This page
last updated: 26 July 2003 23:34
return to This page
last updated: 26 July 2003 23:34
At
first glance it would appear that Lazarus, despite the startling context in
which we encounter him, only plays a very small part in the Gospels.
Of the four Gospels he only appears in the Fourth, in two small sections.
Many people probably won’t even remember the second reference as it is
not one that frequently gets read out in church.
In
fact, a careful examination of the texts suggests that Lazarus may well have had
a much bigger role in events than is generally supposed.
The following overview examines his shadowy network of power and suggests
lines of further enquiry. Nothing
in here, I’m sad to say, is particularly original – merely conveniently
packaged to allow a quick appraisal of the key arguments.
I
have created a MindMap to accompany this text. It serves a double purpose
- firstly it illustrates the main threads of the document that you are currently
reading. Secondly, each branch also references the actual text of the bible if you
click on it. The table of contents on the
left hand side should help you keep your place. You can get back from the
bible text to the MindMap by either clicking on "Lazarus" at the very
top of the table of contents or simply clicking the back button on the
browser. Thus in the sections
below I have deliberately not included much of the actual bible text as I’m hoping that you will use the
MindMap to do this.
In
the Fourth Gospel (John 11:1-44), which I will reference using the standard
“John” notation although I will have more to say on this later, we are told
the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead – a pretty dramatic occasion
if taken at face value. Most people
are familiar with this story so I won’t dwell on it for too long.
However, the salient points that we are told are:
(1) Jesus loved Lazarus (repeated three times just to make sure we
understand); (2) Lazarus was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethany (who
appear elsewhere and in different guises – but that’s another day’s work);
(3) a curious (to us) use of the phrase “Jew” – here meaning somebody
specifically from Judea as opposed to the Galileans from Galilee; (4) the fact
that many Jews had come to help mourn indicated the prominence of the family.
In
the next chapter of this Gospel we are briefly told a startling thing – that
the chief priests were planning to kill Lazarus.
Apparently this was because he was responsible for converting a large
number of Jews to Jesus’ teachings. Now
maybe this is because raising somebody from the dead is such an amazing thing
that people would be converted by it. However,
this reading appears incorrect as (1) Jesus specifically says that people
wouldn’t be converted by having a dead person coming back (Luke 16:19); and
(2) Jesus had already raised people from the dead and they weren’t being
targeted for assassination. Therefore,
the implication would appear to be that Lazarus was a particular problem because
when he “went over” to Jesus he took many with him due to his position in
society. More of this anon.
(Curiously,
the first point listed above occurs in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man
– the only other time somebody called Lazarus appears in the Gospels.)
Evidently
the chief priests had no qualms about attempting to kill somebody who had
already been raised from the dead but the question of whether Lazarus would die
twice (harsh!) has been tackled by theologians as early as…well it will spoil
the surprise if I say too much now, but suffice to say that a distinction is
made between resuscitation (Lazarus) and resurrection (Jesus).
So
apart from those two mentions (three if you count the parable of Lazarus and the
Rich Man) there is nothing more about our man.
Two scenes in one Gospel. A
bit player. The end.
But
wait – there is, in fact, more. As
recently as 1958 a document claiming (and now believed to genuinely be) a letter
from Clement of Alexandria was uncovered. In
this letter Clement refers to a “secret” Gospel of Mark and quotes two parts
of it. The first part is a
re-telling of the Lazarus story although with some twists.
I’m not going to re-quote the text here but double clicking on the
relevant part of the MindMap will bring you there (near the bottom of the page).
This
time we learn that Lazarus is (it is generally accepted that this is indeed
Lazarus as, although he is not named directly, Bethany is) : (1) young; (2)
rich; (3) given to wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.
These points will be important later on.
As
an aside, there is more than a whiff of the “initiation” in this narrative,
leading many to speculate that Lazarus was not physically dead only spiritually
dead. After his initiation by Jesus
he has been awoken to his new life. This
rings true with me and although not specifically relevant to the current
overview does have resonances elsewhere.
The
author of the Fourth Gospel is never mentioned.
