Is Lazarus the
“disciple Jesus loved” in the Gospel of John?
This idea that “the disciple Jesus loved” in the Gospel of John was not the
Apostle John but rather Lazarus seems to come from the “Secret Gospel of Mark”.
Those who argue for Lazarus point to two scenes: one in Secret Mark and one at
Mark 14:51-52. They feature the same young man or youth who is unnamed but
seems closely connected to Jesus. The account in Secret Mark details a raising
from the dead very similar to Jesus raising of Lazarus in John 11:38-44, and
identifies the young man as Lazarus and thus fixes Lazarus as the Beloved
Disciple.
Intellectual Arguments
Against the Source
The only references to a Secret Gospel of Mark are in a letter supposedly
written by Clement of Alexandria. In that letter the author quoted two excerpts
from a “Gospel of Mark” that are obviously not from the Gospel that was
accepted into the canon.
This gospel is not known or named in any other
Christian text.
If we assume that the letter was indeed by Clement, then there was a
version of the Gospel of Mark that he knew of in 2nd century
Alexandria, that did not make it into the canon. However, unlike the Didache or
the Shepherd of Hermas, no other reference to this Secret Gospel of Mark can be
found in any other Christian text. This alone makes this partial text quoted
second hand by someone we doubt to be who he claims to be very suspect.
This gospel is clearly agnostic and contradictory
to not only the letter but the very spirit of the Scriptures.
To quote the author of this supposed letter of Clement:
“As for Mark, then, during Peter’s
stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord’s doings, not, however, declaring
all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he
thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being
instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria,
bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to
his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward
knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of
those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things
not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the
Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and,
morevover, brohgt in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would,
as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innnermost sanctuary of
that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared the matter,
neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his
composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully
guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great
mysteries.”
This gospel is clearly gnostic:
This letter implies that Jesus was a homosexual.
It says:
"And they come into
Because I have dealt with the issue of homosexuality thoroughly in
other places, I will not deal with it extensively here. Nevertheless, looking
at several passages, we can determine that God the Father and thus God the Son
(who always did the will of the Father) is adamantly opposed to homosexuality
and effeminate behavior in men.
Beyond that, the Greek word for love that is used of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is not eros, the word used for erotic love but is rather agape, used for the pure and unselfish love of God.
There are several strong indications that this
letter is a forgery.
A Mr. Morton Smith supposedly discovered a fragment of an unknown Secret
Gospel of Mark in 1958 at the ancient monastery of Mar Saba. Mr. Smith
photographed the letter, and the monks then proceeded to separate it from the
17th centruty book into which it had been trascribed. They put it
away in storage for conservation but almost immediately lost it. This has
caused many to accuse the monks of a cover-up and Mr. Smith of fraud.
Subsequently, some black and white photographs of the questionable text were
discovered and these are all that we have to go on.
The handwriting of the letter is very like that used by Morton Smith. Mr.
Smith left marginal notes that he added in Greek to his private papers and the
writing is quite similar to that found in the remaining photographs of the
letter. Incidentally, Mr. Smith asked that those notes be burnt.
Many of the letters in the photographs show a “forger’s tremor”, left when
the writer stopped his pen in the middle of a letter to verify how the original
author would have formed it.
The styles of writing in the Secret Gospel and the Gospel of Mark are very
similar. However, statistical evidence demonstrates that the similarities are
too good to be true. This would indicate a deliberate imitation instead of
authentism.
This supposed letter by Clement of Alexandria not
only contradicts Scripture but also other writings that have been confirmed as coming
from the real Clement.
No other Christian source cites, quotes from, mentions or even hints at
such a gospel. And letters that have been confirmed historically and
archeologically to have come from the real Clement directly contradict this
letter.
This letter even contradicts itself!
The letter was written partially in order to provide an argument for ad
hominem abusive treatment of a man by the name of Carpocrates who found a minor
Gnostic sect. It says:
“Such men are to be opposed
in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one
who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true
things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according
to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.”
That would be understandable because many of the early Church Fathers
argued against Gnosticism. In fact most of the early creeds and the very canon
itself was formed to defend the church against this false doctrine.
The problem is that in arguing for the harsh treatment of a Gnostic, it
uses Gnostic doctrine and philosophy – a clear contradiction unless we
understand that this is not a fight between Christianity and Gnosticism, but
between rival school of Gnostic thought.
The author’s justification for ad hominem arguments is that not all true
things are “true truth” clearly the hair splitting and semantic double speech
that characterizes Gnosticism.
The Scriptural Arguments
against this concept.
The Gospel of John is titled as having
John as its author.
