- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Just for fun, some more thinking on this scripture:
JOHN 13:23,24
“There was reclining in front of Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him. Therefore Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell who it is about whom he is saying [it].” ”At banquets or large feasts in the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, couches were placed around three sides of a table. This left the fourth side free so that those serving the food could gain access to the table. At times four or five persons occupied one couch, but usually the number was three. Those partaking of the meal usually rested on the left elbow, probably on a cushion, with their heads toward the table. Food was normally taken with the right hand. The place of highest importance on a couch was that occupied by the person having no one behind him. To be in the “bosom position” in relation to someone else reclining at a meal meant being in front of him and would also signify having his favor. (Joh 13:23) The individual having a person in the bosom position could easily carry on a confidential conversation with him.
And since this one, whom Jesus loved, and is humbly unnamed, Peter, who was apparently sitting next to this one, asked him to ask Jesus:
“Tell who it is about whom he is saying [it].”{{{The customary three positions on each couch indicated that a person had the high, middle, or low position on the couch. One having the low position on the third or lowest couch had the lowest position at the meal.—Compare Mt 23:6; Lu 14:7-11.}}}
Quote david……..> i would have to bothe agree and disagree with you, I would agree that the author of John is not that important, but the author of the gospel does not seem to be John. I believe it might have been Lazarus because He was refured to as the deciple whom Jesus loved. The spritual value is still there no matter who wrote it. peace to you and yours……..gene
Gene, wondering why you don't believe it was John. To me, that's where all the evidence leads. (See my post on last page.)
Quote I read earlier on another site where someone tried to make the case that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John. The simplest reason they had was the following verses Jhn 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Jhn 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
–KEJONN
If Jesus once saying he loves lazarus is proof of writership, then what of the writer several times referring to the one Jesus loves as being present when Lazarus was not?
If John 11:5 is proof of something, then the other scriptures are even more proof against.
example:
JOHN 13:23,24
“There was reclining in front of Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him. Therefore Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell who it is about whom he is saying [it].” ”
(No lazarus here and it's definitely not Peter, for peter nodded to this one. How do we know it's not Lazarus that is spoken of as being the on “Jesus loved” here? He wasn't there:
MATTHEW 26:20
“When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.”
MARK 14:17
“After evening had fallen he came with the twelve.”
LUKE 22:14
“At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him.”)JOHN 21:20
“Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?””
JOHN 21:24
“This is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true.”It was the one whom Jesus loved (v. 20), who was “at the evening meal” (v. 20) who wrote these things. (v. 24) And Lazarus simply wasn't there. (See the other gospel accounts, each of which says the 12 apostles were there, until Judas left.)
Quote Oh, and the fact Yahshua raised Lazarus from the dead may have spread a rumor that Lazarus would never die (since he died once already). This (somewhat, but not quite) matches Jhn 21:23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”
–Kejonn.
It doesn't match at all, at least not with any of the other gospels that say that the 12 apostles were the ones present at this meal.
JOHN 21:20-23
“Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what will this [man do]?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?””We know John was at the evening meal. We know according to the other gospel accounts that lazarus wasn't. Therefore, this scripture has nothing to do with lazarus, for he wasn't at the evening meal. It therefore, doesn't match at all.
Quote (david @ Jan. 23 2008,21:58) Quote I read earlier on another site where someone tried to make the case that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John. The simplest reason they had was the following verses Jhn 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Jhn 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
–KEJONN
If Jesus once saying he loves lazarus is proof of writership, then what of the writer several times referring to the one Jesus loves as being present when Lazarus was not?
Show me where John was present in those same passages?Quote (david @ Jan. 23 2008,22:07) Quote Oh, and the fact Yahshua raised Lazarus from the dead may have spread a rumor that Lazarus would never die (since he died once already). This (somewhat, but not quite) matches Jhn 21:23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”
–Kejonn.
It doesn't match at all, at least not with any of the other gospels that say that the 12 apostles were the ones present at this meal.
JOHN 21:20-23
“Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what will this [man do]?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?””We know John was at the evening meal. We know according to the other gospel accounts that lazarus wasn't. Therefore, this scripture has nothing to do with lazarus, for he wasn't at the evening meal. It therefore, doesn't match at all.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/fowler.html- THE IDENTIFICATION of Lazarus with the beloved disciple has been suggested before.24 John introduces a mysterious figure, identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved most,” who appears at the Last Supper (John 13:23). (Suggestively, John 12:2 has Lazarus dining with Jesus.) He is again designated as the beloved disciple when he appears at the foot of Jesus' cross (John 19:26). There is also a figure identified, at first, only as “the other disciple” who accompanies Peter to the High Priest's court (John 18:15ff), but John 20:2 clearly identifies this other disciple as the beloved disciple. Can we also identify the beloved disciple as the Bethany youth, known in John as Lazarus?
