Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

While on the whole that lecture was very interesting to say the least and it seems to me to have several very convincing points to make, I still have two questions:1)if the gospel editor is meaning to create a label, if you will, for the BD that may be used throughout and associated with him, why the switch early on between "hon phileis" for Lazarus and "hon agapa" for the more ambiguous BD later?2)if Lazarus were indeed Simon the Leper's son and a leper himself, do you think he would still have access to the house of Caiphas and have "high status" amongst the Pharisees?again, I really enjoyed the post.

Ben, this very theory has been bouncing around in my brain for some time now. I had never encountered anyone who put this theory forward, though. I had made the connection with the naming of Lazarus as the one "whom Jesus loved" and the later beloved disciple. I had not seen, though, the clarifying of later elements. Rather, I had noticed that the possibility of Lazarus being the BD was not out of the question.Thanks for bringing this to light. I , for one, would be interested in seeing the debates to come.

Have you ever read Vernard Eller's "The Beloved Disciple"? Eller is a minor (though favorite of mine) Church of the Brethren theologian who taught at the University of La Verne. His book posits Lazarus as the beloved Disciple as well and identifies him as the head of a Jerusalem based group of disciples with Mary Magdalene/Lazarus Sister Mary (IIRC).It's been a while since I read it but it was an interesting take. Herb Drake at House Church Central has an online text of the book (http://www.hccentral.com/eller8/) as part of his Eller Collection project...

One of the things which is probably fatal to the theory that John son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple and also the author of this entire document is that none, and I do mean none, of the special Zebedee stories are included in the Fourth GospelBut there's a longstanding response to this. If John was deliberately trying not to draw attention to himself by not naming himself, as most proponents of the traditional view hold, why would we expect references to the Zebedees by name? There surely is reference to them in several places when the gospel indicates that other disciples were there. Yet these incidents sound eyewitness enough that you'd think John would at some point be mentioned if there hadn't been a deiberate reason not to mention him, given both his closeness to Peter and his tremendous influence beyond virtually any other of the twelve but Peter. The only plausible explanation I have for that fact is that John was the author and had trouble mentioning himself by name due to genuine humility and modesty.I don't think much depends on how much of the accounts from the Synoptics appear in John. If the author was deliberately trying to supplement them with some emphases not found as strongly in them, then you'd expect inclusion of accounts not in the synoptics, with the inclusion of synoptic accounts only insofar as they furthered the particular purposes that the fourth gospel was emphasizing as a supplement to what was already in the other three.If the gospel is accurate, than Jesus spent a lot more time in Judea than the synoptics alone would indicate. But of course you would expect this given the four times a year traveling for the feasts that was traditional, and this gospel confirms Jesus didn't break with that tradition during his three-year ministry. A few weeks four times a year and then a significant amount of time after the resurrection in the fledgling church would easily have given John some pretty serious understanding of the geography of the general Jerusalem area.

Ben, that's a very interesting reading and one that ties up a lot of loose ends. I ran into the idea of the BD being Lazarus once before by Floyd Filson (not sure of the exact ref but can look it up if you wish).

Hi Jeremy:Your argument is an argument from silence on the basis of humility. This won't do. The references to the Beloved Disciple do not begin before John 13 and nowhere do we have the equation BD=Zebedee. In fact we have only one reference to them in the whole book--- in the appendix, John 21. The way eyewitness testimony worked in early Judaism is that you testified to the important things you saw, especially the one's that changed your life. No account of the call? No account of the first sighting of a raising of the dead at Jairus' house in Galilee? In fact no accounting of any of the Galilean miracles recorded in the Synoptics except the feeding and walking on water tandem? This just won't do for a Galilean eyewitness. It makes no sense in its original Jewish context. Blessings,Ben W.

