THE
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
By
Edgar Jones
Foreword
This article differs from most of the
others to be found on this site in that I did not derive it directly from the
utterances of Jesus, but from other types of evidence found in the four
gospels. Nevertheless I believe it is very important in that it can
help us to understand Jesus by having a better view of his disciples and
their inter-relationships. For me, it also reinforces my confidence in
the gospel story and in the fidelity of the process by which utterances of
Jesus were recorded and transmitted to us.
The Gospel commonly called The
Gospel According to John has for long centuries of church tradition been
attributed to John, the brother of James and son of Zebedee, one of the
twelve apostles. Scholars in the Twentieth Century have tended to doubt. One
reason given is the supposed evidence of late authorship, 100 AD or even
later. This would mean, if true, that John would necessarily have been
approaching the age of 100 years at the time of its writing, which seems to many to be a very improbable age for this authorship. I
personally have not been impressed with this or other objections to Johannine
authorship because I have felt that the Fourth Gospel reveals an author who
has such an intimate knowledge of Jesus and the apostles as to require one
who was in the company of his most trusted disciples – that is, an
apostle. Furthermore, tradition has affirmed that John had a very long life,
much of his later years being spent ministering with the church at Ephesus. Besides this, a growing number of scholars in
recent years has come to question the late date. Be
that as it may, it is not impossible that a centenarian could write such an
account of the experiences of his youth. Many aged people have testified to
the clarity of their memories of youthful events, even though they may not
recall yesterday's major happenings. I am, in the year 2000, a
septuagenarian, and I can testify affirmatively to this effect. Increasingly,
I am finding that many of my childhood experiences are coming back with great
clarity, whereas I sometimes find it difficult to remember what I had for
breakfast! I have therefore found no reason to doubt the Johannine authorship
-- until now.
I now believe that John did not write
the Fourth Gospel because it contains within itself overwhelming evidence of
the identity of its author, who is not John. Let us begin with the last
chapter, Chapter 21. First, we know that there is evidence that this chapter
is a late addition, and I do not question that. The evidence is strong that verse 30 of Chapter 20 was intended by
the author to be the conclusion of the book. However, the last chapter seems
to me to have been written by the same author, and I conclude that he wrote
it as a later addition to his own work and appended it without removing his
prior concluding sentence. Then, to render his conclusions final, he appended
another similar conclusion, verse 25 of chapter 21. The major portion of the
book, I believe, was authored by one person, whom I now identify.
The key is found in John 21:20-24,
which I quote here in its entirety:
Peter
turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved,
who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who
is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to
Jesus, "Lord, what about his man?" Jesus said to him, "If it
is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"
The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to
die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is
my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is
the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has
written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
I must conclude
therefore that the author is none other than the disciple whom Jesus
loved. Our task, then, is to identify this person and, as I have already
said, it will turn out to be someone other than John. First let me specify
the necessary and obvious conclusion, that this
person was in the habit of referring to himself as "that disciple
whom Jesus loved." He writes of this person, himself, here and elsewhere
as a single individual, namely, "that disciple whom Jesus loved."
He must, then, throughout the Fourth Gospel, whenever he uses this
designation, have the same individual in mind, that is, himself.
The conversation related above took
place after the disciples, who had fished all night and caught nothing, were
treated to an impressive event when, at daybreak, a stranger on the bank
suggested they cast the net on the right side of the boat with the result
that they caught such a huge quantity of fish that they could not haul the
net into the boat. And there he is, in the boat with the others, that
disciple whom Jesus loved, who suddenly and before any of the others,
realized the identity of the stranger and said to Peter, "It is the
Lord!" The author of the Fourth Gospel has, again, refrained from naming
himself, but has called himself that disciple whom Jesus loved. Since
the statement was made to Peter by the author of the Fourth Gospel, Peter is
ruled out as a candidate for the authorship. However, we know who was in the
boat, for they are all identified in v. 2, where we are told that Simon
Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee, the sons of
Zebedee (James and John), and two others of his disciples were
together. That disciple whom Jesus loved could be any of these except
Peter. They are the ones who fished all night, who breakfasted with Jesus,
and who were present when Peter said, "Lord, what about this man."
Unfortunately, two of them are not named, and while that disciple whom
Jesus loved could be any of them except Peter, it is most likely that one
of these two is the author of the Fourth Gospel, because their designation as
"two others of his disciples" follows the author's usual (but not
universal) practice of not naming himself.
This disciple whom Jesus loved
was one of the Lord's closest intimates for, as I have already suggested, the
Fourth Gospel reveals an author who, like an apostle, had intimate knowledge
of the Lord. This is in keeping with the fact that this disciple is also the
one who had lain close to his (Jesus') breast at the last supper, as stated
in the quotation above. This intimacy is another of the reasons it has been
thought that John, or at least one of the twelve, must have been the author.