Some would argue that the title “…According to John”
was added a number of decades following its publication as it was being
circulated in order to distinguish it from the three Synoptics.
However, there is no hard evidence to support this theory. In fact, there is
every indication that John’s Gospel was so titled from the very beginning.
In the first centuries, an era immediately preceding
the advent of the codex and in which mass publishing did not exist, there was
no spine or binding upon which to imprint the title and author of the scroll.
Instead, an identifying tag was affixed. Otherwise there would have been no way
to determine what was in a scroll or to differentiate it from other scrolls. If
for only practical reasons, the Gospel scrolls would have been titled so that
the early readers would be able to know if they were picking up the Gospel of
Luke or the latest in romance novels.
Anonymous works were relatively rare and even these
were given titles in libraries. Sometimes, because the authors were unknown,
they were assigned several working titles or pseudepigraphical
authors. It would be far easier for a skeptic to say that the Gospel of John
was an unauthorized, anonymous book, if he could produce a copy that was
instead attributed to Matthew or Barnabas. But no – what we find is that every
manuscript, all the way back, consistently attributes the authorship to John.
There is not a single example of Gospel texts with no title.
There is a great deal of external
evidence to support the Johanine authorship of the
Gospel of John.
According to Iranaeus, Polycarp
(70-156 AD) knew John the son of Zebedee personally. Polycarp understood the
author of the Gospel of John to be his acquaintance. Papias,
a contemporary of Polycarp who may also have been a disciple of John also
stated that it was the apostle John. Clement of
John claims to be “the disciple that
Jesus loved.”
·
John 21:20-24 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved
following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and
said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So
Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I
come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that
disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but
only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and
wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The subject of the conversation was clearly the
“disciple Jesus loved”. Not only does it use that phrase, but it goes on to
state that it was the same man who had leaned on Jesus’ bosom at the supper and
quoted him. Then in verse 24 it categorically states that that disciple, the
one Jesus loved, the one who leaned back on Jesus during the last supper, was
the author of the Gospel of John.
We can eliminate Lazarus as a possible
candidate as the “beloved disciple” by his absence at the last supper.
The beloved disciple was clearly an eyewitness. He
was at the last supper (
·
Matthew 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table
with the twelve disciples.
We can further eliminate the other
disciples from that title.
The beloved disciple is frequently distinguished from
Peter.
·
John 13:23-24 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples,
whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and
said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."
·
John 20:2-9 So
she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and
said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do
not know where they have laid Him." 3 So Peter and
the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran
ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and
stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not
go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him,
and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with
the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So
the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw
and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the
Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
·
John 21:20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved
following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and
said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"
He is further distinguished from Judas Iscariot
·
John
From Thomas
·
John 14:5 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"
From Philip
·
John 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it
is enough for us."
From Judas (not Iscariot)
·
John
He is by implication included in the group of seven
disciples who go fishing in John 21, but is distinguished from Peter, Thomas
and Nathanael, leaving the possibilities of James or John (sons of Zebedee), or
one of the two other (unnamed) disciples. He could not have been James the son
of Zebedee because he was martyred around 41-44 AD and thus could not be the
author.
From other accounts of the period we
see John, son of Zebedee was part of the inner circle, Jesus’ closest
companions, which were Peter, James and his brother John. John is thus
frequently associated with Peter as a good friend.
·
Mark
·
Mark 9:2 Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and
John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was
transfigured before them;
·
Mark
·
Galatians 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James
and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars,
gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to
the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
See
also: Acts 3:1-4:23; Acts 8:15-25
The beloved disciple is also described
as a good friend of Peter.
·
John 13:23-24 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples,
whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and
said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."
·
John 20:2-9 So
she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and
said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do
not know where they have laid Him." 3 So Peter and
the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran
ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and
stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not
go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him,
and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with
the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So
the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw
and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the
Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
·
John 21:20-24 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved
following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and
said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So
Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I
come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that
disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but
only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and
wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And
there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in
detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that
would be written.
Further textual arguments:
It is also interesting to note that John the Baptist
is not distinguished from any other Johns by the author, and it stands to
reason that only an author by the name of John would not feel the need for the
qualification: "the Baptist".
Neither James nor John (sons of Zebedee) are
mentioned by name throughout this gospel while the author (who is clearly an
apostle, but not James [see above]) insists on refraining from the use of his
own personal name, therefore again implying John.
Conclusion
Therefore, we can fairly safely assume John, son of
Zebedee to be the "beloved disciple", and assuming the "beloved
disciple" wrote the fourth gospel (as is clearly implied in
Also check out the
arguments at this website.