Hi Edward:There are so many problems with this whole approach to the matter that there is not space enough to deal with them here: 1) this is a Gospel about which is it claimed eyewitness testimony is its basis. This is claimed not only in Jn. 21 but also in Jn. 19. Furthermore, we are told in Jn. 21 that the Beloved Disciple wrote his traditions down. This material cannot be ignored in analyzing where the story of Lazarus may have come from.2) Richard Bauckham, in his new book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has thoroughly discredited the form critical assumptions of the old German approach to these traditions. They were not handed down like legends, and as Bauckham shows in some detail there was not time for them to become legends-- all four Gospels, including John the latest of them which shows up in the 90s, were written when there were still eyewitnesses like the Beloved Disciple to provide check and balance in the way the Gospels were written. In short, there wasn't a lengthy traditioning process, and what materials were handed down were handed down like Jews handled such materials, not like Bultmann thought (who drew analogies with Balkan folklore-- a very inapt comparison indeed!)3) Eliezer (which we render as Lazarus) is a very common name, after a Maccabean war hero. There is no reason at all to connect the story in John 11 with the parable in Luke-- none whatsoever. Indeed the name is just about as common as John in that period. And indeed these two narrative involve different kinds of material-- a parable is not an historical narrative and vice versa;4) The anointing stories in John 12 and Mk. 12 are one and the same. This scholars are in agreement on. 5) It is entirely an argument from silence to say that "because the Lazarus story is not in the Synoptics, this makes it historically suspect. Why? Singularly attested traditions are not made suspect simply because they are singularly attested. It may well be that the placement of the story of Lazarus at the end of the book of John's signs is theological rather than chronological. In that case, no Gospel writer was under any obligation to include all accounts of one type of miracle. Each of the four Gospels have a raising story. None of them have more than about two such stories. 6) the vast majority of Johannine specialists, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, do not think that the writer of the Fourth Gospel used any of the previous Gospels in composing his own. In other words, while some think John may have known Mark, the Fourth Evangelist draws on no Synoptic accounts, but rather gives his own independent witness to the events. 7) Its time to leave behind the old form critical assumptions which we still find in some older scholars like Crossan or Borg. Those assumptions has been rather thoroughly discredited even before the 21rst century began. See my What Have They Done with Jesus?Cordially,BW3

Ben,This has been fascinating reading. I am going to share it with others. Thanks for sharing.Edgar,

Nicely done. I was also concerned about Nance's #2, but think that it's also possible that Simon the Leper's family may have had unusual status in the community. Fred

Sorry, correction. "considered UNmarriagable."

I had heard that you presented a lecture on this issue at SBL and I was sad I missed it so I was really glad to see that you posted it. Now I have a hard time avoiding bringing up Lazarus when people say "John, the Beloved Disciple..so and so" What you wrote is a very thorough explanation.

Ben --A few questions that I haven't seen addressed yet (or perhaps I missed them, and if I did I apologize):(1) On your theory, John didn't write the Gospel (though he edited it); the Beloved Disciple did. But if that's true, that means that all the stylistic features which this Gospel shares with John's epistles and with Revelation must be due to John's editing of this manuscript. That is, they aren't part of the original manuscript by the BD. Doesn't that seem like a huge stretch?And if Warren Gage at Knox Theological Seminary is correct when he argues (in the John-Revelation project, which is online) that John and Revelation are a huge chiasm, then it seems even less likely that John simply edited the Gospel. It seems more likely that he wrote it and wrote Revelation as a chiastic "mirror" of it. Or at least, it seems to me that it would be easier to write two documents yourself and make them chiastic than to try to edit someone else's manuscript to make it fit chiastically with one you have written or are planning to write.(2) You say that John 13 doesn't have to be the Last Supper in the Upper Room in Jerusalem.But the events in John 13:1ff. lead to Jesus handing the bread to Judas (which, of course, is when we hear about the beloved disciple). Judas then leaves and Jesus immediately starts a speech (v. 31: "When he had gone out" tells us that this speech didn't happen some days later; it's part of the same scene).That speech continues with no indication of a change in time or place, straight through to 18:1, when Jesus goes out to the garden. "When Jesus had spoken these words" appears to refer to the whole speech/dialogue from 13:31 on, and indicates that what's happening now in chapter 18 follows immediately on the heels of that speech.So what's the argument for saying that John 13:1ff. doesn't have to be the Last Supper? It certainly appears to me to be.(3) You mention "leprosy" and suggest that Hanson's disease did exist in Judea at the time of Jesus. I'd be interested in hearing how we know that.But at the same time, even if it did exist, wouldn't it be best to take the "leprosy" talked about in the New Testament as being the same as the "leprosy" talked about in the Old Testament?After all, the stories about the cleansing of a leper are stories steeped in that Old Covenant background where lepers are excluded from the synagogue, etc.But that leprosy which we read about in Leviticus ISN'T Hanson's disease. It's something that houses and clothes can get, for one thing. For another, if a person was white from head to toe with "leprosy" in Leviticus, he's clean and allowed back into the presence of God. He isn't a health risk. That wouldn't be true of Hanson's disease, would it?Just some thoughts. Thanks for your willingness to interact!

