Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?

[polonius]

This seems like a question the answer to which is self-evident.

Not really. Was the gospel signed or does it state John wrote this gospel?

If not, how is it determined to have been written by John?

[JehovahsWitness]

.
Jhn 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

John 21:2 leaves a clue as to who wrote the fourth gospel.[....] If TDWJL was the author, the he would be one of the two other disciples. He recognized the apostles by name and the non-apostles anonymously.

If John wrote the fourth gospel, why would he have included "and two other of his disciples"?

• Because the writer wanted to be accurate and mention exactly how many were in the boat. There were 7 in the boat and evidently the writer wants the readers to know there were seven. Arguably since he was recounting another one of Jesus ressurections appearances he wanted it known that up to seven individuals (four of whom were Apostles) witnessed a Jesus risen in order to strengthen the testimony .

If TDWJL was the author, then he would be one of the two other disciples.

• Possibly or he could have been one of the other named five in the list. The point is there nothing absolutely nothing that bars the writer from being one of the named Aposltes rather than one of the unnamed disciples present, and there is certainly nothing that imposes he be Lazarus of Bethany rather than John son of Zebedee.

On the contrary, Lazarus lived at least two days journey away to the south in Judea, an area that the disciples saw as particularly hazardous since Jesus execution. For Lazarous to have been accompany Peter on his impromptu fishing trip he would have had to leave his home (and possible his two unprotected sisters) and move up north. This is of course possible, Jesus had told the Apostles to go north where he would meet them (although he did not order all of his Judean disciples to do this so), all things being equal it is less likely that one of the fishermen in this account was Lazarus (never mentioned as being able to fish) than John (specifically named as a professional fisherman).

I wouldn't build an argument on the above but since you seem to be trying to imply that John 21 verse 2 is evidence that the writer could not possibly have been John son of Zebedee (and was probably Lazarus) , I have taken the time to point out the weakness of such a position. Your "clue" is certainly one that implies that the writer of the gospel, and a witness to this resurrection account, were one and the same person but it is a total non-clue as to who that writer was, bar that he may have been either one of the five Apostles named or another disciple that knew how to fish.




JW


RELATED POSTS

Is it problematic that John's gospel never mentions the passover meal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 560#959560

Is arguing that Lazarus was present during the Passover meal problematic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 685#959685

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses take a holistic approach to bible reading?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 989#958989

Who participated in the Passover meal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 819#958819

Was Lazarus not spoken of as being particularly beloved of Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 787#958787

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 76 by otseng]

.


JOHN 18:16

"Peter was standing outside at the door.* So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in" -NWT

QUESTION How did the High Priest come to know Peter's companion as per John 18:16 ?


♦ANSWER The short answer is we don't know. The gospels do not provide any details as to how Peter's companion knew such a highly placed dignitary. It could be that the writer was in fact alluding to him (the disciple) being known to someone in Caiphas' household, rather than personally by the High Priest himself. While arguably it might be considered more likely that Lazarus was know to the High Priest* than a fisherman of relatively modest means, this would at best be circumstantial rather than conclusive evidence.

* The ruling classes of the time had areputation for loving money.


QUESTION Could John 18: 16 be in reference to Lazarus, given that the High Priest had authorized the Senhedrin's the death warrant for him?

♦ANSWER That would be possible but this would make for a particularly perverted reading. Let us not forget that it is thanks to the disciple's aquaintence, he gains access to the palace courtyard. If he had revealed himself as Lazarus, known to the High Priest because he was the individual that one was looking to kill, his using this information to gain access to the Palaces woild have been tantemount to signing his own death warrant.

It would be like Osama Bin Laden, identifying himself as such so he could gain access to the location where authorities were investigating the terrorist attacks of 9-11.

Indeed, the doorgirl's grilling of Peter (whom the disciple had earlier guaranteed) indicates he had not used his identity as a disciple at all, much less as the disciple who was also a hunted man (Lazarus) to gain access to the palace courtyard. In short "the unnamed disciple" almost certainly did not go up to the doorkeeper and say "Hey man, it's me Lazarus, Lazarus!... you know the guy your boss is hunting for to kill, can you let me in? Your boss knows me ! ... oh and I have a friend with me can you let him in too?!" If the unnamed disciple was indeed Lazarus, to suggest he used the High Priests death warrant on Him to gain access to the High Priests courtyard is particularly ludicrous.


CONCLUSION Whether "the unnamed disciple" of John 18:16 was John, Lazarus or another disciple, he gained access to palace grounds by means of something other than his discipleship of Jesus. While Lazarus being of some means may be indicative of a possible connection, he most certainly would not have used his being on the High Priests most wanted list as leverage to get jnto the palacdin that fateful night.

JW

[otseng]

There were 7 in the boat and evidently the writer wants the readers to know there were seven.

How do you know there were 7 in the boat outside of John 21:2?

Possibly or he could have been one of the other named five in the list.

Then this would be the only time the author would have referenced himself by name, unless it was either James or John. As for it being John, it is highly unlikely based on reasons I've already listed.

The point is there nothing absolutely nothing that bars the writer from being one of the named Aposltes rather than one of the unnamed disciples present, and there is certainly nothing that imposes he be Lazarus of Bethany rather than John son of Zebedee.

I do not present any single evidence as conclusive. All are cumulative evidence that simply fits together logically.

QUESTION How did the High Priest come to know Peter's companion as per John 18:16 ?
♦ANSWER The short answer is we don't know. The gospels do not provide any details as to how Peter's companion knew such a highly placed dignitary.

I agree if it was not Lazarus, then we don't know. However, the Bible states the high priest knew about Lazarus.

If he had revealed himself as Lazarus, known to the High Priest because he was the individual that one was looking to kill, his using this information to gain access to the Palaces woild have been tantemount to signing his own death warrant.

Possibly, but the reason behind the high priest seeking killing Lazarus was because Jesus raised him from the dead. If they already had Jesus in custody, they have less reason to kill Lazarus.

Indeed, the doorgirl's grilling of Peter (whom the disciple had earlier guaranteed) indicates he had not used his identity as a disciple at all

Actually, the damsel knew TDWJL was a disciple of Jesus. When she asked Peter, she said, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" The "also" must refer to TDWJL. Otherwise, why would she say "also"?