It will be helpful if we quote the earlier passage here:
When
Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly,
truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." The disciples looked at
one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus
loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; so Simon Peter beckoned to
him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." So lying thus,
close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?"
Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have
dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the
son of Simon Iscariot (John 13:21-26).
During the supper, this
disciple whom Jesus loved was reclining so close to Jesus as to be
"close to his breast," (in the bosom of Jesus, as Jesus is in the
bosom of the Father, and as the Lazarus of the parable is in the bosom of
Abraham?) apparently so close as to prevent direct communication from others,
so that Peter found it necessary to address Jesus through this disciple
rather than directly. I have not as yet revealed a name, but it is better no
longer to keep you in the dark. Who is this disciple whom Jesus loved?
If you will refer to the familiar story of the raising of Lazarus in Chapter
11, you should readily see that Lazarus is the man!
Now
a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed
the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother
Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom
you love is ill (John 11:1).
The messenger of the
sisters referred to Lazarus as he whom you love. This is the same
identification as in the other cases, only in this case the author of the
Fourth Gospel, Lazarus, identifies himself because he is the object of a
major miracle, in that he is about to be resurrected from the dead. And the
sisters probably did not say he whom you love as indicated here. They
were greatly concerned for their brother and under the circumstances would
almost certainly have said, "Lord, Lazarus is ill." However
Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel, finds it convenient to relate their
message in his own preferred terms, not mentioning his name and writing many
years later of himself, as he whom you love.
Jesus immediately informed the
disciples that the illness was not unto death, but was for the Glory of God,
that the Son of God might be glorified. Thereafter, strangely, he remained
two whole days in the place where he was, until he knew that Lazarus was
dead, as though he were waiting for Lazarus to die. Then he said to the
disciples that he would go to awake Lazarus out of
sleep. When Jesus approached Bethany, the village of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, not far from Jerusalem, Martha went to meet him and said, "Lord, if
you had been here, my brother would not have died. And even now, I know that
whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Then Martha went to get
Mary, who also came out to him and said, like Martha, "Lord, if you had
been here, my brother would not have died." Then Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, he was
deeply moved and troubled, and he said, "Where have you laid him?"
Then they led him to the tomb and we encounter the shortest verse in the
Bible: Jesus wept (John 11:35). Then the Jews who were there said, See, how
he loved him! So yet again we have this assertion of Jesus' love for
Lazarus. Nowhere else in the New Testament, outside the Fourth Gospel, and
concerning no one other than Lazarus, is the love of Jesus for an individual
disciple thus affirmed. I conclude that Lazarus must
be that disciple "whom Jesus loved," and who wrote the Fourth
Gospel. The narrative continues, of course, with the resurrection of Lazarus,
an event that, according to Lazarus as he wrote afterwards, caused a great stir
among the Jews, so that many believed in Jesus. One result was, as Lazarus
continues to inform us, that the chief priests, the Pharisees and the council
(Sanhedrin) gathered to consider what to do to counter the growing influence
of Jesus, and concluded that he must be put to death. Thus Lazarus exalts the
significance of his own resurrection from the dead by designating it as the
event that precipitated a decision by the rulers to seek the death of Jesus.
Following Lazarus' resurrection comes
the gathering at Bethany six days before the Passover, probably in the house of Martha, Mary,
and Lazarus. Others were present, including Judas Iscariot. We are
specifically informed that "Lazarus was one of those at table with
him." This gives us the insight we need to realize that Lazarus was very
close to Jesus, and was included in the act of communal dining at the same
table along with the apostles. Therefore we should not be surprised when, at
the Last Supper a few evenings later, Lazarus, that disciple whom Jesus
loved, is found reclining at table close to the breast of Jesus. It
appears that a great crowd of the Jews gathered at his friends
house after learning that he was there, "not only on account of Jesus,
but also to see Lazarus who had been raised from the dead." Now we see
that Lazarus becomes, next to Jesus, the major attraction and actor in the
drama, as he goes on to inform us that, because of the attention he was
getting from the Jews, they planned also (in addition to Jesus) to put him to
death. As the only disciple who had died and been resurrected by the Lord, he
would naturally have claimed a prominent position within the fellowship.
Lazarus, as he writes the Fourth Gospel, is doing his very best to emphasize
his own importance to the story, and his identification with Jesus. Now he
has become so closely identified with him that the Jews plan his death along
with that of Jesus. Perhaps this was wishful thinking on the part of Lazarus,
for obviously he did not die (again) with Jesus but, if I am correct, lived to
write the Fourth Gospel many years later.
Lazarus, a man who had died, who after
four days in the tomb had been resurrected, authored the Fourth Gospel. I
realize that this may be hard for some to receive, so let us back off a
little and review the authorship question keeping this in mind only as a
possibility. This conclusion depends heavily upon the identity of that
mysterious character found only in the Fourth Gospel, and who is designated that
disciple whom Jesus loved, so it may be helpful to list every passage
where he appears. I will omit here only the story of Lazarus' resurrection,
having just listed it above. It is a key passage, however, and will receive
special attention later.