Hi John:Some good questions, which are answered at length in my commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, the Johannine Epistles, and on Revelation. If you want more you'll need to read them. First all, there is no way that the Fourth Gospel and the book of Revelation are a giant chiasm. The works are not in any way mirror images of each other, for their themes are very different-- no seals, trumpets or bowl plagues here in the Fourth Gospel. Indeed these two books often use the very same Greek words to mean entirely different things. For example, the term ethnos refers always to Jews in the 4th Gospel but always to the Gentile nations in Revelation and so on. Secondly, I do not see John of Patmos being more than a collector and editor of the Beloved Disciples' materials. He gathered the materials already written down by the Beloved Disciple. he edited them, perhaps adding the prologue and some of the material in John 21-- that's it. And the vast majority of scholars recognize how very different the style is of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel, which contrasts with the similarities between the Johannine epistles and the Fourth Gospel. So those theories from our brother at John Knox just won't wash. In fact there are no significant commentaries that even mentions such ideas-- a very minority, and I might add odd, opinion. Most scholars are rightly very leery of those who claim to have found chiasms even within a single work, and never between two separate works that are so very different in genre and style and themes etc.Blessings,Ben

john,i could be mistaken, but i think that ben's thesis is that the BD did also write the epistles, but i might just be imagining that. i'll have to go back and reread. if that is the case, then there's your answer.

Thank you, Ben, for this fascinating exposition. I was converted listening to a sermon on the raising of Lazarus and it has always seemed to me to be one of the most powerful stories in the whole of the New Testament, one that has the aroma of personal testimony about it. The traditional ascribing of the gospel, the epistles and Revelation to John bar Zebedee has always seemed to me unlikely, though it is almost heresy to say so in some circles. I have ordered your commentaries to see if the whole thing sits happily in my mind.

LazarusComeForth.com lays out the case for Lazarus using nothing but the scriptures which you/your readers may find interesting.

I have long held that the beloved disciple was the owner of the upper room. Could be Lazarus, but since they wanted to kill him also, would Lazarus really have led Peter into Caiphas' courtyard?

Here is a little footnote to this entire discussion. I was looking again at John 20 when the Beloved Disciple visits the tomb of Jesus. A new thought struck me-- if the BD is Lazarus then the reason he believed without seeing Jesus at the tomb, but simply seeing the tomb empty with grave clothes left behind is that he himself had experienced resurrection personally. It was not the empty tomb that convinced him in itself, but the reminder of his own experience when he went there. Ben

Thank you for sharing this. I've never heard this theory and it's very plausible. There is nothing really, other than tradition, that warrants the belief that John was the author and BD. And if he were not the author, the only implication to the NT is that it's another book not written by an "Apostle" but still written by an eyewitness of the risen Lord.I started to look through John this morning and had a few thoughts I would like to share. I saw that only David mentioned one of them in the 3rd comment above mine.Before that, I know that it will be said that my argument is one from silence. This seems to be a standard reply here... The whole premise that Lazarus = BD is also one of silence. Jesus is said to have loved a lot of people - not just Lazarus. It may not have been the exact phrase, but we should keep in mind that the identification of anyone with BD is ultimately one of silence since we are never told who he is.First of all, in the Synoptics, Jesus asked Peter and John to meet an anonymous man with a jar of water who would take him to his master - the home of the person to prepare the Passover. Why not just tell them to go to Lazarus' house since they were just there? I know the key was secrecy and that Jesus likely planned for the meal ahead of time with the owner of the house and wouldn't want Judas to know too early where they would be for the meal. And I will admit that there may be no better time to have planned this next meal than the place Jesus ate just 6 days before the Passover. Secondly, the plot was already in place prior to the passover to kill Lazarus. It's entirely possible that the chief priests would have had someone keeping an eye on Lazarus. But, again, this could be mere speculation. But in this debate, it's certainly something to consider.