Whether "the unnamed disciple" of John 18:16 was John, Lazarus or another disciple, he gained access to palace grounds by means of something other than his discipleship of Jesus.

What scriptural evidence do you have to support this?

[Goose]

BTW, if you asked me a month ago who wrote the gospel of John, I would've thought that was a dumb question and immediately responded "John." But, after reading through thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com and looking at the evidence, I'm now almost entirely convinced it is Lazarus. I want to see how well this theory can go up against debate, so I welcome any challenges to this theory.

It's an interesting topic. I'm working on a response to your summary post. I will have it up shortly.

Hopefully I'm not too late to the party.

[Goose]

To recap, here are the reasons John could not be TDWJL:

I think it’s important to note that the reasons you give do not go so far as to rule out John as the author.

- John identifies himself in Revelation
viewtopic.php?p=957883#957883

Yes but that says nothing about the Gospel of John. None of the Gospel authors explicitly self identify in the text itself so it’s not at all surprising the author of John likewise does not directly name himself.

Moreover on this point, the Gospels fall into the genre of ancient biography whereas Revelations was a very unique Jewish genre of apocalyptic literature and was addressed to a specific audience (Revelations 1:4). In other words, we shouldn’t necessarily expect John to name himself directly in the Gospel as it seemed to be the general trend for biographers of the time (Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc) not to directly name themselves in the text proper (with some notable exceptions such as Josephus’ autobiography for example). Whereas it seemed typical for apocalyptic writers to name themselves. So we might expect John to directly name himself in Revelations (cf. The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Adam, Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch [2 Baruch], Greek Apocalypse of Baruch[3 Baruch], Apocalypse of Ezra ). In sum, given the above considerations we have reasons to think John might not directly name himself in his Gospel yet directly name himself in his Revelation.

- There are two ways to spell Jerusalem. One is used in Revelation and another different one is used in the fourth gospel.
viewtopic.php?p=957926#957926

This is a particularly weak argument. Ἱε�οσόλυμα used in the Gospel of John and Ἰε�ουσαλήμ used in Revelations are virtually the same word taken from the same Hebrew origin word.

Consider the context in which each word is used in it’s respective work. When John uses Ἱε�οσόλυμα in his Gospel he is referring to the earthly Jerusalem, the historical Jerusalem, an actual place. In the three occasions Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is used in Revelations it is referring to the new Jerusalem, a Jerusalem come down from heaven.

“...and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God...� – Rev 3:12

“...And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven...� – Rev 21:2

“...And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God� – Rev 21:10

The context of which Jerusalem is enough to account for John’s differing usage of Ἱε�οσόλυμα in his Gospel and Ἰε�ουσαλήμ in Revelations.

- The fourth gospel does not mention events where only Peter, James, and John were present with Jesus (raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead, Jesus' transfiguration, and the prayer at Gethsemane), but all synoptic gospels record them
viewtopic.php?p=957927#957927

You asked, “If John was one of the three chosen ones to participate at these major events, why did he not mention them if he wrote the fourth gospel?�

But I could apply the same logic to 1 Peter and ask the same question. If Peter was one of the three chosen ones to participate at these major events, why did he not mention them if he wrote his first letter?

These are interesting questions but as is the case with most arguments from silence they don’t go very far proving anything. There are any number of reasons why a person or event may not be mentioned by an author.

So why didn’t John mention these events if he was one of only three chosen to be present? One reason could be that John felt awkward in his later years when reflecting back on being one of only three chosen. Perhaps there were some rumblings of jealously among the disciples because of this and John, having matured, didn’t want to reopen contentious issues by mentioning these events directly. As you argued yourself, “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest� (Luke 22:24).

What John does instead is he reports instances where the underlying message is equally echoed.

The theme of Jesus’ power to raise the dead in the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:35-37) is equalled with the raising of Lazarus. In fact, I would argue that the raising of Lazarus was a greater miracle since Lazarus had been buried for four days.

The theme of the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-39) is that Jesus is troubled by the prospect of his own death and asks the Father to save him from this. This thought is equally echoed in John 12:27-28.

“Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.�

The theme of the transfiguration where “they saw his glory� (Luke 9:32) is reflected in the opening of John “we beheld his glory� (John 1:14).

So John does cover the underlying themes you mention thereby conveying the same message without having to directly mention events he was singled out with only two others to be present.

Finally, I think John does leave the door open for other events that he could have mentioned such as the ones you have listed.

�30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.� - John 20:30-31.

- John not mentioned in Luke of visiting the tomb of Jesus
viewtopic.php?p=958311#958311

You asked, “Luke mentions Peter visiting the empty tomb, but does not mention John. If the disciple Jesus loved was John, shouldn't he have been mentioned too in Luke?�

Again, another argument from silence. Why would John necessarily be mentioned here by Luke when Luke doesn't mention any other disciples aside from Peter at this point? Luke devotes a large portion of the book of Acts to Peter so it’s not all surprising that Peter features prominently in Luke’s Gospel at this juncture in the narrative.

You argued, “Why wasn't Lazarus mentioned? I think the same reason he was not mentioned at all in any of the synoptic gospels - he was a youth and considered to be inconsequential.�

But that theory doesn’t hold. Luke mentions the impetuous youth Mark in the book of Acts. No reason for Luke not to mention Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple who eventually wrote a Gospel under your theory.

- Fourth gospel said beloved disciple believed, but Mark says the 11 disciples did not believe
viewtopic.php?p=958311#958311

You are arguing from an inconsistency with Mark 16:14 here, no? No need to even address this one if you are. Mark 16:14 probably wasn’t part of the original ending of Mark. The original probably ended at 16:8.

- Fourth gospel calls John the Baptist only by John and does not qualify it
viewtopic.php?p=958315#958315

But this works against your argument. John the disciple is never mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel. John the Baptist is sometimes referred to merely as John. Who else could do that without confusing his audience unless it were none other than John himself behind the Gospel?

- Events that John is recorded as participating at is not mentioned in the fourth gospel (preparation of the last supper)
viewtopic.php?p=958457#958457

But John does mention the last supper. To point out that John doesn’t mention the preparations seems a terribly weak argument from silence here.