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 24 2008,15:15) Quote (david @ Jan. 23 2008,21:58) Quote I read earlier on another site where someone tried to make the case that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John. The simplest reason they had was the following verses Jhn 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Jhn 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
–KEJONN
If Jesus once saying he loves lazarus is proof of writership, then what of the writer several times referring to the one Jesus loves as being present when Lazarus was not?
Show me where John was present in those same passages?
Um.. no. “The DISCIPLE whom Jesus loved” was not lazarus. We know John (one of his disciples 'followers') was at the lord's evening meal, where the disciple whom Jesus loved was present, and where lazarus was not present.Therefore, unquestionably, any burden of proof rests on you.
Quote THE IDENTIFICATION of Lazarus with the beloved disciple has been suggested before.24 John introduces a mysterious figure, identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved most,” who appears at the Last Supper (John 13:23). Yes, the “DISCIPLE” whom Jesus loves was AT the last supper. Nowhere does it say he was “mysterious” or that he “appears at the last supper.”
THE 12 APOSTLES WERE AT THE LAST SUPPER.
lazarus was not one of them.
ergo, it was not lazarus.Jesus, while there, made a covenant with those apostles, for a kingdom. They were the ones that “stuck with him in his trials.” Lazarus was not among them, then, or before.
Quote (Suggestively, John 12:2 has Lazarus dining with Jesus.)
No offence, but i think that slurpy might be causing “brain freeze.” This was days before.
You might view this as suggestive, but it is days before. We are specifically told 3 times who was there, and guess what, no lazarus. We're even given the number.You are grasping at what you want to suggest hints of this. But there is actually true proof against it. So what causes you to believe this? Is it what you are wanting to believe?
Quote He is again designated as the beloved disciple when he appears at the foot of Jesus' cross (John 19:26).
Yes, someone is, but no mention of “lazarus.” Jesus, leaving, wanted someone to look after his mother. John, seemed to be much younger than everyone else, outliving them all. He truly fits the context of that verse and what it says: See, your son.Quote There is also a figure identified, at first, only as “the other disciple” who accompanies Peter to the High Priest's court (John 18:15ff), but John 20:2 clearly identifies this other disciple as the beloved disciple. Can we also identify the beloved disciple as the Bethany youth, known in John as Lazarus? Please provide some or any proof of why you think it must be lazarus.
We know that lazarus AND Mary AND Martha were loved by Jesus, as the scripture says.
BUT, and this is a big BUT… we are talking about the “DISCIPLE” whom Jesus loved, who was AT THE LORDS SUPPER (IE: ONE OF THE APOSTLES) and who followed Jesus and stuck with him in his trials (ie: not who was a couple days journey away for Jesus' ministry.)It was the one whom Jesus loved (v. 20), who was “at the evening meal” (v. 20) who wrote these things. (v. 24) And Lazarus simply wasn't there. (See the other gospel accounts, each of which says the 12 apostles were there, until Judas left.)
Please read:
JOHN 21:20
“Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?””
JOHN 21:24
“This is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true.”If Lazarus wasn't one of the apostles, then lazarus isn't the one we're discussing, nor the one who wrote the book of John.
Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then.
Kejonn your problem is that you rely on Greek text which does twist the Set-apart Word of Elohim, bringing it to nothing.
If you had the Spirit of descernment in you, you would not be flopping around like a fish out of water, grasping for the air of truth.
I Daniel's dream Greece is part of Babylon, that was taken over by Rome and her universal church.
So scripture shows me not to rely on Greek translations, but the Set-apart Spirit, which is not in you as of yet.
If it was, your works would proove it.
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then.
Kejonn,So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”
??The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't.
The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too. Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error?In any case, the “lazarus” idea, him being called “loved” by Jesus, along with Martha and Mary, does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved and who was at the last supper with, and who wrote the book of John. According to Mathew, Mark and Luke's account, Lazarus was not there, and from Jesus' own words, he made a covenant with those ones who were there and these were the ones that had stuck with him in his trials.