Sorry Ben that is 'witness as' not 'witness of' and 'now predisposed' not 'not predisposed'

Hi Ben!Interesting work you did. Our group has come up with a similar interpretation but it is somewhat different. Here it is:"The gospels tell of the disciple whom Jesus loved in several places...23 There was reclining in front of Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him (John 13).26 Therefore Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, said to his mother: Woman, see! Your son!27 Next he said to the disciple: See! Your mother! And from that hour on the disciple took her to his own home (John 19).20 Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: Lord, who is the one betraying you?21 Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: Lord, what will this [man do]?22 Jesus said to him: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?24 This is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true (John 21).Now we must beg the reader to worship God with his mind and not to worship the long established Roman Catholic Church with all its glitter and status in this world. So please take off your Papal Mitre and put on your Sherlock Homes Deer Stalker once again and let us obey the law given to Moses, that Jesus made into the first commandment. It is still in force today, to serve not a church of men but our creator, Jehovah, our God, with our whole heart our whole mind our whole soul and our whole strength. Now the Catholics would have us believe that only Jesus and the apostles were present at the last supper. They would further have us believe that Jesus had a favourite apostle, namely John. He loved him more than the rest they say, because he wrote John 21 and so he was the one whom Jesus used to love as can be seen from verse 24. This seems to make sense because we all know that Leonardo Da Vinci only had Jesus plus 12 at the last supper and because John did see Jesus come in vision as recorded in Revelation.But there are a few problems with that interpretation. 1. People in the world do have favourites, but one doesn't imagine that Jesus would be like that.2. Nowhere in scripture is 'the one whom Jesus loved' called an apostle, he is always called a disciple.3. Jesus gave this person to his mother as her fleshly son. This means he must have had authority to do that, which means he must have been his fleshly father in some sense. Jesus was John's father is spirit, but not in flesh. Furthermore Jesus as head of his family, being the firstborn son, and Joseph being dead, gave his mother to the one whom he loved. Mary then went to live in his home. Why did he not give her to the secondborn son? Jesus had 4 brothers...55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13). He was making 'the one whom he loved' the head of his family, the head of his fleshly house. So he was giving his birthright to this one. So this one must have been his firstborn fleshly son. But how could Jesus who never got married, have a fleshly son?Answer: Lazarus. He was the father of the body that Lazarus received upon his resurrection. So Lazarus, being the firstborn by resurrection of the firstborn by holy spirit of Mary, was the legitimate head of the household once Jesus died. Jesus could not sin and break the law and give his mother and family to an imposter. This interpretation explains why Lazarus was leaning back upon Jesus bosom at the last supper. He was his son, and sons are in the bosom of fathers in the bible...18 No man has seen God [Jehovah, unbegotten] at any time; the only-begotten God [Jesus, the first angel to become a God to be worshipped, the only begotten God] who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him (John 1).But this raises the question: How could Lazarus be at the last supper? Surely only the 12 were there with Jesus...18 He said: Go into the city to So-and-so and say to him, The Teacher says, 'My appointed time is near; I will celebrate thepassover with my disciples with/towards you.19 And the disciples did as Jesus ordered them, and they got things ready for the passover.20 When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the 12 disciples (Matthew 26).At first sight it just looks like Jesus celebrated the passover with his 12 disciples. Not with 13 disciples, but with 12. But So-and-so was a Jew as were Jesus and the 12 disciples, so they would all have celebrated the passover together. And Jesus would not have excluded So-and-so or his family from celebrating with him. Indeed such a thing would have been unlawful. But who was this guy So-and-so and why is he given this non descript designation? Well, in John 12 we read that...1 Accordingly Jesus, 6 days before the passover [The last supper], arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised up from the dead.2 Therefore they spread an evening meal for him there, and Martha was ministering, but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with him (John 12).Now there is a thing. 