- John could not have been known to the high priest
viewtopic.php?p=958462#958462

You asked, “If the disciple was John, how did the high priest know about John?�

That’s not terribly puzzling. The high priest knew about John, the same way the anonymous servant girl at the door knew about Peter. They were followers of Jesus. They were known. Surely the high priest could have known John, a member of Jesus’ inner circle, if the high priest knew about Jesus.

You argue, “But, if it was Lazarus, the high priest would've known him because they earlier were trying to kill him.�

And yet you’ve also argued Lazarus was too inconsequential to even be mentioned. Now you argue he was important enough that he was known to the High Priest.

There are further problems. We have Lazarus, who the Jews were earlier trying to kill, simply walking in and out of the presence of the high priest’s courtyard without a care in the world it seems. Bringing Peter in to see the high priest. Wouldn't we expect Lazarus to steer clear of the Jewish religious leaders?

- Only Peter is recorded in the synoptic gospels as following Jesus when he was arrested
viewtopic.php?p=958462#958462

Yes but John does say there was another unnamed disciple along with Peter. It’s more likely it was John with Peter when we see that John and Peter are often found together (Acts 3:1ff, 4:19, 8:14; Gal 2:9). Where do we ever see Lazarus and Peter together?

- John was considered "unlearned and ignorant" and not likely to have written the fourth gospel.
viewtopic.php?p=958780#958780

Acts 4:13 is Luke recording what the Jewish leaders perceived based upon a speech. This isn’t Luke stating as a fact John and Peter were "unlearned and ignorant."

You argued from the secret Gospel of Mark as evidence for Lazarus being rich. But of course if we are going to reach this far beyond the New Testament it opens a land slide of external attributions of authorship for John from the early church fathers. So I don’t see how you can admit as evidence the secret Gospel of Mark yet virtually dismiss all the unanimous evidence of the church fathers.

Some of your arguments:

“Lazarus was also buried in a cave with a stone (similar to Jesus), which would indicate having some money.�

Well, not really similar to Jesus. John uses the word σπη�λαιον (cave) for Lazarus’ place of burial. Whereas John uses μνημεῖον (sepulchre, tomb) for Jesus’ place of burial (19:41). There’s a significance difference in the required level of wealth to have a new rock hewn tomb vs. a simple cave. That’s not to say Lazarus’ family did not have any money at all. It’s only to say this can’t be used to infer they had the same level of wealth as Joseph of Arimathea which is what you seem to imply when you say Lazarus was buried in a cave with a stone “similar to Jesus.� Common graves were dug in the ground and also caves were used. There’s no reason to think Lazarus’ family has any more wealth than John’s family.

You argued, “Mary also anointed Jesus' feet with ointment worth one year's wages.�

Yes but it doesn’t follow from that, that her family was wealthy. You are presuming she bought the ointment, yes?

You argued, “Finally, Lazarus was to take care of Jesus' mother, which would also indicate he had some financial stability.�

Are you getting this from John 19:25-27? If you are, it’s circular.

You conclude, “So, if Lazarus was in an upper-income household, he was also likely to be well educated and more likely than John to write the fourth gospel.�

There’s really no reason to think Lazarus was any wealthier and therefore any more educated or qualified to write a Gospel than John. John came from a family with a fishing business that had at least one boat and hired servants (Mark 1:19-20).

- Fourth gospel never mentions the calling of John as an apostle (whereas all the synoptic gospels do)
viewtopic.php?p=958782#958782

Yes but that seems odd if Lazarus wrote the fourth Gospel. Wouldn’t we expect Lazarus to mention this event? Only John, himself, could omit this without any accusation of insulting John.

- Fourth gospel never lists the names of the apostles
viewtopic.php?p=958782#958782

Not sure why that’s significant, let alone would rule out John.

- John was not humble
viewtopic.php?p=958784#958784

Well, it’s not as though John claimed to be worthy of sitting at the hand of Jesus. John merely makes the request. An understandable request coming from a young man eager to make a name for himself. Further, I’m working under the assumption the author John was much older, wiser, and as a result more mature than the John described in the New Testament.

- In Luke, John is not mentioned to have visited the tomb
viewtopic.php?p=959459#959459

Is this an accidental repeat from above?

- John 21:2 mentions other disciples
viewtopic.php?p=959548#959548

Agreed. But how does that rule out John? This seems consistent with the idea that John wanted to avoid directly naming himself.

- John lived several days journey from Jerusalem
viewtopic.php?p=959169#959169

This assumes that when John says, “And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home� (John 19:27) that the word home is a literal house where the beloved disciple took Mary. In the Greek text, however, the word for “home� which is οἰκι�α or οἶκος does not appear. John 19:27 ends with ̓�διος (one’s own). The disciple took Jesus’ mother as his own, into his own family. There’s no literal house here.

As an additional note. I don’t feel you’ve adequately addressed the argument made by JehovahsWitness regarding the contradiction in changing from using the name Lazarus to "the disciple whom Jesus loved.� Frankly, in my view, that argument alone is enough to sink the entire theory that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John with the intention of remaining anonymous.

Further crippling the theory is the fact that it requires one to completely disregard the historical evidence from the church fathers who attribute the Gospel of John to John. I’m sure you are well aware of that evidence but I did summarize it in this post. Historically speaking, on a comparative level, the evidence for the traditional authorship of John is very strong. I just don’t see how these easily overturned arguments for Lazarus are sufficient to overturn the weight of the historical record.

[otseng]

I think it’s important to note that the reasons you give do not go so far as to rule out John as the author.

No, I do not claim that it is impossible for John to be the author of the fourth gospel. But, in my mind, it makes much more sense if Lazarus was the author.

In sum, given the above considerations we have reasons to think John might not directly name himself in his Gospel yet directly name himself in his Revelation.

Yes, I agree this argument is weak regarding the fourth gospel. None of the gospels state who the author is, so the fourth gospel would be no different. However, the epistles do have authors directly naming themselves.

When John uses Ἱε�οσόλυμα in his Gospel he is referring to the earthly Jerusalem, the historical Jerusalem, an actual place. In the three occasions Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is used in Revelations it is referring to the new Jerusalem, a Jerusalem come down from heaven.

Possibly. However, Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is not used to reference a New Jerusalem outside of Revelation, so there would be no particular reason readers of Revelation should identify Ἰε�ουσαλήμ with the New Jerusalem. John could've used either word and the meaning would be the same to readers.

