I have studied this for some time and would like to see what people have to say about this subject.
From my studies, I've learned that Luke also wrote Hebrews and Lazarus wrote John.
Let's here what you have to say, HAVING actually studied this matter.
IT seems that we have had this discussion before, but I will speak to it none the less. With the lack of any competitors, the fact that common men wrote these words instead of some prestigious person with other agendas, and the fact that people of that time accepted these words, there is no doubt that Matthew, Luke, and John Mark, and John the Apostle wrote the words of their gospel accounts and that they are the true first or second hand look in to the life of Jesus Christ.
The actual idea of Lazarus writing John comes from a man wrote a book a few years ago and asked that question and presented some "opinions" of his own thinking in order to sell tthat book. IF, IF.....Lazarus did write the gospel of John then he would also had to have writeen 1,2,3 John as the flow of the writing is the same. There in lies the problem because John claims the authorship of all three epistles.
As for Hebrews, the author is a moot question. IF you have done extensive reading in the New Test. anyone will agree that there is NO unanimity of thought and no agreement as to who is the author. When in school many years ago, I wrote a thesis/ or tried to on the authorship of Hebrews. I was sure it was Paul but the more I worked on it the more I was sure that I was not to know and that still stands today.
Well Gents, to my way of thinking, there is a problem in nominating Lazarus as the author of John's Gospel.
Given this statement, : "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. " John 21:24. I take this to be a statement made by the author about himself.
Verse 25, is a general summation, it is built on top of V24, so...........Coming at the end of the writing, it seems inescapable that this certification of authenticity would apply to the whole of the Gospel narrative and not be just an added footnote........agreed?
Now,........
1. Lazarus was locked away in a sealed cave for four days and could not have been 'bearing witness about these things' that occurred while Jesus was yet afar off etc. Ref John chapter 11.
2. Lazarus was not numbered among the twelve, indeed he was not even considered as a possible replacement for Judas Iscariot. Ref Acts 1:21,22. "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Lazarus might have followed Jesus after he was saved from the grave though because of the implication that he was not living at home with his sisters at the time of Jesus' return visit John 12:9.
And also, why only two candidates named to replace Judas when there were many many other followers? Why would not Lazarus' name been heard during this time? (if he was a serious contender and witness)
He just did not qualify as a witness to the Ministry of Jesus, to the Gospel of Jesus, He spent a good deal of his time at home in Bethany, so the certification as given at the end (verse 24) must necessarily exclude Lazarus.....in my opinion.
Well Gents, to my way of thinking, there is a problem in nominating Lazarus as the author of John's Gospel.
Given this statement, : "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. " John 21:24. I take this to be a statement made by the author about himself.
Verse 25, is a general summation, it is built on top of V24, so...........Coming at the end of the writing, it seems inescapable that this certification of authenticity would apply to the whole of the Gospel narrative and not be just an added footnote........agreed?
Now,........
1. Lazarus was locked away in a sealed cave for four days and could not have been 'bearing witness about these things' that occurred while Jesus was yet afar off etc. Ref John chapter 11.
2. Lazarus was not numbered among the twelve, indeed he was not even considered as a possible replacement for Judas Iscariot. Ref Acts 1:21,22. "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Lazarus might have followed Jesus after he was saved from the grave though because of the implication that he was not living at home with his sisters at the time of Jesus' return visit John 12:9.
And also, why only two candidates named to replace Judas when there were many many other followers? Why would not Lazarus' name been heard during this time? (if he was a serious contender and witness)
He just did not qualify as a witness to the Ministry of Jesus, to the Gospel of Jesus, He spent a good deal of his time at home in Bethany, so the certification as given at the end (verse 24) must necessarily exclude Lazarus.....in my opinion.
And it is a good opinion and I like it.
I wonder why the OP has not placed an interested opionion as this thread was his idea.
Stan replied:Now,........
1. Lazarus was locked away in a sealed cave for four days and could not have been 'bearing witness about these things' that occurred while Jesus was yet afar off etc. Ref John chapter 11.
Stan I believe it is pertinent.Not pertinent, Luke wasn't with Jesus either. All his info was second hand in Luke. In Acts it is first and second hand and in Hebrews, it is all second hand. This does not effect the credibility of it, as long as it IS inspired by God. As a relative of Jesus he would have surely heard all the stories and had them verified by Jesus after he joined His group.
I posted :
The author of the gospel of John on the other hand claims to be a witness to all that is written there......something Lazarus can not claim.