6 days before the last supper Lazarus is reclining with Jesus at the table at an evening meal. Imagine you were Lazarus and you had been raised from the dead by Jesus and you had eaten an evening meal with him 6 days before the passover. Would you not want to eat the passover with him too? The law said that the passover should be eated in Jerusalem. So Lazarus would have gone up to Jerusalem to a friend's house there to eat the meal with his sisters. But why So and so? Well further on in John 12 we read...9 Therefore a great crowd of the Jews got to know he was there, and they came, not on account of Jesus only, but also to see Lazarus, whom he raised up from the dead.10 The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also,11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going there and putting faith in Jesus (John 12).So Lazarus could not go around openly or he would be killed. So for security reasons Jesus and presumably the disciples as well referred to him as So-and-so. In this way people overhearing their conversation would not realise that Lazarus was there and would not be tempted to betray Lazarus to the chief priests who presumably would pay them silver money for the information.So actually at the last supper were the 12 apostles, Jesus, Lazarus, Mary, Martha and the family of whoever owned the house which had the upper room where it was celebrated. So now the last supper ceases to be a sterile apostolic refection, and becomes a loving family affair. Certainly if Martha minstered at the evening meal 6 day previously, why would she not do the same thing at the passover itself? Perhaps the women ate at a different table, but these girls were saints of the New Covenant, so in theory they would have partaken of all the cups, as did the apostles. Lazarus however could not die, since he was now in a non adamic body. By which we mean he would be raptured the minute he died physically, he would not see Hades for a second time. Consider these scriptures...5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus (John 11)33 Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping and the Jews that came with her weeping, groaned in the spirit and became troubled;34 and he said: Where have you laid him? They said to him: Lord, come and see.35 Jesus gave way to tears.36 Therefore the Jews began to say: See, what affection he used to have for him! (John 11).Now Jesus most likely wept because he saw the distress of Mary, the one who had wept at his feet and wiped her tears off with her hair. And what man would not? But nonetheless the scripture says referring to Lazarus: See what affection he used to have for him!1 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the memorial tomb early, while there was still darkness, and she beheld the stone already taken away from the memorial tomb.2 Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, for whom Jesus had affection, and she said to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the memorial tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him (John 20).The wording of John 20:2 is such that Jesus loved Peter as a son as well. In fact he loved Peter as the head of his wife to be more precise! Obviously Lazarus being in a brand new non adamic body, actually being a son of Isaac in a 240 year max lifespan body, could run a bit faster than poor old Peter!7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus used to love said to Peter: It is the Lord! Hence Simon Peter, upon hearing that it was the Lord, girded about himself his top garment, for he was naked, and plunged into the sea (John 21)So Lazarus could hear more distinctly than the other disciples as well! Nice body! He had a human body x2 in Personal Computing terminology! There is no other named person in the Gospels that Jesus was said to love and so for us that decided things.Who wrote John then?This problem was what prevented us from accepting the research at first. But then we put the last verses of John 20 together with the last verses of John 21...30 To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll.31 But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name (John 20).25 There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written (John 21).The end of each chapter is saying the same thing, namely that Jesus did a whole load more things that are not written in this scroll. So if we have two endings then we have two authors. John wrote chapters 1 - 20 and Lazarus wrote chapter 21. With this understanding we can now make sense of the last 5 verses of the chapter of Lazarus.20 Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love [Lazarus] following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back upon his breast and said: Lord, who is the one betraying you?21 Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: Lord, what will this [man do] [seeing as he has already died once and been resurrected]?22 Jesus said to him: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?24 This [Lazarus] is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things [wrote John 21], and we know that the witness he gives is true ['we' being Christians of higher authority than Lazarus, the pillars of the church, Peter, James and John].25 There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.So the Gospel of John runs from chapter 1 to chapter 20. Then we have the book of Lazarus which is presently called John 21. This one chapter is not a gospel since it covers events after Jesus' death. We know there are only 4 gospels. However we now have a new bible writer and a new book of the bible.