But I could apply the same logic to 1 Peter and ask the same question. If Peter was one of the three chosen ones to participate at these major events, why did he not mention them if he wrote his first letter?

Of course, these writings have different purposes. The gospels relate the story of Jesus and the disciples. The epistles were written to encourage and address issues with fellow believers.

These are interesting questions but as is the case with most arguments from silence they don’t go very far proving anything.

I agree that any single argument from silence does not prove anything. However, taken as a whole, the pieces fit together better with Lazarus as the author.

One reason could be that John felt awkward in his later years when reflecting back on being one of only three chosen.

It would seem strange for him to feel awkward about this and also identify himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which would elevate him above all the other apostles.

Perhaps there were some rumblings of jealously among the disciples because of this and John, having matured, didn’t want to reopen contentious issues by mentioning these events directly.

The other gospels are regarded to have been written prior to the fourth gospel. So, these other gospels have already revealed this "contentious" issue.

So John does cover the underlying themes you mention thereby conveying the same message without having to directly mention events he was singled out with only two others to be present.

I agree these themes are common, but these themes are found throughout the gospels and in the ministry of Jesus. So, saying John wrote about these themes does not show he is indirectly referencing these specific events.

Finally, I think John does leave the door open for other events that he could have mentioned such as the ones you have listed.

A door that is so wide open to include any possible event would not address why the fourth gospel does not mention these three specific events.

Why would John necessarily be mentioned here by Luke when Luke doesn't mention any other disciples aside from Peter at this point?

Not sure what you mean. In the fourth gospel, only two men were at the tomb - Peter and TDWJL. Why would any other apostle need to be mentioned?

Luke devotes a large portion of the book of Acts to Peter so it’s not all surprising that Peter features prominently in Luke’s Gospel at this juncture in the narrative.

In Acts, John is quite often mentioned alongside Peter.

Act 3:1
Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

Act 3:3
Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.

Act 3:4
And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.

Act 3:11
And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

So, why would Luke mention Peter and John together in Acts, but not in his gospel?

You argued, “Why wasn't Lazarus mentioned? I think the same reason he was not mentioned at all in any of the synoptic gospels - he was a youth and considered to be inconsequential.�

But that theory doesn’t hold. Luke mentions the impetuous youth Mark in the book of Acts. No reason for Luke not to mention Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple who eventually wrote a Gospel under your theory.

The basic question is why is Lazarus not mentioned in the synoptic gospels, regardless of who wrote the fourth gospel. If the fourth gospel was written by John, then why would only he write about Lazarus? And why would the other gospels omit this seemingly important event of Lazarus being raised from the dead?

You are arguing from an inconsistency with Mark 16:14 here, no? No need to even address this one if you are. Mark 16:14 probably wasn’t part of the original ending of Mark. The original probably ended at 16:8.

Yes, I'm assuming the Bible that is commonly published is authoritative and not assuming we should reject certain passages. I agree several parts can be considered questionable if they are authentic, but for sake of argument I'm assuming the entire Bible can be used as evidence.

So, yes, I'm arguing about the inconsistency of these passages. If John was the author of the fourth gospel, then it would make Mark 16:14 inconsistent with John 20:8. However, if Lazarus was the author, then there is no contradiction between these verses.

- Fourth gospel calls John the Baptist only by John and does not qualify it
viewtopic.php?p=958315#958315

But this works against your argument. John the disciple is never mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel. John the Baptist is sometimes referred to merely as John. Who else could do that without confusing his audience unless it were none other than John himself behind the Gospel?

Actually, I see it as the opposite. During the life of John the apostle, I'm sure he talked about John the Baptist with other people. Since their names are the same, I doubt John would've just referred to him as John since it would be confusing. If he talked with people and referred to him as John the Baptist, and not just John, then more likely it would also carry over to his writings.

Now, admittedly, this is a weak argument. But, I do find it interesting the word Baptist is only found in the synoptic gospels.

To point out that John doesn’t mention the preparations seems a terribly weak argument from silence here.

I don't think it's a terribly weak argument, especially considering he devotes 5 chapters to describe that evening. He has gone into such detail of that evening, yet is completely silent on events that we know John was there from the other gospels.

To explain all these "silences" for John, one needs to propose many hypothetical reasons why John would exclude them. If it was Lazarus, the answer is much simpler.

The high priest knew about John, the same way the anonymous servant girl at the door knew about Peter. They were followers of Jesus.

I'm not so sure the religious leaders had taken note of them as followers of Jesus. They had to ask Peter and John the following:

Act 4:5-7
And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?

And yet you’ve also argued Lazarus was too inconsequential to even be mentioned. Now you argue he was important enough that he was known to the High Priest.

My hypothesis is that he was considered inconsequential by the gospel writers, not by everybody. Obviously he was not considered inconsequential by the religious leaders since they sought to kill him.

There are further problems. We have Lazarus, who the Jews were earlier trying to kill, simply walking in and out of the presence of the high priest’s courtyard without a care in the world it seems.

Even before this, he did not seem to care about the possibility of his death.

OK, out of time for now. I'll address the rest in another post.

[otseng]

Where do we ever see Lazarus and Peter together?

If the fourth gospel was written by Lazarus, we also see Lazarus and Peter together in:
- John 13:24 - Peter asked him to ask Jesus who would betray him
- John 20:3 - Peter and Lazarus at the tomb of Jesus
- John 21 - Peter asked Jesus what about this man (Lazarus)

Acts 4:13 is Luke recording what the Jewish leaders perceived based upon a speech. This isn’t Luke stating as a fact John and Peter were "unlearned and ignorant."

Right, it's what the religious leaders perceived.

So I don’t see how you can admit as evidence the secret Gospel of Mark yet virtually dismiss all the unanimous evidence of the church fathers.

Never said I dismissed any evidence of the church fathers. Please go ahead and present the evidence from the church fathers that the fourth gospel was written by the apostle John.

It’s only to say this can’t be used to infer they had the same level of wealth as Joseph of Arimathea which is what you seem to imply when you say Lazarus was buried in a cave with a stone “similar to Jesus.�

No, I'm not comparing their level of wealth. I'm simply saying Lazarus' family had some money by considering all the evidence that points towards them being financially secure.