This mysterious disciple was present at
the Last Supper:
When
Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly,
truly I say to you, one of you will betray me." The disciples looked at
one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus
loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; so Simon Peter beckoned to
him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." So lying thus,
close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?"
(John 13:21-25)
He was present to
witness the crucifixion of Jesus, and was entrusted with the care of Mary:
But
standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the
disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman,
behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your
mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John
19:25-27)
He was the first to
witness the empty tomb, and to believe:
Now
on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it
was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So
she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom
Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the
tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out
with the other disciple, and they went toward the
tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb
first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he
did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb;
he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head,
not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the
other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and
believed; for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their
homes (John 20:1-10).
He was in the boat with
the disciples when Jesus revealed himself to them:
Just
as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know
that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, "Children, have you any
fish?" They answered him, "No." He said to them, "Cast
the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." So they
cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, for the quantity of fish. That
disciple whom Jesus loved, said to Peter, "It is the Lord.!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord,
he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.
But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for
they were not far from land, but about a hundred yards off (John 21:4-8).
He was present at the
last conversation of Jesus with his disciples:
Peter
turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had
lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it
that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus,
"Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my
will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The
saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die;
yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my
will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" This is the
disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these
things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21:20-24).
These are the passages
that refer to our mysterious disciple. Let me now suggest a set of
circumstances that are highly compatible with what we know of the disciples
prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, not only from the Fourth
Gospel, but from all of them. The Gospels present the disciples as nothing if
not human. They are doubters; they are quarrelers; they grumble; they vie
with one another for the chief places at the Lord's right and left hand; they
are envious; they are ambitious for power and glory; they sleep at a critical
time; they are men "of little faith." We can safely apply all these
characteristics to all the disciples, including but not limited to the twelve
apostles, for there were many disciples in addition to the twelve, some of
whom were very close to the Lord, and this would include Mary, Martha, and
their brother, Lazarus, who resided in the village of Bethany, on the Mount
of Olives east of and near Jerusalem. It appears that it was in their home
that Jesus resided when he was in that district. When Jesus heard of Lazarus'
illness, he announced to the accompanying disciples, "Our friend,
Lazarus, is ill." This suggests two categories of disciples: the
apostles, and the others, not called to be apostles, whom Jesus designates
"friends." This category includes, most specifically, the person of
Lazarus.
The apostles, vying among themselves
for the chief positions in the coming Kingdom, must certainly have taken
offense at anyone outside their special group of twelve who appeared to be in
competition with them for the favor and affection of their Lord. Furthermore,
Lazarus, being outside their number, may have felt envious of them and sought
to promote himself above them. We also do well to remember that, prior to the
crucifixion, most disciples expected Jesus to restore the Davidic monarchy,
and it was for chief places in his government that the twelve were competing.
After the resurrection, the expectations of him did not change for many
disciples, except that they expected him to come back to restore the
monarchy. With these suppositions in mind, we should review the passages
quoted above to see how appropriate they are, assuming they were written by
Lazarus. As we review them, we will do so in the light of the following set
of three conclusions that I draw from the study of the gospels. (1) Lazarus
was a man who was concerned to record what he considered to be his own great
importance to the work of his Lord; (2) Lazarus was envious of the calling of
the chosen twelve, and (3) The twelve were resentful of anyone outside their
number who had easy access to their Lord, specifically including Lazarus.
From an early time, Peter is
acknowledged to be foremost among the apostles. Therefore, Lazarus not only
emphasizes his closeness to Jesus but also repeatedly shows situations in
which he surpasses Peter. At the Last Supper, both effects are achieved. Not
only is Lazarus reclining close to the breast of Jesus, but he is apparently
the only one who has easy access to him, and he presents Peter as being in
the inferior position of having to gain access to Jesus through himself. How
much more important can one get than being the one through whom cabinet
ministers, or other subregents, must address the king?
At supper in Bethany, Lazarus is careful to inform us that he was at
the table with Jesus, after also reminding us that Jesus had raised him from
the dead. Then he emphasizes the importance of his sister, Mary, as she
anoints the feet of Jesus. When Judas shows his resentment of the show of
devotion, and probably also of the easy access of Mary to Jesus, Jesus
affirms Mary and puts Judas, the apostle, in his place. Lazarus is careful
here to affirm also the importance of his sister, and thus shows how not only
he, but his family have a privileged place in the fellowship, whereas
apostles are put down in their presence, or when they do or say anything that
is critical of Lazarus' sister.
Lazarus is careful to inform us that he
was one of the witnesses to the crucifixion of his Lord; not only so, but he,
and not an apostle (all who forsook him and fled), was the one to whom Jesus
entrusted the care of his mother, Mary. How can one be more important than to
be given the responsibility of caring for the Queen Mother in the coming
kingdom? He took her into his house from that hour!
