and fished in areas far from where they lived....for they were a missionary group.

For more information on the fishing culture and their networks inland, one can go to the following:

• Galilean Fishing Economy

But even outside of that, the fact that the fisherman disciples fished by the Sea of Galilee does not mean that ONLY fisherman disciples (i.e. James and John, Andrew and Peter, etc.) were present in John 21 - we already see it where scripture notes other disciples traveled with Jesus as well, women in specific. And on John 21, it notes the following:

John 21:1-3
Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee.[a] It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.​

The event is similar to the first time the miracle like it occurred in Luke 5:1-11 - but others are present in this account which WEREN'T in the first setting. We can see this in the example of Thomas, who was not even there early on when Christ first chose Peter. In fact, Thomas was NEVER noted within the scriptures to be a fisherman in the same manner as Peter and the others who did so for a livelihood and for business - more shared in the thread entitled "Silver or gold I do not have"...but we see him tagging along due to Peter's leadership. Other disciples were noted to be present as well - thus not excluding others BESIDES the 12 who were present. The concept of other disciples from differing regions traveling is not a surprise in light of how many did so (as seen on the Road to Emmaus) and the network system of the early believers promoted sticking together. Someone like Lazarus being present really would not have been odd...just as much as others like Simeon the Zealot or Matthew the Tax Collector were present on boats as well.

And I'm appalled how he says the twelve deserted him when the synoptics don't say it expressly

Scripture does not agree at all with what you noted - seeing what Christ already EXPLICTLY stated prior to his trials:

John 16:32
“A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

Mark 14:27[ Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial ] “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

Matthew 26:31
[ Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial ] Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’


​

One needs to be appalled at the Word if really appaled at Ben for what he noted when saying the 12 abandoned CHrist. Mark 14:50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Matthew 26:56
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. 56"But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets." Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
​

. Peter and other disciple went back. Just because they fled from the garden it doesn't mean they deserted him completely.

Betrayal of Christ is betrayal of CHrist - which is what Christ explictly noted and what came to pass when it came to Peter in his actions toward Christ. For Peter said, "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended" (Matt. 26:33) - and yet Christ noted "Before the rooster crows, you'll have denied me 3 times".....pointing this out explictly in John 13:38 and (John 13:36-38). And this was again a fulfillment in what Christ noted when saying he'd be abandoned by all and they would lose faith in Him - one of the reasons he later REBUKED them for their lack of faith in John 20 and Luke 24 when he appeared to them

Also, the synoptics say all the disciples fled, not only the twelve. So if he considers Lazarus a disciple (which he isn't even called in the gospel, just someone Jesus loved, a

Again - so is Mary and the women who supported CHrist out of their means. Claiming one is not a "disciple" is incomplete if arguing solely for Lazarus and ignoring where the text already notes otherwise of others who were seen to be clearly in connection with following CHrist. As said before, Lazarus was someone deeply connected to Christ - and for someone that is seemingly unimportant to the narrative of the 4th Gospel, it does go out of the way to indicate his significance - especially to those in the priesthood which he was well known:

John 12:16-19

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

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.”

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

.......16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.

17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”
​

As it concerns intimacy - for others claiming "Lazarus was not a disciple", there's a good bit of intellectual dishonesty going on in saying that. For scripture never says the Mother of Christ was a disciple explictly but it is seen plainly in her association with Christ, traveling with him, doing ministry and helping to provide for him. If it is not the case that Mary was not considered a non-disciple simply because it was not always attached to her name, it's equally off to assume Lazarus was not close to Christ when seeing where scripture repeatedly notes Jesus DEEPLY loved Lazarus - was grieved for his loss - and was noted by others to truly be one whom Christ loved much, as well as one who held fellowship with Christ in dinner....and in Eastern culture, hospitality and food are BIG DEAL You don't do those things lightly. What we see in the text is someone whom the scriptures place big importance on, as well as someone whom the scriptures note to be be a direct threat to the chief priests. Moreover, as others came to Christ BECAUSE of the work of Lazarus, it is silly saying he was not connected to Christ.

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? 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 Gospels until the Book of Acts...and others who were present in the Gospels aren't even present in the Book of Acts (i.e. the blind man healed in Luke 18:34-42, the Sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke 7, Zachaeus the Tax Collector in Luke 19, the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 and several other characters. We do not assume with them that they are neither important or that they fell away and were never believers if the other scriptures don't mention them - as 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 ).

So if he considers Lazarus a disciple ...then he contradicted himself.

Even if it isn't John, Lazarus can't fit on it.