Yes but that seems odd if Lazarus wrote the fourth Gospel. Wouldn’t we expect Lazarus to mention this event? Only John, himself, could omit this without any accusation of insulting John.

Lazarus does not mention how all the apostles were called, so leaving out John would not be "insulting".

If John wrote it, why would he omit himself and yet mention how others were called?

- Fourth gospel never lists the names of the apostles
viewtopic.php?p=958782#958782

Not sure why that’s significant, let alone would rule out John.

He was one of the chosen twelve and intimate with the other apostles. To write an account of Jesus and his ministry and fail to mention the twelve seems to me to be strange. This must certainly have been insulting to the other unnamed apostles if they knew John wrote it.

Well, it’s not as though John claimed to be worthy of sitting at the hand of Jesus. John merely makes the request. An understandable request coming from a young man eager to make a name for himself.

Well, the other apostles were not as understanding and gracious.

Mar 10:41
And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.

Further, I’m working under the assumption the author John was much older, wiser, and as a result more mature than the John described in the New Testament.

Elevating himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not seem consistent with what you are suggesting.

- In Luke, John is not mentioned to have visited the tomb
viewtopic.php?p=959459#959459

Is this an accidental repeat from above?

I had made another post about it and I was just summarizing all my posts. But yes, that was already discussed before.

- John 21:2 mentions other disciples
viewtopic.php?p=959548#959548

Agreed. But how does that rule out John? This seems consistent with the idea that John wanted to avoid directly naming himself.

The point I was making was why mention the "two other of his disciples" if it was John? These people would be a superfluous detail if John was the author. If the author was Lazarus, then he was one of these two other disciples. Granted, this evidence is not strong, but it's another detail that makes reading the fourth gospel make more sense if Lazarus was the author.

But, this brings up the question, why is John not mentioned by name in the fourth gospel?

John could've written the gospel and written about himself in the third person and still could have remained anonymous as the author. If it's claimed he was humble by not mentioning himself by name, then this is contradictory to labeling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

If Lazarus was the author, then he did not consider John to be either signifiant or relevant. Just like Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), James (son of Zebedee), and Simon (the Canaanite), which none of these are also mentioned by name.

In the Greek text, however, the word for “home� which is οἰκι�α or οἶκος does not appear. John 19:27 ends with ̓�διος (one’s own). The disciple took Jesus’ mother as his own, into his own family. There’s no literal house here.

True. But, it's strongly implied. Many translations translate it with home and only one translates it as household.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn ... es_1016027

As an additional note. I don’t feel you’ve adequately addressed the argument made by JehovahsWitness regarding the contradiction in changing from using the name Lazarus to "the disciple whom Jesus loved.�

I have some more thoughts about it, but it's still a bit nebulous.

No matter who the author is, it's peculiar the phrase is only used in the last half of the book. Why should this phrase only be used in the last half?

I think it has something to do with the structure of the book. As I mentioned, the first half of the book ends with Lazarus resurrecting from the dead and the second half ends with Jesus resurrecting from the dead. "Lazarus" was no longer relevant to the second half of the book so this name was no longer used. After he was resurrected, he was no longer "Lazarus", but became "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

Frankly, in my view, that argument alone is enough to sink the entire theory that Lazarus wrote the Gospel of John with the intention of remaining anonymous.

If John was the author, why would he only use this phrase in the last half of the book?

Further crippling the theory is the fact that it requires one to completely disregard the historical evidence from the church fathers who attribute the Gospel of John to John.

Please present the evidence from the church fathers on why they attribute the author to John so we can review it in this thread.

[Goose]

When John uses Ἱε�οσόλυμα in his Gospel he is referring to the earthly Jerusalem, the historical Jerusalem, an actual place. In the three occasions Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is used in Revelations it is referring to the new Jerusalem, a Jerusalem come down from heaven.

Possibly. However, Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is not used to reference a New Jerusalem outside of Revelation, so there would be no particular reason readers of Revelation should identify Ἰε�ουσαλήμ with the New Jerusalem. John could've used either word and the meaning would be the same to readers.

But Ἰε�ουσαλήμ is used by earlier Gospel writers in reference to the earthly historical Jerusalem. In fact all three synoptic writers use both Ἱε�οσόλυμα and Ἰε�ουσαλήμ to reference the earthly Jerusalem. Mark uses both forms in the same chapter (11). None of the Gospel writers reference a new Jerusalem come down from heaven however. That image only shows up in Revelations. It’s only the Gospel of John which is careful to use only Ἱε�οσόλυμα in his Gospel never using Ἰε�ουσαλήμ there to reference an earthly Jerusalem. Now this would be a compelling argument against John authoring both the fourth Gospel and Revelations if the context of Jerusalem in Revelations was also an earthly one. In that case, we’d have the author of the Gospel only using Ἱε�οσόλυμα to reference the earthly Jerusalem and the author of Revelations only using the different form Ἰε�ουσαλήμ to reference the same earthly Jerusalem. This would be very difficult to explain under the hypothesis that the same author wrote both works. But because the Jerusalem found in Revelations is a new Jerusalem come down from heaven this problem is avoided. The argument then can no longer be used to support the idea that Revelations and the fourth Gospel had different authors. In fact, we see there may be a reason to think there is a single author for both works as the Gospel author is the only author careful to use only Ἱε�οσόλυμα to reference and earthly Jerusalem.

But I could apply the same logic to 1 Peter and ask the same question. If Peter was one of the three chosen ones to participate at these major events, why did he not mention them if he wrote his first letter?

Of course, these writings have different purposes. The gospels relate the story of Jesus and the disciples. The epistles were written to encourage and address issues with fellow believers.

Exactly. Different purposes even among the Gospels themselves. John states his purpose explicitly...

�Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name. “

Nowhere does John state the purpose of his writing the Gospel was to “relate the story of Jesus and the disciples.�

In other words, John doesn’t commit himself to having to report everything he knew or witnessed about Jesus or himself. The expectation that John would report the three events he was chosen to be present at is simply speculation. John certainly could, and certainly did in my opinion, achieve his stated purpose without ever explicitly referencing those three events.

I agree that any single argument from silence does not prove anything. However, taken as a whole, the pieces fit together better with Lazarus as the author.

That last bit is a matter of opinion. And it’s an opinion which seems to be derived from looking at an incomplete set of pieces to the puzzle. I think if we take a much broader view and look at the entire body of evidence for authorship we begin to see the Lazarus theory is much more problematic, if not outright falsified by the external evidence, than the traditional John theory.