When Mary Magdalene discovered the tomb
of Jesus opened, she rushed to tell – not only Peter, the foremost
apostle, but also, who else – Lazarus, that disciple whom Jesus
loved! Here we continue to see that Lazarus, when he must share some
credit with an apostle, picks the chief one. Then they ran to the tomb, and
who gets there first, Peter or Lazarus? Then who is the first to peek in the
doorway and behold the miracle of miracles, the empty tomb? Lazarus again has
outstripped the foremost apostle! And though Peter passes by him to enter
into the tomb, Lazarus does not permit him to go in alone, but follows
immediately to share this momentous knowledge with the chief apostle, and it
is only of himself that he affirms a belief of what has occurred – that
Jesus has risen from the dead. And who would be most qualified to believe in
the resurrection than Lazarus, whom Jesus had already raised from the dead?
Later, at daybreak when the disciples
in the fishing boat saw Jesus on the shore, Lazarus again puts himself in the
company of Peter, and makes himself the first one to recognize Jesus. There
were at least five apostles in the boat (assuming that Nathaniel is another
name for Bartholomew), including Peter, but was it one of them who first
recognized the risen Lord? No, it was Lazarus, that disciple whom Jesus
loved. Again, he has bested the apostles! And he has done it according to
the same pattern as at the empty tomb. There, Lazarus bests Peter in the race
to the tomb, but then Peter enters first. In the boat, Lazarus recognizes
Jesus first, but it is Peter who jumps impetuously from the boat and swims
ashore!
After breakfast the Lord tests Peter,
asking him three times, "Do you love me?" Then he prophesied the
manner of Peter's death, a death that would glorify God. Where have we heard
this before? When the messenger of Mary and Martha informed Jesus that
Lazarus was ill, Jesus responded by saying, "This illness is not unto
death; it is for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by
means of it." Yet he remained where he was until Lazarus was dead and
entombed, then proceeded to his tomb and resurrected him. Lazarus, then, is
the one who has already died for the glory of God. Neither Peter nor any
other apostle has been thus exalted, to die for the glory of God. But Lazarus
has! And Peter must await his turn in the distant future! Then Peter asks the
Lord, concerning Lazarus, "Lord, what about this man?" This
question is prompted by more than a little tinge of resentment, but by
hostility. "This man" has already died for the glory of God, but
Peter must wait. Peter must also be wondering within himself, asking whether
Lazarus, having already died and been resurrected, will ever die again, and
is very curious as to the final destiny of Lazarus. Will Lazarus stand above
even the chief apostle in the kingdom, and never die? How envious Peter must
be at the thought! And Jesus' response to Peter must be considered to be
nothing less than a firm rebuke for even asking about the destiny of the
beloved disciple. "If I want him to live until I return, what is it to
you?" Finally, the fact that such a question is asked tends to confirm
that that disciple whom Jesus loved can be none other than the one who
has already been resurrected from the dead, and concerning whom such questions
as to his death, or second death, would be in order.
We have drawn a picture of a fellowship
of disciples in which a lesser disciple, Lazarus, distinguished only by the
title "friend," has been envious of the exalted positions of the
twelve chosen ones, and has told the story of their relationships such that
it emphasizes his importance above the others, and who never misses an
opportunity to point out situations in which this is the case. The twelve,
personified in Peter as the foremost, are then presented as resentful of this
outsiders intrusion into their privileged turf, in
the close company of the Master.
Not only is such a picture suggested by
the testimony of the Fourth Gospel, but now that we have good reasons to see
that it exists, the same type of relationships are seen to be compatible with
the wider circumstances that encompass all the canonical gospels. First,
consider that Lazarus, as author of the Fourth Gospel and envious of the
apostles, gives them little attention, often focusing on their failures. For
example, of all the Gospel writers, only Lazarus fails to present an account
of the call of the twelve, and only Lazarus fails to list the names of all.
He mentions only a minimum number as essential to the narrative: Peter,
Andrew, Nathaniel, Philip, James, John, Thomas and Judas. We should note that
of these, James and John, very important disciples, are not mentioned by
name, but are only listed as "the sons of Zebedee" who were in the
fishing boat at daybreak. One cannot say that he did not know of them,
because he had just spent the night in the boat with them! Now these two,
together with Peter according to the synoptic gospels, were privileged to be
present on the mount of transfiguration, and to witness the glory of the
transfigured Jesus, and Lazarus fails even to mention this momentous event in
which three of the apostles were privileged to a marvelous experience from
which he was omitted. Was envy the reason for this omission? Or was it simply
because Lazarus was writing only to record events that had been largely
omitted from the synoptics? Perhaps both reasons apply. I have suggested
elsewhere that the author of the Fourth Gospel may have been primarily
motivated by a desire only to make up what was lacking in the synoptics, which
would account for his omission of most events that were included in them, and
for his inclusion of events that are not recorded elsewhere. Still, it is
very strange that the omissions are such as would show privilege to the
twelve, while his inclusions are such as to reveal himself as the privileged,
superior disciple. Since Lazarus is inclined to speak in mysterious terms in
the Fourth Gospel, it would seem that he should have included the account of
the mysterious transfiguration, even though it is found in all the other
canonical gospels. While we are speaking of the motivations of the author of
the Fourth Gospel, I should also mention that the evidence is highly
compatible with the thought that perhaps Lazarus' only motivation was
a desire to have himself included in the gospel story, from which he had been
excluded by all of the others.