A figure referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” or the
Beloved Disciple appears a number of times and it is this disciple who is
explicitly identified as the eyewitness to the events recorded.
After mentioning “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the concluding
passage of the Fourth Gospel contains these lines: “This is the disciple who
is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we
know that his testimony is true.” However,
the Beloved Disciple is never named, so while tradition holds that it is John,
son of Zebedee, much controversy and speculation still surrounds this question.
Let
me start by attacking the proposition that John, Son of Zebedee is the Beloved
Disciple. The reason this tradition
exists is because of the say-so of Irenaeus.
However, several facts argue against this.
I won’t go into them all (books have been filled) but the most
convincing to me is that in the Fourth Gospel (unlike the others) there is a
clear distinction between the Galilean disciples (led by Peter) and the
Jerusalem-based disciples, who apparently include the Beloved Disciple.
(Remember the usage of “Jews” in the Lazarus passage).
On several occasions, Peter is made out to be the thicko of the pack
(indeed, one commentator has persuasively suggested the “rock”/Peter part of
Simon Peter should be rendered as “Rocky” – thus he should really be
“Simon also known as Rocky”) while the Beloved Disciple is the one who gets
things right. As John, Son of
Zebedee, was one of Peter’s gang, it is highly unlikely that he is the Beloved
Disciple. Other issues described
below will also suggest that none of the Galileans could be the Beloved
Disciple.
Of
course, you know where I’m going with this. In the absence of the traditional competition, step forward
Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple. As
I mentioned, many have suggested this before but let me summarise the evidence:
Jesus
loved Lazarus.
As mentioned above the Beloved Disciple is referred to as the “disciple
whom Jesus loved”. In the Lazarus
passage we saw how he is specifically mentioned as being loved by Jesus (three
times). In verse 5 the exact same
Greek word (hgapa) is used to describe Jesus’ love for Lazarus as is
used in the verses relating to the Beloved Disciple (e.g. John 13:23).
Timing.
Interestingly the Beloved Disciple appears only after Lazarus’
spiritual awakening. If the Beloved
Disciple had been mentioned earlier in the piece or alongside Lazarus, this
would be a blow to the theory but as the Gospels stand Lazarus is first
introduced to us and then, after he has been “raised”, he disappears and the
Beloved Disciple suddenly appears. (There
is another, different temporal anomaly in my general proposition but I’m not
going to create problems for myself by telling you what it is!)
Rumours
of immortality.
The clincher for me though is a passage I had never read before (or at
least read and failed to process). It
is part of that concluding appendix to Lazarus’ Gospel which commentators
agree was added after the body of the Gospel.
The specific part is John 21:23, “Because of this, the rumour spread
among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that
he would not die; he only said, If I want him to remain alive until I return,
what is that to you?”
Clearly
what we have here is a bizarre David Icke-like climb-down.
This community (or others) had said that their man wouldn’t die but
obviously by the time the appendix was written, he had (oops).
So they are saying no we never said that, we said that if Jesus didn’t
want him to die then he wouldn’t.
Now
unless they are complete nutters (possible, I grant) this makes no sense at all.
However, if the person in question were Lazarus then this would have been
a burning issue. If they believed
that Jesus had raised him from the dead, was he going to die again?
It only makes sense if Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple.
Now
I think everything so far has a thread of logic running through it.
My next suggestion is a little more tenuous but makes thematic sense.
All
the synoptic Gospels tell a story of a “rich young Man” who wants to know
how he can get everlasting life. He
has acted well all his life but wants to know what else he must do.
Jesus tells him that he must sell all his possessions, an answer that
causes him some dismay (being rich he has many).
Jesus then uses this to utter his “eye of a needle” speech.
I
contend that this is actually Lazarus prior to his spiritual awakening.
Firstly,
the passage in Mark says that Jesus loved him (“hgaphsen” in the
original Greek; I believe that this is the same root as “hgapa” above but am
open to correction on this).
Secondly
we have the theme of richness, which we saw in the “raising from the dead”
passages early on.
Thirdly
we have the positioning of the story. The first fragment of Secret Mark (raising Lazarus) is
supposed to be inserted between 10:34 and 10:35.
