We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Two questions are usually asked concerning the historical J. value of the Lazarus narrative. One question is whether or not Lazarus rose from the dead. This will be answered by arguments concerning the possibility of miracles, but John is not concerned to indulge in such arguments. The other question is about the place of this event in the course of Jesus' ministry. If the synoptic tradition is taken as the norm, the historical value of the Lazarus story seems threatened. We appear to be forced to choose between the cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11.8) and the raising of Lazarus (John 11.47–53) as the direct cause of the final plot to kill Jesus. There is, however, no certainty that one event alone caused the final decision against Jesus; both Mark and John are aware of other attempts and plots (Mark 3.6, John 7.32).
page 332 note 1 cf. SirHoskyns, Edwyn, The Fourth Gospel (London, 1947), p. 34f.Google Scholar
page 333 note 1 Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to St. John (Greek text) (London, 1908) p. lxxvi.Google Scholar
page 333 note 2 Corell, Alf, Consummatum Est (London, 1958), pp. 109, III.Google Scholar
page 334 note 1 ibid., p. III.
page 334 note 2 Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John (New York, 1955), pp. 115, 116.Google Scholar
page 334 note 3 Guilding, Aileen, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960), p. 148Google Scholar, argues that the language of Thessalonians has influenced the terminology of the Lazarus narrative and the raising of Jairus' daughter. There certainly are affinities. John and Paul agree in dividing believers into two classes: those who die before the Parousia, and those who remain. The sense of remaining is stronger in Thessalonians than in the Fourth Gospel.
page 336 note 1 This theory is also put forth by Guilding, op. cit., p. 147. The views of this paper were arrived at independently and served as the subject of a brief paper read before the S.B.L.E. in New York, December 1959.
page 338 note 1 Blass-Debrunner, , Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen, 1949), 374Google Scholar; Dana, H. E. and Mantey, J. R., A Manual Grammar of the Greek Mew Testament (New York, 1948), 278Google Scholar. This usage fits John 8.16 also.
page 338 note 2 The erchomenon in the formula of 2 John 7 is a special case. See B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, ad loc.
page 339 note 1 Bultmann, Rudolf, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 1959), p. 308.Google Scholar
page 340 note 1 So Barrett, op. cit., p. 325. Guilding, op. cit., p. 151, refers to Hosea 6.2 as a lectionary reading behind the Lazarus narrative. The parallelism of the two days is remarkable, but John is still concerned with history and not artificial prophecy, and furthermore, both John and Hosea are more interested in the saving act of God than in chronology.
page 342 note 1 Barrett, op. cit., pp. 325, 326.
page 343 note 1 Sir Edwyn Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 43.