Among physical scientists, the best
test for any theory is its predictive power. Einstein, by means of his Theory
of Relativity, predicted that the rays of starlight would be bent when
passing near to a massive object, such as the sun. Sir Arthur Eddington, the
British physicist, then mounted an expedition to the Southern Hemisphere
where he was able to confirm this prediction by examination of the light from
a star as the light passed near to the sun during a total eclipse of the
latter. Later observations with more accurate instruments determined not only
that light is bent by massive objects as predicted by the theory, but that
the amount of bending is also correctly predicted. Prior to the publication
of Einstein's theory, no one had guessed that light was thus influenced by
massive objects, and Einstein himself had never observed such an effect.
Needless to say, repeated observations of the predicted effect went a long
way to convince other physicists of the validity of the theory. I have found
that this Lazarus hypothesis may be similarly tested. One day after
the preliminary draft of this paper, pondering this idea, it occurred to me
that if it is correct, then Lazarus, who was not an apostle, in his envy
would never have mentioned the word "apostle," or suggested that
there was such a category of disciples. You can, of course, go to your New
Testament at any time and test this prediction for yourself! You will find,
as I have, that it is correct. He mentions "disciples" repeatedly
(no less than seventy-seven times), and "the twelve" a total of
four times, but "apostles" he mentions not at all. Were we
dependent only on the Fourth Gospel, we would never have known that there was
such a thing as an apostle. But Lazarus, as author, has by mentioning only
"the twelve" and by failing to list them all by name or give any
account of a special calling to apostleship, and by his inclusion of himself
in the last supper and other crucial events near the end, left us with the
impression that he is one of the favored dozen.
Can we make other verifiable
predictions? I pointed above to the synoptic account of the transfiguration,
where only Peter, James and John were permitted to witness the marvelous
event, an account that was completely omitted by Lazarus in the Fourth
Gospel. Therefore, if there are other such events where the privileged three
were honored, we can predict that the Fourth Gospel omits them also. Does
this prediction hold true? Most certainly! When Jesus led the disciples from
the upper room to Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives, Both the Matthew and Mark gospels inform us that
he took these three apart with him when he entered into his agonizing prayer
and struggle with the tempter. Predictably, there is no mention of this in
the Fourth Gospel. Yet again, when Jesus approached the house of Jairus where
he would raise his daughter from the dead, he allowed only – you
guessed it – Peter, James and John to go with him, according to both
the Mark gospel and Luke. And – you guessed it again – the Fourth
Gospel makes no mention of this incident, not only to avoid promoting the
favored three, but also to avoid sharing the resurrection spotlight with
Jairus' little daughter. Luke informs us that James and John were partners
with Simon (Peter), presumably in their fishing business, and this may help
to account for why they are so often together in the presence of Jesus.
Peter, as the most prominent apostle, may have used his influence to promote
his partners to the inner circle. Since all three were prominent, we might
expect Lazarus, as author of the Fourth Gospel, to avoid mentioning them if
possible, and so, predictably, he never mentioned James and John by name, and
only once referred to them indirectly as "the sons of Zebedee," a
fact I have already set forth above. He couldn't quite manage this with
Peter, however, who figured too prominently in the narrative to be ignored.
So, at every opportunity, he handles Peter in a different way – by
excelling him in one way or another, as I have already shown. He becomes
Peter's intermediary with Jesus at the Last Supper; at the resurrection, he
beats Peter to the empty tomb; when Jesus appears to them on the shore of Galilee, Lazarus recognizes him first and says to Peter,
"It is the Lord!" Now, it is not my position that Lazarus, as
author of the Fourth Gospel, fabricates his place in the story; these things
happened, I believe, exactly as Lazarus described them. He might not have bothered
to include them except for the part he played in them, and the opportunity
they provided to promote his own standing among the disciples. The synoptic
accounts, based on traditions springing partly from the twelve, predictably
omit any event that included Lazarus. Again, this does not mean that the
events did not occur. It only means that the rivalry among disciples
contributed to the production of incomplete accounts.