And they were his apostles (and disciples). Lazarus is called a “friend.” Indeed, to be a follower, you'd think he'd be following Jesus around like the other disciples (followers.)LUKE 22:28-30
““However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.”As you have said, the lazarus idea, is “really nothing” evidence wise.
Quote (david @ Jan. 25 2008,16:05) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 24 2008,15:15) Quote (david @ Jan. 23 2008,21:58) Quote I read earlier on another site where someone tried to make the case that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John. The simplest reason they had was the following verses Jhn 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Jhn 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
–KEJONN
If Jesus once saying he loves lazarus is proof of writership, then what of the writer several times referring to the one Jesus loves as being present when Lazarus was not?
Show me where John was present in those same passages?
Um.. no. “The DISCIPLE whom Jesus loved” was not lazarus. We know John (one of his disciples 'followers') was at the lord's evening meal, where the disciple whom Jesus loved was present, and where lazarus was not present.Therefore, unquestionably, any burden of proof rests on you.
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-lazarus-of-bethany-write-gospel-of.htmlWitherington's best evidence, in my opinion, is that Lazarus is uniquely identified as one whom Jesus loved. See the first such reference in John 11:1-3. Jesus' love for Lazarus is again highlighted in John 11:35-36: “Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, 'See how He loved him!'” According to Witherington, “one could argue that this is the only named person in the whole Gospel about whom this is specifically said directly.” But what to make of John 11:5? There, the Gospel states, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” This does not detract from the point that Lazarus is the first, arguably the most prominent, and the only male disciple about whom it is said specifically that Jesus loves. Still, it does list two other followers of Jesus as being loved by Jesus. I would like to see this passage discussed further.
Witherington further argues that it is only after Lazarus is described as one whom Jesus loved that there is any reference to the “Beloved Disciple.” In Chapter 11, Lazarus is identified as one whom Jesus loved. In Chapter 12, there is a mention of a meal at the house of Lazarus. In Chapter 13, the Beloved Disciple is said to recline against Jesus at a meal. This last description is significant, because 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.” This suggests that the Beloved Disciple owned a house in or near Jerusalem, just as Lazarus did. Moreover, according to Witherington, the step-by-step progression from Lazarus being loved by Jesus, to hosting him at a meal, to the Beloved Disciple reclining against Jesus during a meal he was hosting serves as a clear marker that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.
For Witherington's theory to be true, however, the meal described in Jn. 13 must have taken place in Bethany rather than Jerusalem (where it is traditionally held to have occurred). Since Jn. 13 is widely accepted as referring to the Last Supper, in the comments, I asked Witherington whether he still believed that Jn. 13 described the Last Supper as recounted in Matt. 26, Luke 24, and Mark 14. It seems to be the same meal, though John lacks the Eucharist. Both have Jesus speaking of his betrayal, have Judas leaving to betray Jesus, and have Jesus leaving for the Garden where the arrest occurred.
And if Jn. 13 describes a Last Supper in Bethany, does this complicate his theory? On one hand, if the Last Supper occurred in Bethany, at only two miles outside of Jerusalem it is still close enough for the events of that night to transpire in Jerusalem. On the other hand, do not the Gospels suggest that the Last Supper took place in Jerusalem? The Synoptics record that Jesus had his disciples go to “a certain man” who was “in the city” to ask about accommodations for the Last Supper. (Luke 22:10; Mark 14:3-13; Matt. 26:3-18). While it is possible that the “city” mentioned is Bethany rather than Jerusalem, is that the most natural reading? In his Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on The Gospel of Mark, Witherington envisions the meeting with “a certain man” as occurring in Jerusalem. Ibid., page 370.
Additionally, because according to Witherington Simon the Leper was Lazarus' father and they shared a home, if Jn. 13 is the location of the Last Supper then the combined narratives of Matthew, Mark, and John, appear to have Jesus sending his disciples out from Lazarus' home to find a “certain man” that ends up being Lazarus himself who then provides them a place for the Last Supper in Lazarus' home. (Mark 14:3-13; Matt. 26:3-18; John 12 and 13). Against this, I suppose, it could be argued that Jesus was no longer at Simon the Leper's (and therefore Lazarus') house when he asked his disciples to meet the man about finding a place for the Last Supper. Such locational details can be tricky, especially in the Synoptics. The commentaries I have consulted so far do not really address the issue, so I would be interested in any informed input about it. Still, even if the location is not odd, why is Lazarus/Beloved Disciple called “a certain man” rather than identified?