All the disciples was explictly in regards to the 12 who were present at the event - that's the immediate context. Not all disciples around the world were present in the Garden - unless trying to argue that "the disciples fled" means that ALL DISCIPLES ....even in Samaria due to the Samaritan Woman's evangelism or Zachaeus the Tax Collector in Luke 19 also fled. One has to deal with the immediate context

We have to think by ourselves before believing modern scholars. Just because he's a prominent scholar it doesn't mean he's right in all he says. I've seen many other theories who seem good at first but then it wasn't as good as it looked. Recently I saw a theory about Paul being the beloved disciples...because he said "God loves me

Sounds nice - but nothing of what you said really shows where one was actually thinking by themselves. Scholars note things that others have already been processing - so it is a bit of a false argument claiming others only believe what scholars say. WHat matters is what the Scriptures say - and when one doesn't deal fully with scripture, one doesn't need to go with that person.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by simonthezealot

But this seems to point to Lazarus...
1Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”
​

I appreciated how another noted best when stating the following - for brief excerpt:

<B>

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill (John 11:1).


​

The messenger of the sisters referred to Lazarus as he whom you love. This is the same identification as in the other cases, only in this case the author of the Fourth Gospel, Lazarus, identifies himself because he is the object of a major miracle, in that he is about to be resurrected from the dead. And the sisters probably did not say he whom you love as indicated here. They were greatly concerned for their brother and under the circumstances would almost certainly have said, "Lord, Lazarus is ill." However Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel, finds it convenient to relate their message in his own preferred terms, not mentioning his name and writing many years later of himself, as he whom you love.
Jesus immediately informed the disciples that the illness was not unto death, but was for the Glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified. Thereafter, strangely, he remained two whole days in the place where he was, until he knew that Lazarus was dead, as though he were waiting for Lazarus to die. Then he said to the disciples that he would go to awake Lazarus out of sleep. When Jesus approached Bethany, the village of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, not far from Jerusalem, Martha went to meet him and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. And even now, I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Then Martha went to get Mary, who also came out to him and said, like Martha, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." Then Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, he was deeply moved and troubled, and he said, "Where have you laid him?" Then they led him to the tomb and we encounter the shortest verse in the Bible: Jesus wept (John 11:35). Then the Jews who were there said, See, how he loved him! So yet again we have this assertion of Jesus' love for Lazarus. Nowhere else in the New Testament, outside the Fourth Gospel, and concerning no one other than Lazarus, is the love of Jesus for an individual disciple thus affirmed. I conclude that Lazarus must be that disciple "whom Jesus loved," and who wrote the Fourth Gospel. The narrative continues, of course, with the resurrection of Lazarus, an event that, according to Lazarus as he wrote afterwards, caused a great stir among the Jews, so that many believed in Jesus. One result was, as Lazarus continues to inform us, that the chief priests, the Pharisees and the council (Sanhedrin) gathered to consider what to do to counter the growing influence of Jesus, and concluded that he must be put to death. Thus Lazarus exalts the significance of his own resurrection from the dead by designating it as the event that precipitated a decision by the rulers to seek the death of Jesus. Following Lazarus' resurrection comes the gathering at Bethany six days before the Passover, probably in the house of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Others were present, including Judas Iscariot. We are specifically informed that "Lazarus was one of those at table with him." This gives us the insight we need to realize that Lazarus was very close to Jesus, and was included in the act of communal dining at the same table along with the apostles. Therefore we should not be surprised when, at the Last Supper a few evenings later, Lazarus, that disciple whom Jesus loved, is found reclining at table close to the breast of Jesus. It appears that a great crowd of the Jews gathered at his friends house after learning that he was there, "not only on account of Jesus, but also to see Lazarus who had been raised from the dead." Now we see that Lazarus becomes, next to Jesus, the major attraction and actor in the drama, as he goes on to inform us that, because of the attention he was getting from the Jews, they planned also (in addition to Jesus) to put him to death. As the only disciple who had died and been resurrected by the Lord, he would naturally have claimed a prominent position within the fellowship. Lazarus, as he writes the Fourth Gospel, is doing his very best to emphasize his own importance to the story, and his identification with Jesus. Now he has become so closely identified with him that the Jews plan his death along with that of Jesus. Perhaps this was wishful thinking on the part of Lazarus, for obviously he did not die (again) with Jesus but, if I am correct, lived to write the Fourth Gospel many years later.