John 21:24 coming as it does at the close of the gospel pretty much means that this statement refers to the whole of John's gospel, so,I believe what I offered is indeed pertinent.
Stan, I understand your reasoning here. I'm sure you will agree though, that this whole end dialog is peculiar.
I think that the best accommodation of your thoughts on this would be that someone other than the main author contributed in large to Chapter 21.
Re ch 21:
I would not deduce from v18, that Jesus was telling Peter that he was to be crucified upside down in Rome.
"truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."
For example, it is Peter who will stretch out his own hands, and not have them stretched out by another. This it would seem, in order to assist in being dressed. Persons to be crucified were stripped bare except for their loin cloths if even left that much dignity. They were not attired in their 'Sunday best'. Tradition has it that Peter was martyred in Rome.
No, it reads more like a foretelling of Peter ending his days in a 1st century 'aged care' facility. . So......
In v22 'remain until I come' can not really be interpreted as 'come again' or 'return'. So the question is 'come where?'
Though it could mean 'until I am revealed' which would infer the second advent perhaps. The information seems rather incomplete to me.
In v24, "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." A fair question would be "How do we know that 'his testimony' is true"? This seems to be an extraordinary assertion to make about oneself, unless oneself was so well known to his readership that his integrity was widely accepted. Lazarus is rather obscure to us from reliable literature of the time. I can not see him being well enough known to be of such unquestioned integrity as to make such a claim.
It is possible though that Lazarus or some other person wrote or contributed to ch 21, but not the rest of the gospel. Ch 21 seems to be something of a codicil in view of the closing words of ch20.
John 20:30, 31. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. That would be a natural enough ending, and is somewhat echoed in ch21 v25.
I don't know what 'reliable' literature you have read on the subject of Lazarus, but I read in John 12:9-11; 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. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.
You assertion does NOT bear with what scripture actually says. Lazarus was very significant to the early church. Verses 17-18 also confirm Lazarus was very significant and in NO WAY obscure to the people, nor the Pharisees who wanted him dead.
Are you saying the Bible is NOT reliable literature of the time? I beg to differ, with extreme prejudice.
OK Stan I recommend you read again my reply #4. You might like to revise your comment.
In that reply, I covered and considered the incident mentioned in John 12:9,10,11. did I not?
Re your last quoted statement, you ask a question and then argue against a not as yet supplied answer!
You differ only in that you believe contrary to 99% of Christendom that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John.
The Bible was 'reliable literature of the time'. What has happened in the intervening years at the hands of those with personal agendas and unorthodox views is something else altogether.
It is clear enough that you are not really considering what I post, so I see no point in investing any further valuable time on you.
However what I really posted was:Your comment was, "Lazarus might have followed Jesus after he was saved from the grave though because of the implication that he was not living at home with his sisters at the time of Jesus' return visit John 12:9" You call this COVERING the incident? You did NOT.
In considering an incident, I covered it. It is a very misleading practice to critique a partial quote and then proceed as though the whole matter was critiqued.
I'm not sure what assertion I an being credited with here. The only point I have really made is that Lazarus is not a serious contender for the authorship of John's gospel because he was not witness to the whole of Jesus' ministry. Try as I might I can not see how the the above quoted passage does anything other than support the fact that Lazarus was not with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry. That is the only assertion I have made...really.I don't know what 'reliable' literature you have read on the subject of Lazarus, but I read in John 12:9-11;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. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him.
You assertion does NOT bear with what scripture actually says. Lazarus was very significant to the early church
So it becomes unclear what 'reliable' literature is being relied on. Is it the Scripture or is it googled opinion about the scripture that provides that person with a guiding light to"SEE it in the scripture"?All you have to do is search Google to find there are many opinions as to the authorship of the Gospel of John. I have read most of them and find Lazarus to be the most credible, because I SEE it in the scripture.
I submit that these studies were based on extra Biblical literature and not the scripture.I have studied this for some time and would like to see what people have to say about this subject.
From my studies, I've learned that Luke also wrote Hebrews and Lazarus wrote John.
Let's here what you have to say, HAVING actually studied this matter.
For the record. Stan posted :
However what I really posted was:
In considering an incident, I covered it. It is a very misleading practice to critique a partial quote and then proceed as though the whole matter was critiqued.