It would seem strange for him to feel awkward about this and also identify himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which would elevate him above all the other apostles.

It seems strange if one assumes the title "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was intended to elevate by implying some extra special relationship with Jesus. As though Jesus loved him more than the other disciples. Or that Jesus loved only him. But I think that’s a false assumption. If Jesus loved all his disciples, then he loved the disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel. If Jesus loved the disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel then he was the "the disciple whom Jesus loved." So rather than being a claim of elevation above the other disciples it can also be seen as a claim to be no different than any other disciple since they all could equally claim to be loved by Jesus and thus also claim to be “the disciple whom Jesus loved.� Indeed, anyone of us, who is a disciple, could claim to be “the disciple whom Jesus loves� and it would be just as true as John’s statement. We are all one in Christ and equally loved by Him.

The other gospels are regarded to have been written prior to the fourth gospel. So, these other gospels have already revealed this "contentious" issue.

Yes but it doesn’t follow that because the earlier Gospel writers revealed this contentious issue that John would then feel comfortable directly mentioning and reopening the issue. In fact if we assume that John matured and was tempered by the Holy Spirit in his later years we can see where he might deliberately avoid bringing up these issues.

I agree these themes are common, but these themes are found throughout the gospels and in the ministry of Jesus. So, saying John wrote about these themes does not show he is indirectly referencing these specific events.

But that presumes John must convey the events in the same manner as the synoptic writers in order to convey the same underlying message. That’s not necessarily the case. John could take a thematic approach to his Gospel revealing the underlying message of event A, B, and C through other means such as making a theological declaration or reporting other instances which had the same underlying message.

A door that is so wide open to include any possible event would not address why the fourth gospel does not mention these three specific events.

But that has been addressed in other arguments. The point is that John leaves open the door that there are many more things he could have mentioned. In other words, he is implying that he hasn’t covered it all. So, the events you point to that John doesn’t mention are potentially accounted for by the fact John acknowledges his Gospel is not the complete story.

Not sure what you mean. In the fourth gospel, only two men were at the tomb - Peter and TDWJL. Why would any other apostle need to be mentioned?

Wait. What? You were asking about Luke’s Gospel not mentioning John. You said nothing about John’s Gospel here.

In Acts, John is quite often mentioned alongside Peter.

Correct. Peter is also mentioned alongside John in Luke. Peter is also mentioned by himself in both Luke’s Gospel and Acts. Sometimes only Peter is mentioned as observing an event even though the context necessarily demands John is also present to witness the same event (e.g. Peter’s observation of the crowd Acts 3:12). The point was Peter is prominent with Luke so there’s no surprise that Luke might only mention Peter at a critical point in the narrative such as discovering the empty tomb.

So, why would Luke mention Peter and John together in Acts, but not in his gospel?

Luke does mention Peter and John together in his Gospel. Luke also mentions Peter by himself in the Gospel. There doesn’t seem to be a discernible pattern.

The basic question is why is Lazarus not mentioned in the synoptic gospels, regardless of who wrote the fourth gospel.

And your answer to that question was that Lazarus “was a youth and considered to be inconsequential.� To which I responded, “But that theory doesn’t hold. Luke mentions the impetuous youth Mark in the book of Acts. No reason for Luke not to mention Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple who eventually wrote a Gospel under your theory.�

So your explanation for why Lazarus wasn’t mentioned in the synoptic Gospels seems problematic since Mark was mentioned by Luke. Granted Acts isn’t technically a synoptic Gospel of course but it is written by a synoptic Gospel author, Luke. So if Luke would mention Mark, an impetuous inconsequential youth, it cannot properly be argued Lazarus was not mentioned because he was an inconsequential youth since Luke is willing to mention inconsequential youths, namely Mark.

If the fourth gospel was written by John, then why would only he write about Lazarus?

Because he thought it was a powerful resurrection story? And because Lazarus was John’s friend. Jesus, when speaking to his disciples, refers to Lazarus as “our friend Lazarus sleeps� (John 11:11).

And why would the other gospels omit this seemingly important event of Lazarus being raised from the dead?

Because they felt they had powerful resurrection stories in the resurrections stories they did report? Why do the Gospels omit any resurrection? Why do Matthew, Mark, and John omit the raising of the widow’s son in Nain (Luke 7:11-17)? Why do Mark, Luke, and John omit the raising of the Saints in Matthew?

The mistake that is being made I think is to assume the significance of the resurrection accounts is primarily in who was resurrected. However, I think the significance in the resurrection stories is primarily in the fact that Jesus demonstrated his power to perform resurrections. On this view it’s not particularly important who was resurrected. In fact, it becomes irrelevant who is resurrected given that we will all be resurrected eventually. What is important is that Jesus had the power to resurrect.

Yes, I'm assuming the Bible that is commonly published is authoritative and not assuming we should reject certain passages.

Yes but some Bible versions make it quite clear in the foot notes that the ending of Mark 16:9ff is not in the earliest manuscripts and missing from others.

The New King James says this in its footnote to the ending of Mark...

�Mark 16:9 Vv. 9–20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.�

The NIV says...

�[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]�

The NASB says...

�Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20�

The NRSV says...

�Mark 16:8 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful.�

I agree several parts can be considered questionable if they are authentic, but for sake of argument I'm assuming the entire Bible can be used as evidence.

But I’m not prepared to simply grant that for the sake of argument because we have very good textural evidence that suggests this verse should not be in the Bible in the first place. The verse (Mark 16:14) you are arguing from on this particular point is found in an ending of Mark that is widely held to be probably not authentic. This is hardly controversial even among the most conservative evangelical scholars. In light of this, I think you need to mount a serious argument for why this verse should be regarded as authentic. Not merely expect that it be granted authentic for the sake of argument. Until you are able to do that, I feel I can safely sweep this one under the rug. The simple fact you are having to argue from these dubious passages does not bode well for the Lazarus hypothesis.

Actually, I see it as the opposite. During the life of John the apostle, I'm sure he talked about John the Baptist with other people. Since their names are the same, I doubt John would've just referred to him as John since it would be confusing. If he talked with people and referred to him as John the Baptist, and not just John, then more likely it would also carry over to his writings.