The resurrection of Lazarus was surely
one of Jesus' most astonishing miracles, and one that anyone recording the
events of his ministry would have wanted to include, unless, for reasons of
envy and resentment, the fact of Lazarus' existence and his wonderful
resurrection was better left unrecorded. This may have been the case if the authors
of the synoptic gospels were operating from a tradition that was, initially
at least, dominated by the apostles. Members of the Twelve may have been as
resentful of Lazarus as he was envious of them, in which case they may not
have wanted to show such honor to an outsider. I am reminded of the time the
apostles found an "outsider" casting out demons in Jesus' name, and
they forbade him "because he walked not with us." The synoptics
mention a Lazarus only once, and this only in Luke, where he appears as a
character in a parable of Jesus – a poor beggar, full of sores, who
begged vainly from the rich mans table, but who, on dying, went to Abraham's
bosom. There seems to be no relationship between this Lazarus, a purely
fictional character, and the real person of the Fourth Gospel. If we did not
have the Fourth Gospel, we would know nothing whatsoever of the brother of
Mary and Martha, who resided in Bethany. I believe, then, that there is a strong
possibility that Lazarus was deliberately excluded from the synoptic record
due to envy, and that if he had not himself taken up his pen to complete the
record of Jesus' ministry, we would know nothing whatsoever of him. The
synoptics do record resurrection stories: that of the young daughter of the
ruler of a synagogue, Jairus by name (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and the
widow's son at Nain (Luke). The first story does have much in common with the
raising of Lazarus; it follows a severe illness, Jesus is informed of the
illness (Mark and Luke) and accepts a plea for help, but then is delayed
while dealing with other matters, including the woman with an issue of blood,
after which he is informed by messengers that Jairus' daughter is dead, much
as Jesus was informed by Martha and Mary that Lazarus was dead, after which
he proceeded to perform the resurrection. But unlike that of Lazarus, this
resurrection was no threat to the apostles, because it involved only a little
girl, not an adult male disciple who might become their competitor. The same
is probably true of the widow's young son. On the other hand, Lazarus fails
to mention either story in the Fourth Gospel, where they might compete with his
resurrection as a means of showing privilege and importance. I pointed out
above how he failed to mention Jairus daughter, for the same reasons that he
may have failed to mention the Transfiguration: Only three apostles, the
foremost, were permitted to witness her raising – the very same three
who were privileged to witness the Transfiguration. He was jealous of Peter,
he was jealous of these three, he was jealous of the twelve, and it shows!
His absence from the synoptics should
not be interpreted to mean that he never existed, or that he existed but never
experienced the resurrection from the dead that he claims for himself in the
Fourth Gospel. The internal evidence of the Gospel, including specifically
what I have discussed here, strongly suggests that there was indeed such a
person who was resurrected from the dead, and who thereby experienced the
resentment of the apostles, and his own resentment of their efforts to make
him less than he was by ignoring him, and who was moved thereby to later put
the record straight by writing his version of the story of Jesus, in which he
receives his due and in which the foremost apostles are put in their places.
The Fourth Gospel is powerful evidence of the historicity of both Lazarus and
his resurrection!
In like manner, we also can understand
why he chose to designate himself as that disciple whom Jesus loved,
as though Jesus did not love the others, only him. We should not suppose that
Lazarus was so crass as to believe that he was the only disciple loved by
Jesus, although his self designation would seem to say as much. No, in other
passages he clearly speaks of Jesus' love for others, saying, for example, to
all the disciples at the Last Supper, "As the Father has loved me, so
have I love you; abide in my love (John 15:9)." Yet he undoubtedly seeks
to assert that Jesus loves him more than all the others, because he has
privileged him to be resurrected from the dead. Put yourself in Lazarus'
place, as one whom Jesus has raised from the dead. Would it not be natural
for you to wonder in amazement at the love of one who would do such a thing
for you, for you alone among the disciples? And could not a strong envy, even
jealousy, drive one to make such an assertion? Before his illness and death,
Lazarus must have been resentful of the special calling of the twelve. He
felt slighted, to say the least. But then, he finds that he alone has been
raised from the dead, and now is the center of attention because of this
astonishing event. People come to see Jesus who raised him, but they are just
as interested in seeing him who has been raised! "O, how very much he
must love me, to do such a thing for me!" And so, Lazarus becomes the
one, in his own eyes, who is the blessed recipient of a singular love, and it
is thus that he presents himself years later as he recalls and records the
remarkable story of his Lord, and of his own association with him.
Lazarus claims this special love not
only for himself, but for all his house. He
introduces it as soon as he introduces himself, having the sisters' messenger
to Jesus say, Lord, he whom you love is ill. But then he has a twinge
of guilt, and is moved to share this love with his sisters; and so he follows
immediately with "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and
Lazarus." Then, later, when Mary has come to him with the plaintive
word, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died,"
Lazarus returns to this emphasis immediately, having the Jews respond to the
Lord's display of emotion with the words, See how he loved him! From
this point Lazarus prefers to refer to himself only as that disciple whom
Jesus loved, not being bold enough to say such a thing directly of himself. But can we really be expected to believe that the
mystery disciple was anyone other than Lazarus, after the way he has
specifically focused this love upon himself and his sisters in the account of
his death, burial, and resurrection?