The story of the rich man comes just before this – 10:17-31.
Obviously he is intending to make the “raising” story a continuation
of the “rich, young man” story. In
fact, if it were left on its own, the “rich, young man” story would be
something of a downer, which is unusual in the Gospels (no Good News there!).
Luke,
in his telling of the story, specifies a “rich young ruler” (the Greek word
used is “archon” – steady, you Gnostics). The only time this word is used elsewhere in the Gospels in
this context is about Nicodemus (John 3:1) who is specifically a member of the
Sanhedrin. Both this and the points
I will raise below point to the fact that this rich, young, ruler – Lazarus -
was actually one of the 71 members of the Jewish supreme council.
With
this in mind let’s turn briefly back to the plot to kill Lazarus.
Remember we said that this only made sense if the reason they wanted to
kill Lazarus was because of his position in society.
This interpretation is backed up by a point earlier in the Forth Gospel
where the chief priests and the Pharisees send a heavy squad to arrest Jesus,
but when the officers hear him speak they leave him alone and come back
empty-handed. The response of the
Pharisees is enlightening (John 7:47-48): "Are you led astray, you also?
Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?” At this stage the answer is “no” but if Lazarus later
publicly supports Jesus you can see how this would undermine the position of the
chief priests and Pharisees.
By
the way Nicodemus himself appears to become the second member of the Sanhedrin
to follow Jesus. He stands up for
Jesus in the Sanhedrin (John 7:50-52) and gets accused of being a Galilean for
his trouble. By John 19:39, he
appears to have switched completely. Joseph
of Arimathea is the third member of the Sanhedrin and (secret) disciple of Jesus
(e.g. John 19:38) who breaks his cover to come forward for the body of Jesus.
So despite the best efforts of the priests, some of their own definitely
did believe in Jesus’ teachings.
Following
on from the above, it makes sense to identify the unnamed disciple mentioned in
John 18:13-27 as Lazarus. In this passage Peter and Lazarus try to follow Jesus as he
is taken away to Annas to be examined. Peter
is stopped at the door and must wait but the other disciple “is known to the
high priest “ (repeated twice) and is allowed through (this example of point
scoring against Peter, already referred to above, suggests strongly that this is
the Beloved Disciple). Here again
is proof that Lazarus must have friends in high places!
In
fact, Annas at the time was no longer the high priest, having been booted out of
office by the Romans in c. AD 15, but was acknowledged as still being the power
behind the position. The Jewish
historian Josephus refers to Annas as “a most fortunate man” (Jewish
Antiquities, xx.198) because five of his sons, his son-in-law and his grandson
also held the position of high priest and this had never happened before.
This
examination of Jesus by Annas is only recorded in the Fourth Gospel, supporting
once again the position that Lazarus, as fourth Gospel author, was an eyewitness
to these particular events.
This
Gospel has long been known for showing the most knowledge about the Jews but
also being the most anti-Jewish. This
apparent contradiction makes sense if it was written by Lazarus, a former member
of the Sanhedrin and later convert to Jesus.
For
the sake of completeness, it has also been argued that the unnamed youth who
wears nothing but a linen cloth over his body in Mark 14:51-52 is also the
Beloved Disciple. As this is
exactly the description we have of Lazarus from Secret Mark, it is certainly
likely. If this is indeed the case,
however, he must have found some clothes quickly before making his appearance at
Annas’ house.
As
is hinted at in the section above, Annas is a well-documented historical figure.
There are a few extra morsels of information about him that may be
relevant to this examination of Lazarus.
Firstly,
it appears that the wealth of the high priests was significantly dependant on
the money changing and purchase of compulsory offerings in the temple.
Alfred Edersheim in "The Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah"
(1971 edition, pp. 369-370) claimed that some rabbinic writings of the 1st
century a.d. tied the 'temple bazaar' to the sons of Annas the High Priest.
Specifically he says that it is likely that there was collusion between
the owners of the temple bazaar and the inspectors, so that many of the animals
purchased outside of the temple were rejected as unfit. When all was said and
done, it was easier, if not cheaper, to purchase animals at the temple bazaar
which were assured to have been already inspected and found acceptable for
sacrificial offerings. It would appear that these animals were sold at an
inflated price, the profits being divided between its high priestly owners and
the market proprietors.