But this doesn’t follow logically or by experience. A man named Robert tells a love story about a man who also happens to be named Robert. We intuitively understand the first Robert, the story telling Robert, is not telling a story about himself but rather another man named Robert. There’s no need for the story telling Robert to make a distinction such as “Robert the mechanic.� It’s understood it’s a different Robert. Otherwise the story telling Robert would just refer to the character in the first person if he was telling a story about himself.

Now, admittedly, this is a weak argument. But, I do find it interesting the word Baptist is only found in the synoptic gospels.

Right because the synoptics weren’t written by John. They spoke directly about two different Johns, John the disciple and John the Baptist. Two Johns which had enough pedigree that either one could simply be referred to as John. The synoptic authors, therefore, had to make the distinction otherwise there would be confusion. Just like I had to make the distinction above between the story telling Robert and the Robert in the story. Why? Because I’m the one telling the story of two different Roberts whereas if I were Robert telling the story of another Robert I need only refer simply to Robert. Carrying this over, only if the author of John was John could he simply refer to John the Baptist as only John without worry of confusing his audience as to which John. In other words, the context of how “John� is used in the fourth Gospel strongly suggests the author must have been John the disciple.

I don't think it's a terribly weak argument, especially considering he devotes 5 chapters to describe that evening. He has gone into such detail of that evening, yet is completely silent on events that we know John was there from the other gospels.

Yes but those details regarding the preparation for Passover aren’t terribly important. In fact, that there were meal preparations is implied by the mere fact they were having the Passover.

To explain all these "silences" for John, one needs to propose many hypothetical reasons why John would exclude them.

Not really. One simply need assume that different people report different things for different reasons.

If it was Lazarus, the answer is much simpler.

I don’t think it is simpler with Lazarus as the author. Your argument here, as far as I can see, regarding the Passover preparations (and other events) is that Lazarus doesn’t mention the details because he wasn’t there to witness them. If this is basic gist of your argument it implies that Lazarus would only mention those details for which he was present to witness. Of course this is hugely problematic since we see that the Gospel of John reports many events for which Lazarus could not possibly have been present or witnessed. So I don’t think the Lazarus hypothesis is in a better position to explain why some events are mentioned and some are not.

I'm not so sure the religious leaders had taken note of them as followers of Jesus. They had to ask Peter and John the following:

Act 4:5-7
And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?

I’m not sure this is an admission from the High Priest that he did not know John was a follower of Jesus as much as a question intended to challenge the authority by which Peter and John were teaching/acting. It’s the very same question the religious leaders put to Jesus (Matthew 21:23, Mark 11:28). Moreover, a few verses before in Acts it seems the religious leaders were already concerned John and Peter were preaching in the name of Jesus.

“[The religious leaders] being greatly disturbed because [Peter and John] were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.� - Acts 4:2

And I’m not sure you are fully appreciating the counter argument here. You’ve argue that the high priest would've known Lazarus because earlier the religious leaders were trying to kill Lazarus. But this is knowing in the sense of having heard about Lazarus. Surely the Chief Priest had not met Lazarus nor had any kind of direct interaction with Lazarus. So why was Lazarus known to the chief priest?

�But the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus.� – Acts 12:10-11

So Lazarus was known to the chiefs priests because many of the Jews were believing in Jesus because of him. But surely then John and the other disciples would have been likewise known to the chief priests for the same reason. Recall the sending out the twelve (Matthew 10:5-15).

�5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.�

Jesus also warns the disciples:

�But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; 18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles� – Matthew 10:17-18

Surely word of these missionary trips reached the Chief Priest. Surely the names of the disciples on these missionary trips did as well.

If that’s not enough John was present along with the disciples during many of Jesus’ interactions with the religious leaders. I just don’t see how the religious could not have know John if they knew of Lazarus.

My hypothesis is that he was considered inconsequential by the gospel writers, not by everybody. Obviously he was not considered inconsequential by the religious leaders since they sought to kill him.

Fair enough but earlier you argued Lazarus’s resurrection was such a “seemingly important event� that it prompted you to ask why the synoptic Gospel writers omit this event and fail to mention him. On the other hand you argue Lazarus was “considered inconsequential by the gospel writers� and this is why he wasn’t mentioned. So was Lazarus important or not?

There are further problems. We have Lazarus, who the Jews were earlier trying to kill, simply walking in and out of the presence of the high priest’s courtyard without a care in the world it seems.

Even before this, he did not seem to care about the possibility of his death.

Where are you getting this because the text says very little about Lazarus?

[Goose]

Where do we ever see Lazarus and Peter together?

If the fourth gospel was written by Lazarus, we also see Lazarus and Peter together in:
- John 13:24 - Peter asked him to ask Jesus who would betray him
- John 20:3 - Peter and Lazarus at the tomb of Jesus
- John 21 - Peter asked Jesus what about this man (Lazarus)

This appears to be a classic case of Begging the Question. It assumes the fourth Gospel was written by Lazarus in order to make the argument here.

The fact is we never see mentioned in any source Peter and Lazarus together in any setting. However, we have numerous instances, outside the Gospel of John, where Peter and John are found together and it’s only Peter and John – once in Luke (22:8) and numerous times in Acts (we’ve already listed these). Even Paul finds John and Peter together in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9). If we were to extend this out to instances where the “inner circle� of Jesus is mentioned we’d have all three synoptics placing John in the presence of Peter along with James. With this background knowledge in hand we have a very strong argument from probability that the unnamed disciple with Peter (John 18:15) was none other than John.

Right, it's what the religious leaders perceived.

Yes, so it can’t be used as an argument that John was illiterate.

Never said I dismissed any evidence of the church fathers.

Okay. I realize you haven’t said you dismiss the evidence of the church fathers. My point is more of an anticipatory one. You will have to eventually dismiss the evidence of the church fathers as being wrong in order to hold to Lazarus.

Please go ahead and present the evidence from the church fathers that the fourth gospel was written by the apostle John.

I will do that in a separate post once I feel we’ve addressed the current arguments well enough. These posts are already quite long.

No, I'm not comparing their level of wealth. I'm simply saying Lazarus' family had some money by considering all the evidence that points towards them being financially secure.