Setting these issues aside for the moment, Witherington wracks up a fascinating list of implications of his theory that “clears up some conundrums.” For example, the omission of the Garden of Gethsemane prayer story from John would be explained by Lazarus' absence from that scene. For another example, it would explain how the Beloved Disciple witnessed Jesus' execution after the Twelve deserted him. There is a certain “aha” element to these details once one assumes that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple.
What do I make of all of this?
It is a very thought-provoking argument and well-worth reading. The focus on Lazarus as a disciple that Jesus loved shortly before shifting to a discussion of the Beloved Disciple (or disciple whom Jesus loved) is a powerful point. It has been mentioned before, but Witherington's discussion of Jn. 13 and description of details “solved” by Lazarus' authorship add more complete and persuasive elements to the argument.
But as discussed above, I have some important questions remaining, especially about the Last Supper, its location and timing. Also, is the argument against John Zebedee really that persuasive? Craig Keener argues at length for traditional authorship by John Zebedee in his recent commentary on John. All in all, I look forward to seeing Witherington continue to interact in the comments of his blog and what other blogs have to say about the issue. Hopefully, as the wheels of scholastic inquiry grind on, we will see further academic discussion of Witherington's proposals.
Update: Professor Witherington makes it official and responds to questions about the Last Supper by stating that there is no Last Supper in John:
John 13 is a composite a
ccount just as John 14-17 is….John does not recount the Lord's Supper at all, simply the earlier meal, but he does indeed add the end of the last supper meal story about Judas going out and betraying Jesus here which is necessary to the plot line continuing.
This is rather typical of the editing of the day, blending several accounts of similar content together.
I am going to have to do some thinking and reading about this argument.
Quote Witherington's best evidence, in my opinion, is that Lazarus is uniquely identified as one whom Jesus loved.
Yes, Lazarus, and Martha and Mary are “uniquely” named in such a way.
BUT NONE OF THESE WERE AT THE LORD'S SUPPER and we know that there was a DISCIPLE there whom Jesus loved. And we know that it is this disciple whom Jesus loved and who was at the Lord's supper that says that he wrote the book of John.So it doesn't really matter at all that Martha, Mary and Lazarus are mentioned as being loved by Jesus. Of course they are. He grew up with these ones.
But of Jesus “disicples” (followers) the ones who were … following him around, there is another one (who wrote John) and who refers to himself as the one Jesus loved. Again, we know it simply can't be lazarus, because then, the other 3 gospel accounts are wrong in stating who was at the last supper.JOHN 21:20,24
“Upon turning about Peter saw THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS USED TO LOVE following, THE ONE WHO AT THE EVENING MEAL had also leaned back upon his breast and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?”. . . .THIS IS THE DISCIPLE that bears witness about these things and THAT WROTE THESE THINGS, and we know that the witness he gives is true.”It was the one whom Jesus loved (v. 20), who was “at the evening meal” (v. 20) who wrote these things. (v. 24) And Lazarus simply wasn't there. (See the other gospel accounts, each of which says the 12 apostles were there, until Judas left.)
This can't leave any doubt that it wasn't lazarus…unless we conclude that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were wrong. In which case, who cares about this, the Bible is wrong.
John 20:21,24
THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS USED TO LOVE . . .THE ONE WHO AT THE EVENING MEAL . . .THIS IS THE DISCIPLE that bears witness about these things and THAT WROTE THESE THINGSLazarus wasn't at the evening meal. Therefore, logically, it wasn't lazarus.
Quote (david @ Jan. 27 2008,03:19) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then.
Kejonn,So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”
??The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't.
The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too. Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error?
I see I'm not the only one who noticed!:0
John was there and witnessed the Spirit descend upon Y'shua like a dove.
John was there at the Place of the Skull, when Y'shua was put to death.
Judas the betrayer was sitting next to Y'shua on one side, as he is the one who dipped his bread in Y'shua's dish.
When people try to discredit John, it is the evil one doing the work because John was one of the witnesses to everything.
Discredit John and you discredit Messiah, see how cunning is deception!!
Quote (Laurel @ Jan. 26 2008,11:01) Quote (david @ Jan. 27 2008,03:19) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then.
Kejonn,So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”
??The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't.
The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too. Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error?
I see I'm not the only one who noticed!:0
So says the person who said:Quote (Laurel @ Jan. 26 2008,10:05) Kejonn your problem is that you rely on Greek text which does twist the Set-apart Word of Elohim, bringing it to nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
