John's account of the resurrection of Lazarus

[Beck]

Many scholars have noted the parallels between the miracle story in John 11:1-44 and the parable in Luke 16:19-31.6 Some have proposed that the account of the raising of Lazarus in John is a 'conflation of various material in Luke, particularly the parable of Luke 16:19-31 and the Martha and Mary story of Luke 10:38-42, along with the stories of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56…) and the son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17),' or 'that there is a common tradition behind the Lazarus story in John and the various other NT accounts of raisings from the dead.'

Taking into account that the the book by John has differences from the Synoptics. This rising of a man named Lazarus and another example is the cleaning of the temple. Just how these dichotomy are to coexist? If it seems to be an important event by John that it was the turning point that brought about the hatred toward Jesus to seek him out and kill him, you would think that would also be a great importances to mention from the Synoptics.

It rather seems that John composition of the materals by the Synoptics came together into this one event of the resurrection of Lazarus. What's your thoughts on this?

[duxrow]

Not a 'composition', but 'as moved by the Holy Ghost' for believers appreciation!
John 11 - the brother of Mary & Martha
Lk16:19 - in Abraham's bosom

Two named Lazarus.. (pattern of 'two') both re life/death
2 days + 2 days = "he stinketh" (the 2 covenants, when a thousand years=a day)

From Blue Letter Bible: Lazarus = "whom God helps" (a form of the Hebrew name Eleazar) G2976
1) an inhabitant of Bethany, beloved by Christ and raised from the dead by him
2) a very poor and wretched person to whom Jesus referred to in Luke 16:20-25

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Many scholars have noted the parallels between the miracle story in John 11:1-44 and the parable in Luke 16:19-31.6 Some have proposed that the account of the raising of Lazarus in John is a 'conflation of various material in Luke, particularly the parable of Luke 16:19-31 and the Martha and Mary story of Luke 10:38-42, along with the stories of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56…) and the son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17),' or 'that there is a common tradition behind the Lazarus story in John and the various other NT accounts of raisings from the dead.'

Taking into account that the the book by John has differences from the Synoptics. This rising of a man named Lazarus and another example is the cleaning of the temple. Just how these dichotomy are to coexist? If it seems to be an important event by John that it was the turning point that brought about the hatred toward Jesus to seek him out and kill him, you would think that would also be a great importances to mention from the Synoptics.

It rather seems that John composition of the materals by the Synoptics came together into this one event of the resurrection of Lazarus. What's your thoughts on this?

I have always been intrigued by the connection of the name Lazarus with the idea of resurrection. Lazarus is central to the story in Luke 16 which says that some Jews wouldn't believe even if someone was raised from the dead, and in John we see that idea in action when "the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death" after his resurrection because "by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." But I never approached this question from a textual critical point of view because I began with the presumption that the Scripture was designed by God. I felt that the textual critics were strangely blind because they were willing to trace out the most minute and speculative patterns in the text so long as it fit there naturalistic presumptions, but could not see the many patterns that I had documented in the Bible Wheel book because it implied some sort of intelligent design. For example, many of the differences (and contradictions) between the Gospels follow the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet on the Wheel in a most obvious way as discussed in my article Solution to the Synoptic Problem.

But now the textual critical approach seems very interesting and I can see that there is a lot of evidence supporting it. But the design that I have documented remains though how it got there is a mystery. In any case, I think it would be very interesting to dig into the Lazarus connection between John and Luke. I begin by noting the vast gulf between John and the Synoptics. The Gospel of John does not even mention the Apostle James who plays a central role in the Synoptics. And John mentions three passovers during Christ's ministry whereas the Synoptics mention only one. And John contains many quotes of Jesus not found in the Synoptics, and it changes his style of speech by sayting that he said "verily, verily" whereas the Synoptics record only a single "verily." The list of significant differences goes on and on. There is very little textual dependance of John upon the Synoptics so my first guess would be that the connection with Lazarus is more likely developed from an oral tradition rather than a textual borrowing like we see amongst the synoptics where many parallel passages are letter for letter identical.

So I think a good place to start would be to look to see if there is any direct textual dependance between the Lazarus story in John and the Synoptics.

Interesting topic!

Richard

[duxrow]

The 2 days Jesus delayed, so it would be 4 days when he arrived at the sepulchre, seems to fit a pattern of the Two Covenants..

No link to the beggar that I can see, except with 'resurrection', as you noted.

[Beck]

Not a 'composition', but 'as moved by the Holy Ghost' for believers appreciation!
John 11 - the brother of Mary & Martha
Lk16:19 - in Abraham's bosom

Two named Lazarus.. (pattern of 'two') both re life/death
2 days + 2 days = "he stinketh" (the 2 covenants, when a thousand years=a day)

From Blue Letter Bible: Lazarus = "whom God helps" (a form of the Hebrew name Eleazar) G2976
1) an inhabitant of Bethany, beloved by Christ and raised from the dead by him
2) a very poor and wretched person to whom Jesus referred to in Luke 16:20-25

I'm not sure what to make of this, but would say that Lazarus (Eleazar) is pictured by Luke through a parable of a son of Abraham and to which the Richman is thought to be a picture of Judah from which the Pharisees come.

So as Luke has given an parable of an Richman and Lazarus to go along with the other 4 other parables 'Lost sheep, Lost coin, Lost son, Unjust servant' which gives some insight into each other in relating to the two. Most definitely these are in relationship to Judah and the Pharisees and to the children of Israel that is among the Gentiles.

The 2 days Jesus delayed, so it would be 4 days when he arrived at the sepulchre, seems to fit a pattern of the Two Covenants..