Consider this: Lazarus is the first
person, even prior to Jesus, who has both died and
been buried, then raised from the grave. Wouldn't that inflate anyone's ego,
especially when he was given to understand that it was for the glory of God,
and when everyone was clamoring to see him, and when the Lord accepted him so
closely, in his very bosom, at the Last Supper?
The above pages present a strong case
for Lazarus, the resurrected Lazarus, as the author of the Fourth Gospel. But
there is much, much more. Lazarus was a Judean, of Bethany, near Jerusalem. He was not a Galilean, therefore we might expect
that his knowledge and experience of the Lord would be focused on Judea, not Galilee, and this is precisely the case. Only portions of
the first and second chapters, the fourth chapter, the sixth chapter, and the
introduction to the seventh chapter of the Fourth Gospel are devoted to the
Galilean ministry. The rest is devoted to Judea and Jerusalem. Only the Fourth Gospel finds a place for the
saying of Jesus: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in
me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me
shall never die (John 11:25,26)." This is thoroughly in keeping with the
authorship of Lazarus, the man who had already experienced, through the Lord,
the resurrection of the dead to a new life. Then there is the obvious
difference in the ethereal style of the Fourth Gospel when compared with the
other three. It is characterized by a mystical manner of expression, by depth
of perception and spiritual idiom not found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Isn't
this to be expected from an author who has uniquely experienced death for
four days, then been restored to life? Such an one
surely has a different outlook on everything, as does the man who wrote the
Fourth Gospel.
That it was Lazarus, I do not doubt.
Having reached this conclusion, we are remiss if we do not re-examine others
questions such as the date of authorship. We see evidence that Lazarus wrote
his gospel after noting the omissions from the synoptics, or at least one of
the synoptics, of those things pertaining to himself.
Therefore we are justified in concluding, as already believed by most scholars,
that the Fourth Gospel may have been the last to be written, and was
certainly not the first. Scholarly dating tends to place the authorship of
Mark in the seventies, of Matthew in the eighties, and of Luke/Acts after the
nineties, perhaps in the second century. None of these dates poses any
problem for the Lazarus authorship of the Fourth Gospel. He may have been
still quite a youth at his resurrection, as young as twenty or even a
teenager. If his resurrection occurred as early as 28 AD, and if he wrote the
Fourth Gospel as late as 100 AD, then this makes him 92 when he authored the
gospel, well within the realm of possibility, especially for one who has
already died and been resurrected. However, I disagree with the current
scholarly dating of the synoptics, which is dictated by the thought that
Mark, supposed to be written first, contains too detailed a description of
the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to have been written prior to that date. I see
no reason to doubt that Jesus had prophetic powers adequate to foretell the
destruction of Jerusalem forty years before the fact. Any person with a
good feel for the political volatility of the times and a fair knowledge of
the rebellious mood of the Jews could safely have made such a prediction,
without giving an actual date. This is what Jesus did, who dated the fall of
the city very loosely, within his generation. Now Paul, writing about AD 50
to the Corinthians, described the events of the Last Supper in terms very
similar to the synoptics. I propose that Paul got his information from one or
more of the latter (his attestations to the contrary), which must then have
been written prior to AD 50, only about twenty years after the resurrection
of Jesus, a little longer after that of Lazarus. Lazarus need, in that case,
have been no more than fifty when he authored the Fourth Gospel, and I allow
a few years for circulation of the synoptic materials to reach him. Of
course, this does not apply to Acts, which contains the record of the early
fellowship of disciples and of Paul's ministry and must have been written
later than any of the synoptic gospels. One could, of course, surmise that it
was written prior to AD 66, the probable date of the Neronian persecution in
which Paul is supposed to have been martyred, since it knows nothing of his
death.
Current scholarly thinking about the
dates of authorship allows for the existence of both oral and written
tradition at an early date, prior to AD 50, but stumbles at the supposed
purely mythological events – the virgin birth and nativity, the
miracles, the resurrections, and the ascension of Jesus. They argue, rightly,
that myth making takes time and that it would be unrealistic to expect that
all these myths could have developed in the twenty years following the resurrection
of Jesus, or even during the lifetimes of most of the disciples. However, the
hypothesis discussed herein, of the Lazarus authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
provides a strong basis for accepting the historicity of the resurrection, at
the least, of Lazarus. And if that is accepted, why not accept the
historicity of much if not all of the other supernatural elements in the
gospels? No time is then required for "myth making." As one
acquainted with the state of Twentieth Century physical science, I am convinced
of the "Big Bang" hypothesis of the origin of the universe, and of
the evolutionary theory of the development of our specie. And I ask myself,
are the supposed mythological events of the gospels out of reach for a divine
creator adequate to produce our universe, and us, thus supernaturally?
However, my faith is not founded on the miracles, or supposed myths of the
four gospels, but rather on those elements of all the gospels that are
authentic sayings of Jesus, some of which may indeed spring from a very early
written document, which the scholars have designated "The Gospel of
Q."