That’s fine. I’m certainly willing to grant Lazarus’ family probably had some money. But of course so did John’s. So no reason to think Lazarus was any more educated than John. And no reason to rule John out as too poor to have an education of any kind.

Lazarus does not mention how all the apostles were called, so leaving out John would not be "insulting".

Fair point.

If John wrote it, why would he omit himself and yet mention how others were called?

Humility.

He was one of the chosen twelve and intimate with the other apostles. To write an account of Jesus and his ministry and fail to mention the twelve seems to me to be strange.

John does mention the “twelve� on several occasions.

This must certainly have been insulting to the other unnamed apostles if they knew John wrote it.

How could it be insulting to them when John doesn’t even mention himself directly?

Well, the other apostles were not as understanding and gracious.

Mar 10:41
And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.

Precisely. Which would be a good reason why an older mature John would seek to avoid writing his Gospel in such a way that it could potentially reopen contentious issues.

Further, I’m working under the assumption the author John was much older, wiser, and as a result more mature than the John described in the New Testament.

Elevating himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not seem consistent with what you are suggesting.

But that’s granting the assumption John was “elevating himself� is true. I don’t think it is for the reasons I gave above. I think the Holy Spirit had many years to work on John and bring him to maturity.

Besides, this same accusation could be made if it were Lazarus who wrote the fourth Gospel. Lazarus then would be likewise “elevating himself� above all the other disciples. Now, you might say but it’s different with Lazarus because he is said to have been loved by Jesus. But of course Jesus loved all his disciples. So that wouldn’t change the fact that the title itself is “elevating� Lazarus. Why didn’t Lazarus call himself the disciple whom Jesus raised?

The point I was making was why mention the "two other of his disciples" if it was John? These people would be a superfluous detail if John was the author. If the author was Lazarus, then he was one of these two other disciples. Granted, this evidence is not strong, but it's another detail that makes reading the fourth gospel make more sense if Lazarus was the author.

But again John could also be one of the other disciples as well. I don’t see how the Lazarus hypothesis makes more sense here.

But, this brings up the question, why is John not mentioned by name in the fourth gospel?

If John was writing this is easy to answer. He was being humble. It’s harder to answer if it was Lazarus. Why would Lazarus not mention John by name? John was a key inner circle disciple.

John could've written the gospel and written about himself in the third person and still could have remained anonymous as the author.

Of course John could have, it wasn’t unprecedented in that era to write in the third person. But Lazarus could have done that as well. Why switch from Lazarus to the disciple whom Jesus loved?

If it's claimed he was humble by not mentioning himself by name, then this is contradictory to labeling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

I don’t see a contradiction here.

If Lazarus was the author, then he did not consider John to be either signifiant or relevant. Just like Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), James (son of Zebedee), and Simon (the Canaanite), which none of these are also mentioned by name.

How could John, an inner circle disciple, not be relevant? Only John, by omitting a direct reference to himself, could omit directly naming other disciples without fear of insulting them. You can’t make that argument with Lazarus because he directly names himself. Indeed, he tells the story of his own resurrection.

In the Greek text, however, the word for “home� which is οἰκι�α or οἶκος does not appear. John 19:27 ends with ̓�διος (one’s own). The disciple took Jesus’ mother as his own, into his own family. There’s no literal house here.

True. But, it's strongly implied. Many translations translate it with home and only one translates it as household.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn ... es_1016027

But you are still assuming a literal house is meant by home. Home, house, household can all have the meaning of family or a social unit living together. There simply is no literal house mentioned in John 19:27.

And even if there were a literal house. This doesn’t rule out John. John may very well have had residence in Jerusalem. Even if he didn’t and had to take Mary to Galilee how does this rule out John? It doesn’t. It just means they would have had to travel further than Lazarus.

No matter who the author is, it's peculiar the phrase is only used in the last half of the book. Why should this phrase only be used in the last half?

Where exactly should it have been used in the “first half�? This same argument applies to Lazarus though. Why would Lazarus not mention himself as the "the disciple whom Jesus loved� in the “first half� of the fourth Gospel?

I think it has something to do with the structure of the book. As I mentioned, the first half of the book ends with Lazarus resurrecting from the dead and the second half ends with Jesus resurrecting from the dead. "Lazarus" was no longer relevant to the second half of the book so this name was no longer used.

But this doesn’t work. Lazarus doesn’t appear until chapter 11. If Lazarus was relevant to the “first half� of the book why does he first appear so late at chapter 11 which is arguably just past the half way point?

After he was resurrected, he was no longer "Lazarus", but became "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

This appears to be mistaken. In chapter 12:2, 9 , after Lazarus had been resurrected, we see Lazarus being referred to as Lazarus. If your theory held water why doesn’t Lazarus begin to use the title "the disciple whom Jesus loved� at 12:2? This is exactly the place we would expect Lazarus to do so if your theory was sound.

If Lazarus and Jesus were so close why the utter silence on Lazarus for the first ten chapters? Why no background story in John as to how Jesus and Lazarus came to such a close relationship?

Why didn’t Lazarus become “the disciple whom Jesus raised�? That seems more fitting.

If John was the author, why would he only use this phrase in the last half of the book?

Where else would you suggest it should have been used if John were the author and why?

[Mithrae]

There is only one man that the Bible explicitly says Jesus loved.

Actually the same is said of the rich man in Mark 10 (the other gospels call him a rich young ruler). That actually opens up an interesting realm of speculation if secret Mark were authentic, as it would seem that the rich young man loved by Jesus is the same rich young man who loves Jesus later in the same chapter. If so it would seem that after being disappointed at being told to sell his possessions he died, but was literally given a second chance when Jesus raised him. His habit of going about clad in nothing but a linen cloth would then presumably be because he'd done as Jesus said, and sold everything else he had.

Although that would then undermine the arguments about his wealth and taking Jesus' mother into his house.



An alternative idea is that Luke's Lazarus (who died, and of whom it was said that folk wouldn't believe even if he was sent back) is the same as John's Lazarus (who died, came back and folk still didn't believe, instead trying to kill him again). Since Luke's Lazarus was covered in sores, perhaps a light linen cloth was all he could comfortably wear? Of course that would mean that secret Mark (if authentic) would be glossing his social status a little, perhaps misattributing his brother-in-law's wealth to him. (Simon the leper = Simon the Pharisee = Martha's husband)