No link to the beggar that I can see, except with 'resurrection', as you noted.

This is part of my questioning. Should we take this event figurative or literal. To me it seem that John has complied the materals by the Synoptics of each of these events into one.

[Beck]

I have always been intrigued by the connection of the name Lazarus with the idea of resurrection. Lazarus is central to the story in Luke 16 which says that some Jews wouldn't believe even if someone was raised from the dead, and in John we see that idea in action when "the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death" after his resurrection because "by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." But I never approached this question from a textual critical point of view because I began with the presumption that the Scripture was designed by God. I felt that the textual critics were strangely blind because they were willing to trace out the most minute and speculative patterns in the text so long as it fit there naturalistic presumptions, but could not see the many patterns that I had documented in the Bible Wheel book because it implied some sort of intelligent design. For example, many of the differences (and contradictions) between the Gospels follow the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet on the Wheel in a most obvious way as discussed in my article Solution to the Synoptic Problem.

But now the textual critical approach seems very interesting and I can see that there is a lot of evidence supporting it. But the design that I have documented remains though how it got there is a mystery. In any case, I think it would be very interesting to dig into the Lazarus connection between John and Luke. I begin by noting the vast gulf between John and the Synoptics. The Gospel of John does not even mention the Apostle James who plays a central role in the Synoptics. And John mentions three passovers during Christ's ministry whereas the Synoptics mention only one. And John contains many quotes of Jesus not found in the Synoptics, and it changes his style of speech by sayting that he said "verily, verily" whereas the Synoptics record only a single "verily." The list of significant differences goes on and on. There is very little textual dependance of John upon the Synoptics so my first guess would be that the connection with Lazarus is more likely developed from an oral tradition rather than a textual borrowing like we see amongst the synoptics where many parallel passages are letter for letter identical.

So I think a good place to start would be to look to see if there is any direct textual dependance between the Lazarus story in John and the Synoptics.

Interesting topic!

Richard

Well if I might start with a couple of presumptions. When I read the account by John of Christ raising Lazarus I find that at first mention is that Lararus was sick. Now we all would assume that this sickness is of the physical, but lets look at it as one spritiual for a moment.
Jesus would tell them that this sickness isn't unto death. Well at first glimpse Jesus would be lying for Lazarus did infact die if viewed from the physical.

Jesus would also tell them 'if any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, becasue he seeth the light of this world, but if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, becasue there is no light in him" Here one could assume that Jesus is refering to what his disciples had told him about the Jews sought to stone him and that it wouldn't be purdent to walk in the night. If on the other hand Jesus is given some insight into his working of a miracle of raisng Lazarus from the dead. In that Jesus is implying that one stumbles when one is in the darkness of the night. It is also note worthy that Jesus said that Lazarus wasn't dead, but only sleepth and that he may go and awake him out of sleep. This draws be back to a discussion about how 'Sleep' is used to describe those that have Fallen into Apostasy.

So from this view point I could definitely see how John might have drawn this one event from those from the Synoptics. While it is yet possible that John had in vision of a man name Lazarus that had doubts about Jesus and had returned to Judaism as if he had been bond and placed in the grave for he had dead. Of course this doesn't mean that there had to be a man named Lazarus for it could as while be used as an parable just like that of Luke's.

Well as for any direct textual dependance between John and the Synoptics I will have to dig some more.

[duxrow]

Jesus would tell them that this sickness isn't unto death.

Agree. Have always figured he knew this would be an illustration about him being The Resurrection.

It is also note worthy that Jesus said that Lazarus wasn't dead, but only sleepth and that he may go and awake him out of sleep. This draws be back to a discussion about how 'Sleep' is used to describe those that have Fallen into Apostasy.

Concur. Again, for illustration, emphasis.

So from this view point I could definitely see how John might have drawn this one event from those from the Synoptics. While it is yet possible that John had in vision of a man name Lazarus that had doubts about Jesus and had returned to Judaism as if he had been bond and placed in the grave for he had dead. Of course this doesn't mean that there had to be a man named Lazarus for it could as while be used as an parable just like that of Luke's.

Beck, I can't accept that the gospel writers copied anything from each other -- rather, I believe all 4 heard from heaven, and that it's even possible today, in the 21st century. (..but no examples that I know of).

Well as for any direct textual dependance between John and the Synoptics I will have to dig some more.

Roger about the digging -- wish we had a smiley for that!

[Beck]

Agree. Have always figured he knew this would be an illustration about him being The Resurrection.



Concur. Again, for illustration, emphasis.

Well, I'm glad we can agree to the sum.

Beck, I can't accept that the gospel writers copied anything from each other -- rather, I believe all 4 heard from heaven, and that it's even possible today, in the 21st century. (..but no examples that I know of).

Roger about the digging -- wish we had a smiley for that!

I'm just not sure why you are not accepting that at least Matthew copied from Mark. Since a high percent of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew, we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark’s details and adds several stories. Yet it also seems to be the case for John coping Luke's stories again altering and as I'm proposing John compiling stories into one.

But if you still can't accept then we on this point would be in disagreement...which is okay.

[duxrow]

AUTHOR! That's why I think of God as the Holy Ghostwriter, Beck. Am definitely a believer in the Trinity (the 3 in 1), and realize all the hype about it, but believe it's keeping us from understanding how the 4-in-1, like the four gospels, have been planned for our study and deliberation. All the ambiguity and confusion has been done on purpose, IMO, to see if we can 'rightly divide' this spiritual water, like Moses divided the wet water of the Red Sea.

Hebrews12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.