Lazarus: The Beloved Disciple
This is finally a continuation of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus? (Previous post here.) Part of the problem is that I have been very busy, and this book tends to fall through the crack. It’s not the sort of thing I read for my own devotions, yet it’s not my light bed time reading.
But I’m also rather disappointed in it, because I don’t feel that it really is contributing that much to understanding of historical Jesus studies. It’s written at a popular level, so I don’t expect it to advance scholarship that much, but I frankly find the approach a bit bizarre.
In chapters seven and eight, Witherington continues, this time dealing with the beloved disciple and thus possibly the author of John. He maintains that this is Lazarus. I’m not going to go into the details of his argument. You’ll have to buy his book for that. The historical data that he surveys is coming to this point is rather interesting. He surveys authorship issues in the book of Revelation, concluding that John of Patmos is neither John the apostle, nor to be equated with the author of the gospel or epistles. He believes that the same person wrote the epistles and the gospel, and of course that person was not John the apostle. The authorship issue is dealt with effectively.
If he stopped at that point I would find it interesting. What’s disappointing is that he continues the process of trying to establish who Jesus is based on his restoration of these eyewitnesses. I find many conclusions in historical Jesus research are based on very limited evidence. In this case we have Lazarus based on very skimpy evidence, and then we see him used as a witness.
To quote:
Finally, let’s summarize what the material bequeathed to us by the Beloved Disciple tells us about Jesus. The first and perhaps most important conclusion we learn from examining this material closely is that there is no major gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of later Christian faith . . . (p. 165)
Say what? That may be true, though it would be another debate. But based on the information contained in this chapter? Hardly.
Henry:
Thanks for your thoughts here.
Let me offer some comments: I think Ben is right on the authorship of John. Though nothing can be definitely concluded this side of eternity, I think Lazarus makes the best sense.
If I could, I would recommend Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, in which he argues that eyewitness testimony is more important than the written texts. I would also recommend my colleague, David deSilva, and his NT Introduction. He makes the same point concerning the authorship of John.
If you ever get a chance to read these books, I would be interested in your perspective.
I would certainly be very interested in Bauckham, because I very simply don’t get the value of what Witherington is doing in this one. I’m not sure I’m getting the issue across as I see it. Witherington is doing a very good job of finding the pieces for each of his eyewitnesses. He paints good pictures, even when I assign low probability to the total result.
It’s the conclusion to each chapter that kind of gets on my nerves, because I just don’t see how we’re really any closer to the historical Jesus. To actually debate him on the point I would have to work harder than I am. As it is I’m just giving my reactions as I go along.
Oh, and I’ll add deSilva’s NT Introduction to my intended reading list. It’s about time to read another NT intro! I honestly find it very useful to read a new intro every couple of years just to help bring my wide ranging reading (mostly commentaries) together.
I doubt if you’re following these comments any more, but in case you are, I have put in interlibrary loan requests for both books you recommend. None are available in the libraries I frequent and I’m not quite ready to put out the cash!
Henry:
And by the way, I don’t believe that Bauckham buys the Lazarus authorship of the fourth Gospel, so it should make for a very interesting contrast.
I’m agnostic. I use the phrase “unknown member of the Johannine community. Witherington does make some room for the hypothesis by suggesting someone else put the whole into its final form.
RE: “dealing with the beloved disciple and thus possibly the author of John. He maintains that this is Lazarus. Im not going to go into the details of his argument. Youll have to buy his book for that.”
Those who want to purchase BW’s book are welcome to do so. But a free ebook which lays out a Biblical evidence presentation on this topic is also available for those who want to investigate the identity of the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved”.
At http://www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com this study can be read on line or printed for offline reading. FYI