Lazarus, a man who had died, who after four days in the tomb had been resurrected, authored the Fourth Gospel. I realize that this may be hard for some to receive, so let us back off a little and review the authorship question keeping this in mind only as a possibility. This conclusion depends heavily upon the identity of that mysterious character found only in the Fourth Gospel, and who is designated that disciple whom Jesus loved, so it may be helpful to list every passage where he appears. I will omit here only the story of Lazarus' resurrection, having just listed it above. It is a key passage, however, and will receive special attention later.
This mysterious disciple was present at the Last Supper:

When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly, truly I say to you, one of you will betray me." The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" (John 13:21-25)
​

He was present to witness the crucifixion of Jesus, and was entrusted with the care of Mary:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:25-27)
​

He was the first to witness the empty tomb, and to believe:

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes (John 20:1-10).
​

He was in the boat with the disciples when Jesus revealed himself to them:

Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, "Children, have you any fish?" They answered him, "No." He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, for the quantity of fish. That disciple whom Jesus loved, said to Peter, "It is the Lord.!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea. But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from land, but about a hundred yards off (John 21:4-8).
​

He was present at the last conversation of Jesus with his disciples:

Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21:20-24).
​

These are the passages that refer to our mysterious disciple. Let me now suggest a set of circumstances that are highly compatible with what we know of the disciples prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, not only from the Fourth Gospel, but from all of them. The Gospels present the disciples as nothing if not human. They are doubters; they are quarrelers; they grumble; they vie with one another for the chief places at the Lord's right and left hand; they are envious; they are ambitious for power and glory; they sleep at a critical time; they are men "of little faith." We can safely apply all these characteristics to all the disciples, including but not limited to the twelve apostles, for there were many disciples in addition to the twelve, some of whom were very close to the Lord, and this would include Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, who resided in the village of Bethany, on the Mount of Olives east of and near Jerusalem. It appears that it was in their home that Jesus resided when he was in that district. When Jesus heard of Lazarus' illness, he announced to the accompanying disciples, "Our friend, Lazarus, is ill." This suggests two categories of disciples: the apostles, and the others, not called to be apostles, whom Jesus designates "friends." This category includes, most specifically, the person of Lazarus.​

</B>
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The assumption came from one of the early church fathers close proximity to John, and knowledge of some of John's disciples through that...

It really cannot be stated enough that the Gospels were not titled by their authors, but became so through Tradition - with a a strong literary, and very early Tradition stating that Papias was either John’s scribe in writing it or he saw John write it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So I'm working through Dunn's second volume in The Making of Christianity, Beginning from Jerusalem, and after that my plan was the read Raymond Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple and James Charlesworth's The Beloved Disciple. I guess I'm going to be adding this to my list.

There was actually an excellent review on the issue which I greatly appreciated - as seen in where another reviewed Bauckham’s book, A Testimony of the Beloved Disciple.

 

[Radagast]

Lazarus being mentioned explictly by name does not mean he was not present for events

Once again, you've failed to explain what, on your theory, is the non-appearance of John in the 4th gospel.

It also seems very inconsistent that Lazarus would sometimes be mentioned by name, and sometimes called "the beloved disciple." That would need explaining as well.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Once again, you've failed to explain what, on your theory, is the non-appearance of John in the 4th gospel.

It also seems very inconsistent that Lazarus would sometimes be mentioned by name, and sometimes called "the beloved disciple." That would need explaining as well.

AS already noted you're obsurcing the point in trying to demand based on an argument you've not even shown to be consistent. You cannot show anywhere where Matthew the Tax Collector or Simeon the Zealot were present explictly (as well as Thaddeus) in the Gospel of John (or why John Mark is absent from the Gospel of Mark) or where it is REQUIRED for all authors to note by name the person they attribute a work to as you're demanding to be the case with the Gospel of John having to have mentioned John by name - nor have you addressed where it was already noted that John did not need to make any appearance when the TWELVE designation already indicated they were present - and there were already others. Others have already explained the issue of Lazarus noting who he was by name while also calling himself "beloved disciple" - one can do better, hopefully, than an argument of ignorance or ignoring the text. For if you're going to make a rule about how all works are to be seen, one needs to show how that was always the case in antiquity.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Others have already explained the issue of Lazarus noting who he was by name while also calling himself "beloved disciple" - one can do better, hopefully, than an argument of ignorance or ignoring the text.

Lazarus does nothing of the sort. The author identifies Lazarus as "the one whom Jesus loved". The author later identifies HIMSELF as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." A much better examination of early external evidence needs to be shown in order to accept any of this. For example, the link posted at the top of this page posits 'John the Elder' as a possible author. This merely muddies the waters even more.