Therefore
when Jesus cleared the temple (a scene which appears in all the synoptic Gospels
– e.g. Mark 11:15-19) he was not only making a religious statement, he was
directly attacking the high priest and compromising his ability to generate
income. (Possibly Jesus did this
twice: firstly John 2:14-22 and secondly Mark 11:15-19).
No wonder that Annas and Caiaphas are keen to get rid of him.
It appears that Jesus was not the only one to take exception to these
mercenary practices. It is
generally accepted that the common populace reviled the high priests in the
years before the fall of Jerusalem for their greedy and ungodly practices.
In the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta there is a list of woes caused
by high-priestly families. One of these is: "Woe unto me because of the
house of Hanin, woe unto me for their calumnies" (Babylonian Talmud,
Pesahim 57a; Tosefta, Menahot 13:21). Here
the house of Hanin is a reference to Annas and his family.
Note
that although Jesus made plenty of criticism of the Pharisees, they appear to
have had little or no role in the actual arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
The high priest and his family were all Sadducees.
Most of the conflict between the Christians and the Pharisees happened
after Jesus’ death when the Christians were becoming a force to be reckoned
with. Although even here when the
Sanhedrin wanted to put Jesus' disciples to death, the disciples' lives were
saved by a Pharisee called Gamaliel, "a teacher of the Torah held in high
regard by all the people" (Acts 5:34).
Now
we get into slightly murkier waters.
We
know from Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; XIX, vi, 4; XX,
ix, I) that Annas’s five sons Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the
younger Annas were all high priests after him.
In addition, Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ trial, was
his son-in-law. Some of these names
crop up later in the Acts of the Apostles still opposing the budding Christian
movement (Acts 4:6). Matthias his grandson was high priest in about 65 AD.
What
is interesting about this list is that Lazarus is a Greek rendering of the
original Hebrew name Eleazar. It is
tempting to think that this could be the same as our Lazarus.
Looking at the dates closely though, this is not likely as the high
priest Eleazar was in office about 15-17 AD.
Let’s say that you could become a high priest at 18, the youngest that
would make this Eleazar at the time of Jesus’ ministry would be 33.
Not impossible but not convincing – certainly if we think that Lazarus
we have been following is referred to as a youth.
As
against this, let’s revisit the Lazarus and the rich man parable.
Here Jesus speaks of a man, dressed in purple (signifying a ruler) who
begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to his father’s house where he
has five brothers. Given everything
that has gone before, this is just too coincidental for my liking.
I feel that there must be some connection to our Lazarus theme.
So
taking all of the above in account, the most reasonable storyline that I can
draw is as follows:
Lazarus
is a younger member of the extended Hanin family – possibly a son of the
Eleazar who had been high priest. He
is young rich and privileged. He
falls in with Jesus, first appearing as the young man eager to learn the secret
of eternal life from Jesus, then going away despondent because he must give up
his vast wealth. However, he
finally takes the plunge and after his spiritual awakening becomes one of
Jesus’ best disciples. His family
have an axe to grind with Jesus anyway for trying to rock their money-making
boat and when they hear that young Lazarus has decided to join his cause are
outraged possibly sparking a family row (Jesus’ teachings have a strong
suggestion that one must break away from your family anyway so this would all be
in keeping). If one of their own is
now a follower they cannot claim to be above such nonsense. So they decide that he must be disposed of before he can
become an embarrassment.
Meanwhile,
Jesus stirs things further by holding up Lazarus as a paradigm of worthiness and
contrasting him favourably against Caiaphas (the rich man in the parable) and
his five brothers-in-law. Lazarus
evidently escaped their clutches long enough (or has some immunity due to his
status) to pass his memories of what happened to someone who wrote them down.
Possibly the community that sprang up around him claimed that he was
never going to die and then did some hasty backtracking when, eventually, he
did.
Version
1.1 26th July 2003
Please send your comments to Simon Nugent
return to