Believe it or not, one “new” suggestion regarding the identity of the BD has not yet been refuted, although it has been mentioned superficially for centuries. Anyone who is interested can check it out http://www.clementdialogue.org/Robinson.htm . Comments, anyone?Bob

A reference that corroborates the idea that the beloved disciple was Lazarus is J.N. Sanders, "Who was the Disciple Whom Jesus loved?" in F. L. Cross, ed., Studies in the Fourth Gospel (1957), pp. 72-82. Corroboration of this idea may also be found in the work of Oscar Cullmann and of Floyd V. Filson. For corroboration of the idea that Simon the Leper was the father of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary and a member of the Sanhedrin, one need only consult the article on Lazarus in Smith's Bible Dicitionary.

I agree that the Beloved Disciple would obviously have known about Mark, or maybe even read it. This was obviously a man of enormous intelligence and talent, and to think that he wouldn't be interested in what his contemporaries were writing about The Man seems ludicrous. Most authors read their contemporaries, or at least want to. I can at least imagine the Beloved Disciple asking a traveler from a community where Mark was known many questions about what that gospel was up to. Also, I find it fascinating to wonder how Jesus and Lazarus may have gotten to know each other. Maybe when Jesus first met him, Lazarus showed him something he'd written, and when Jesus looked at it he knew the special way this young man would remember him. He would be his witness to the truth, as it were. Maybe Lazarus kept a journal, and wrote in it at night, and pondered over all the things Jesus said that day. If he was rich, he could probably afford the writing utensils. Also, I wonder sometimes if Lazarus was taught by Nicodemus, since Nicodemus is a "teacher of Israel."Also, does anyone think it's strange that the parable in Luke that mentions Lazarus actually has a name in it? I don't know of any other parable that has a name. It would be really odd for this tradition to stay alive for so long without a name that everyone seemed to know. Was Jesus using Lazarus' name in this parable because Lazarus had "sores" on his body? Was he including his young friend in his teaching? Also, the end of the parable mentions how there will be unbelief, even if someone rises from the dead. Any thoughts?--Andrew Wood

One other thing: I think another blow against the idea of John son of Zebedee as the author are words directly from Christ. When James and John ask Jesus for special positions in the kingdom, and when they say that they are truly able to drink from the cup Jesus will drink from, and be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with, and Jesus agrees with them, it seems to me that Jesus is talking about his martyrdom and that he is telling the brothers that they, too, will indeed be martyred. He probably knew this because these guys were the Sons of Thunder, and were more likely to really upset people and get in their face. Didn't they want to bring fire down on the Samaritans?

Ben- If the Gospel of John was authored by Lazarus, who himself was resurrected from the dead, why/how do you suppose God would not allow Lazarus to testify more specifically in the Gospel as to his personal experience in the tomb? Obviously, Lazarus held in his grasp some power to clarify human thought on the death experience. I find myself thinking that, had I been Lazarus, I would have included something of this in my account.

Lazarus?! The poor guy was just raised from the dead. How active could he have been? How effective would he have been with Annas, as "the other disciple?" Death takes a lot out of one. If Jesus loved him so much, why did he die? The true beloved disciple, as Peter points out in Jn. 21 was not supposed to die ... but Lazarus, if he was the beloved disciple ... had already died!The disciples whom Jesus loved were John Mark and his mother Mary, who were the John and Mary at the cross of Jesus. Alterations by heretics have fooled us all these years. Read my take: http://tanata.squarespace.comRegards,RCG

Dr. Witherington,This is great! I had a professor at Gordon College, Dr. Steve Hunt, who gave a lecture in which he argued the same thing. (As I remember, the other Biblical Studies professors teased him good-naturedly but mercilessly about the whole thing.) One point that Dr. Hunt made during his arguement was about the connection between Lazarus's grave clothes (specifically his head covering) and Jesus's grave clothes (specifically his head covering). My Greek isn't great, but I remember Dr. Hunt thinking that it was incredible that the same words were used - and that the BD "saw and believed" upon looking at Jesus's used grave clothes. What do you think about this connection (if you think that there is one!)? One other note I remember Dr. Hunt making which he admitted was pure speculation: did the BD outrun Peter at Jesus's tomb because the BD had been restored to incredible vitality after being raised from the dead? An interesting suggestion.-Julie Glavic

Has anyone mentioned the book, "Lazarus and the Fourth Gospel Community" by Frederick W. Baltz. (Mellen Biblical Press: 1996). It presents the same thesis--that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple--but goes a step further in identifying Lazarus (Greek for Eleazar) with the former High Priest Eleazar (4 BC to 6 AD), son of Boethus, who, like Lazarus, had two sisters, named Miriam and Martha (with whom he identifies Lazarus' sisters, Mary and Martha). Is his a reasonable hypothesis?