Then in post #12 Stan posted:
I'm not sure what assertion I an being credited with here. The only point I have really made is that Lazarus is not a serious contender for the authorship of John's gospel because he was not witness to the whole of Jesus' ministry. Try as I might I can not see how the the above quoted passage does anything other than support the fact that Lazarus was not with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry. That is the only assertion I have made...really.
Perhaps Stan did not read my post #4. In that post I pointed out that Lazarus was sealed up in a cave for four days. Cave, tomb?, the idea is definitely isolation. Lazarus was not a companion of Jesus prior to his being released from the tomb.
Stan then posts
So it becomes unclear what 'reliable' literature is being relied on. Is it the Scripture or is it googled opinion about the scripture that provides that person with a guiding light to"SEE it in the scripture"?
Myself, I rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Scriptures.
From the opening post:
I submit that these studies were based on extra Biblical literature and not the scripture.
The reader should consider these things:
1. Matt 26:20. There are mentioned here 'the twelve'. Obviously, the twelve disciples.
2. Mark 14:17. There are mentioned here 'the twelve'. Obviously, the twelve disciples.
3. The disciple that Jesus loved was one of those at the last supper, hence he was one of the twelve. John 21:20. Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"
There is the testimony of three witnesses against Lazarus being 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
Never mind what googled articles say: the Scriptures say 2 Cor 13:1. ............Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. and John 10:35, ......and Scripture cannot be broken.
Lazarus was not the author of the forth gospel based on the Scriptures. If anyone wants to place googled articles on a a higher authority than Scripture, that is of course between them and the Lord. As for myself, I distance myself from such folly and am forthwith withdrawing from this hotbed of what I consider heresy.
Calvin this IS in the record. The forum and this thread is the record. All you're doing now is obfuscating and ducking your own statements. I'm not playing your game, especially since you said you didn't want to waste your valuable time on me. You know how to use the tools here and are just trying to mislead the discussion by the way you formatted the above post. People can read back to see what was actually said by you. Typically you now deem this thread as heresy. Always a losers ploy I regret to say.
I'm finished responding to you on this thread. You have been properly instructed.
And so we respond to each other in brotherly love ....
Without love we are nothing more than religious nutcases, what defines us from the false religions out there?
Apart from all the solid biblical references that John the apostle wrote the book (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24) all the early church fathers, Irenaeus (AD 140-203); Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 155-222) and Origen (AD 185-253) all give credit to the Disciple John for the authorship of the Gospel of John.
John was part of the 12 disciples and incredibly important and featured prominantly in the 1st century church, amazing how his name is not mentioned in the Gospel of John which would be a huge mistake unless he was the actual author.
Can we put this to rest now - the author of the Gospel of John has not changed in the last two thousand years?
Stan all I can recommend is go and study this further using credible proven theological and historical methods - the determination of historical authorship is not placed upon on a verse. For instance there has been huge debate over some of Paul's letters even when Paul said he actually wrote the letters, yet the authorship is proven through other literary means, like style, the use of certain phrases, historical accuracy etc.
Right, pull the old "holier than thou" card" to enforce your own view. Nice.
The scriptures you quoted do NOT say John wrote John. They all talk about the disciple who Jesus loved. As a matter of fact, seeing as Lazarus was Jesus' cousin, it makes a lot of sense that He would tell Mary & Lazarus what he did in 19:26. John was no relation to them.
When you make an assertion that a church father supports your view, it is proper to give a citation, NOT just a name and years lived. Being an Apostle was NOT a prerequisite to being an author of one of the gospels, otherwise Luke & Mark would not be in our Bible. The fact is John is mentioned only a couple of times in the synoptic gospels, only in the context of who the twelve Apostles were. That is why they are called 'synoptic'. For some reason, the author of John did not include this reference. The four gospels contain very little that is common to ALL. There are 160 events that are noted in the four gospels and out of them, the feeding of the 5000 is the first that is common to ALL four gospels. The next one doesn't appear until the Last Supper, followed shortly thereafter by the kiss of Judas, arrest of Jesus, trial at the Sanhedrin, carrying of the cross, the crucifixtion and the empty tomb. The last commonailty is the Great Commission. So out of 160 events named in at least one of the gospels, only nine are common to all four gospels.
You are correct in one thing, the author has NOT changed in the last 2000 years! It was Lazarus from the beginning.
If you feel this is too strenuous for you then by all means feel free to bow out of the conversation.
The authorship of Paul is NOT the topic here, however I have no problem with what he is credited with writing.