As I have explored this Lazarus
Hypothesis I have been repeatedly impressed with the richness of it. It
is a deep well, and I surely have not reached the bottom even now. You may
think of other things that may be relevant, as can I. I will mention only two
more things here, separated from the others because they are admittedly much
more speculative. One of these has to do with the identity of the "man
carrying a jar of water" whom Jesus told James and John (the sons of
Zebedee!) that they would meet after entering Jerusalem on their way to
prepare a place for them all to eat the passover. They went, met the man,
(according to the Mark gospel and Luke), and followed him to a house. They
then did as instructed, that is, they asked the householder, "The
Teacher says, where is my guest room where I am to eat the passover with my
disciples?" And so it came to pass that they were shown a large upper
room, furnished for the occasion, and there they made ready. Could not
Lazarus have been the man with the jar of water? The synoptic authors neglect
to name him, again because of the rivalry. He lived nearby, and it is
reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have earlier instructed him to make
such preparations – even to having him convey there a jar of water for
the event – not only for refreshing themselves from their journey
thence, but also – for the washing of their feet! In this case, Lazarus
as author of the Fourth Gospel is the most appropriate one to describe the
feet washing incident – he was the one who provided the water! The
synoptics, of course, do not mention this event. Was it too humiliating for
the Apostles to pass on to those who were the sources of these gospels?
The second thing addresses the
question, often asked, "How do we know what Jesus said during his
agonizing prayer in Gethsemane?" Peter, James and John, the only ones
permitted to be near him there, went to sleep. Of course, after his
resurrection Jesus could have told the disciples what was said there, but
there is no record of such and interchange and it seems to me very unlikely.
Did the Holy Spirit reveal this to the synoptic authors? Why would the Father
relay to the disciples by the Holy Spirit words uttered by Jesus in
confidence, in the depth of agonizing prayer? Again, I think it is not
likely. But there was another person at the Last Supper, closer to Jesus than
Peter, James, or John – in his very bosom! Are we to suppose that
Lazarus, that disciple "whom Jesus loved" remained behind while all
the rest followed Jesus into Gethsemane?
Not likely. And are we to suppose that the favored three were permitted to go
with Jesus to the place of prayer without the presence of the very favored
Lazarus? Again, not likely. And would the synoptic authors have included
Lazarus in the number? Not likely! Therefore, the speculation that Lazarus
was close by – close enough to hear the words of Jesus, closer perhaps
even than the favored three, is not ungrounded. And
he, hearing, did not go to sleep! So, why didn't Lazarus tell us all about
this in his gospel? He didn't need to – the others had given it
good coverage, including information that only he could have provided. Still,
they didn't credit him – wouldn't he have wanted us to know that he was
the source of this important information? Yes, of course. But he would not
have wanted us to know that he was there as an eavesdropper! Eavesdropper to
a transaction between the Father and his Messiah!
In the same vein, how did the synoptic
authors learn the details of the crucifixion? The Apostles all forsook him
and fled the scene, eventually leaving only one mentioned male disciple,
Lazarus, plus the women. They could, of course, have obtained this
information from the women; but this is not likely since the testimony of the
male would have been considered more authoritative in their sexist world.
Now, on the morning of the first day when the women discovered the door had
been rolled away from the tomb, we are told that they ran and first notified
– Peter and Lazarus. What do you suppose these two were doing together
at this early hour, so soon after the crucifixion? Place yourself in Peter's
shoes, become the man who denied the Lord three times then fled for his life,
and you are spending time with a disciple who saw it all. Surely the foremost
apostle was asking questions. What happened after I left? Was anything said?
Did the Lord suffer greatly? What did he say from the cross? Did he make any
prophesies? When, exactly, did he die? Did they break his legs? Did he make
any effort to come down from the cross? Did he pray to the Father? Did he
drink anything? So, there must be one exception in crediting the traditions
springing from the twelve for the information contained in the Fourth Gospel.
The stories of the crucifixion and death of the Lord very likely originated
with the one man who was there and saw it all, because there was no other
friendly source. Of course, they are not disposed to reveal their source!
Some of my readers will consider that everything
written here is pure speculation; I do not think so, because there is too
much evidence, and too many good reasons, for drawing these particular
conclusions. Of course, I have not proved a thing – no one can do that
at this late date, for none of the parties survive either to confirm or deny.
But if one accepts my basic premise, that the resurrected Lazarus authored
the Fourth Gospel, and that there was rivalry between him and the Twelve,
even resentment and envy, then so many previously mystifying questions are
suddenly answered that I cannot avoid drawing the conclusion that it was so.
Of course, I am open to consider other views, if there are such,
that can thus demystify so much of the gospels!
For further reading, and a much more scholarly treatment of this subject, I
recommend Vernard Eller's book, "The Beloved Disciple."
|