Resurrection of Lazarus only mentioned by John, not others, why?

by VM44 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento

    I think you mean why it WASN'T mentione din secualr sources.

    Probably because Herod was such a brutal ruler that it wasn't "outside the norm", maybe it was because in a small little town like Bethlehem you'd be talking about just a few kids and in the grand scheme of slaughters in those days, that wouldn't be anything "noteworthy".

    We would just be speculating.

  • donuthole

    The Gospel of John covers different ground the others. It deals more with the later ministry of Jesus and is more Jerusalem oriented.

  • notverylikely

    You're right PSac, I meant "wasn't". Regarding the event, wikipedia has this to say:

    "Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was certainly guilty of many brutal acts, including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other known source from the period makes any reference to such a massacre. [ 13 ] Since Bethlehem was a small village, the number of male children under the age of 2, would probably not exceed 20. This may be the reason for the lack of other sources for this history, [ 14 ] although Herod's order in Matthew 2:16 includes those children in Bethlehem's vicinity making the massacre larger numerically and geographically.

    The only other canonical gospel to give an explicit nativity narrative, the Gospel of Luke, places the birth of Jesus ten years after Herod's death, during the Census of Quirinius, and as such makes no mention of Herod or any Massacre of the Innocents."

  • PSacramento

    The thing is, when we look for FACTS in the bible, always a tauting task, LOL!, we need to remember that FACTS as WE WANT them, we NOt foremost on the minds of the Writers, I mean, they were writing for the people of THEIR time, not 2000 years later, so they didn't go into so much detail as we woudl like them to.

  • notverylikely

    The thing is, when we look for FACTS in the bible, always a tauting task, LOL!

    I completely agree. Verifiable facts are few and far between, whereas contradictions and stories that are so massive they should have left some indication or record of their having happened but without that record of any kind are a dime a dozen :)

  • PSacramento

    Well, I don't hink that contridictions is the right word, at least not all the time, in many cases it was simple one writer focusing on one thing in favour of what they other choose to focus.

    Many times we take parables and stories as facts and we shouldn't since there is no indication that we should fromt he writer.

    Other times we need to remember HOW writers in thsoe days wrote, ex:

    The flood, was their a global flodd that flooded the world? Nope.

    Was there a very large local flood in that area? Yes.

    Why did the writers say "the world" or "all the lands"?

    Same reason Rome and Aleaxander conquered the "World".

  • notverylikely

    Exactly PSac. They often didn't know what they were talking about. And with regard to the contradictions, when one writer says one thing and another writer about the very same event says something different, then that is a contradiction.

  • PSacramento

    Well, I don't know if its a question of "not knowing what they are talking about", thoug at times it could be just that simple.

    In the case of Luke and his error with the Census, it may just of been that simple, and error, Luke does, at times, seem to screw on historical stuff, of course this coudl also bea case of screwing upn on the copying of texts.

    Or it could be the case that Luke got some source information that screwed things up, we don't really know.

    BUt Matthew said one thing in his Gospel and Luke says another, that means, at least it SEEMS TO MEAN, that Luke did NOT have the GOM to draw from, if he did, he made a serious blunder trying to associate the census in Matt with the census by Quirinius.

  • donuthole

    I enjoy this sort of thing --

    Luke states in the beginning of his gospel how he went about writing it and for what purpose. His gospel is only as good as his sources and research was. He was not an eyewitness. In the book of Acts he was an eyewitness to portions and shifts his language to say, "we did this" and "we did that".

    Papias in the 2nd century had some interesting things to say about Mark. He said Mark wrote down what Peter had orally taught as an aid for others. Papias indicates that everything in Mark wasn't in the proper order but that he did the best he could to make an accurate representation of what he had heard. Again, Mark was not an eyewitness and was writing down from Peter's rembrances.

    According to Papias, Matthew was originally written in the language of the Hebrews (there are competing theories on if this was Aramaic or Hebrew). We don't have access to this early form of Matthew so not sure if we are talking about the one that was circulated in Greek or an all-together different version. The Gospel of Matthew is very Hebrew-centric and the writer wants to show how Jesus fufilled the prophecies as the Christ. Above the other gospels it also upholds the law.

    John is interesting. In addition to the apostle there seems to be another John the Elder who was notable in the early church. At the end of the gospel of John there is and end note at John 21:24 where another individual testifies to the truthfulness of what "the disciple that Jesus had loved" had written. I believe that individual was the Elder John which lead to later confusion over the gospel's original authorship. The gospel of John was written so that individuals would believe in Jesus. It is ordered around a sequence of signs to testify to Jesus, starting with the wedding feast in Cana culminating in the resurrection of Lazarus. John 20:30-31 clearly outlines the purpose of the book. The final end note admits that Jesus did much more than what that book contained.

  • AGuest

    Greetings dear PSacto... and the greatest of love and peace to you!

    Yes, it is true that the GOJ was not written by John,

    I am glad we agree!

    it was dictated by John the Apostle, son of Zebedee to another, possibly John the Elder.

    May I ask your source for this understanding?

    The whole notion of Lazarus being the one that was dicating and John being the one that was writting is alao thrown around, insinuating that because Lazarus was loved by Jesus that he was the discipled "whom Jesus loved",

    I am not sure whether it occurred this way, but John 11:3 does seem to corrobate that Lazarus was indeed the one whom my Lord loved/preferred/had affection for...

    but that leaves open MANy questions and issues,, since there is no record of Lazarus being an apostle or ever accompaning Jesus on a regualr basis.

    Well, now, I am not so sure about that. Is it possible that Lazarus, also known as "Simon" [the Leper], could have also been "Simon"... the Zealot (erroneously referred to as "Simon the Canaanite/Cananae'an" - but he was from neither Canaan nor Cana)... who WAS an apostle and DID accompany my Lord?

    The Gospel of Mark was written by Mark but it was what was told to him by Peter.

    Yes, and "Mark" was Simon Peter's son, Mark (1 Peter 5:13)... and not "John who was surnamed Mark", as some wish to believe.

    Some think that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the former tax collector and Apostle

    In Aramaic, yes...

    and of course the Gospel of Luke was written by Luck the physician and the writter of Acts.

    Yeah, don't you just hate it when the writer doesn't identify himself? Praise JAH, there is the Holy Spirit for such things.

    As always, I bid you peace, dear PSacto.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


Share this