Traditionally, the fourth gospel is ascribed to the Apostle John, who is understood to be the mysterious beloved disciple that makes so many appearances in the book. However, based on the internal evidence, I am persuaded that this identification is mistaken. Lazarus is the beloved disciple, not John. Since the beloved disciple is identified as the author, wouldn’t that make Lazarus the author of the fourth gospel? In a sense, yes, but authorship is rightly attributed to John given ancient standards.
I think Lazarus penned a written testimony to the life of Jesus, and John used Lazarus’ material as his primary source (similar to how Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source, or how Mark used Peter as his primary source). John edited Lazarus’ material and added some of his own to compose the fourth gospel shortly after Lazarus died (a second time), in part, because he needed to clear up a misunderstanding in the Christian community about Lazarus’ relationship to the return of Christ. What better way to do so than by using Lazarus’ own testimony as the basis for the gospel!
Check out the evidence I present in the paper linked below and let me know what you think.
Thinking to Believe 
February 2, 2022 at 12:01 pm
The word “beloved” is used many times in the NT, so why can’t Lazarus and John both be “beloved” of the Lord. Why does it only have to be ONE beloved?
The Church in Rome was called “beloved” and that involved many members of that church…so basically all of them were also beloved.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 12:22 pm
Hi Elaine. The gospel makes the point multiple times that Lazarus is loved by Jesus. He’s the only one so identified in the gospel, and he is identified that way multiple times. When that same gospel speaks of someone as “the beloved disciple,” it is meant to connect us back to the disciple that Jesus is said to love.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 12:30 pm
So does it mean that everyone else who lived and was (especially) martyred for His Name sake was not beloved by the Lord?
What is the difference between loved and beloved?
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 1:09 pm
It’s not a question of whether or not God loves other people. We know God loves everyone. But clearly Jesus had a special love for this particular disciple. That’s why he alone bore the moniker “the beloved disciple.” And since the fourth gospel specifically notes Jesus’ special love of Lazarus on multiple occasions, this is a literary clue to the reader to identify Lazarus as the beloved disciple.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 1:11 pm
that’s a big leap based on a big assumption.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 1:30 pm
Jason, you could be right or not. I have always valued your opinions and studies for as long as I have known you!….but either way I love the book of John!
Whether it was written by John himself or Lazarus, we will find out for sure when we meet them in Paradise! Until then, the book(s) of John continues to inspire, educate and bless us!😊👍🏼 Thank you Jason for these interesting & thought-provoking topics!!
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 1:42 pm
Paul, did you read the paper or just the headlines? I make the argument in the paper.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 2:25 pm
Jason, I totally forgot to read it……I’ll do that now!!
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 3:10 pm
Yes, Elaine, please read it. I’ll save you some time by directing you to start at the bottom of page 8. That’s where the main argument begins. The first 8 pages are focused on looking at the external evidence for the authorship of the gospel. It simply establishes that the universal testimony of the early church is that someone named John wrote it.
LikeLike
February 2, 2022 at 4:20 pm
Hi Jason, I printed it all out and will start at the bottom of page 8, but will read it all as well…Thanks so much!!!!👍🏼😊
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 3:47 am
As I understand it, the majority of biblical scholars agree that all four authors of the gospels are unknown and anonymous. For example: https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 9:31 am
Derek, it’s true that the gospels are formally anonymous since the author is not specifically identified within the document itself. However, that’s true of other ancient writings as well. Both categories of writings, however, have external attestation as to the identity of the author. That may come in the form of titles added to the copies, or in the form of other authors writing about their work and ascribing their work to them. In the same way most scholars accept these authorial attributions for ancient works, they should do so for the gospels so long as there is good evidence to accept those attributions.
And there is. In the case of the gospels, we have multiple, early, and mostly unanimous testimony concerning the identity of the authors from both manuscripts and early church writings. Additionally, an internal analysis of gospels like Mark, for example, support the church’s traditional teaching that it was written by Mark (not an eyewitness) based on Peter’s testimony (an eyewitness).
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 12:14 pm
“In the case of the gospels, we have multiple, early, and mostly unanimous testimony concerning the identity of the authors from both manuscripts and early church writings.”
And yet it remains that most biblical scholars claim that the authors of the gospels are anonymous and that nobody can claim to know who they are. My question is, why would the experts on the topic do that if there is reasonable claim for the authorship of the gospels?
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 12:26 pm
Rudolf Steiner came to the conclusion that Lazarus was the first man to be initiated into the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ and that he was indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel. Cf.
“…….There is one particularly noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel (the 4th Gospel): in the story of the Lazarus mystery it is said that the Lord “loved” Lazarus; and the word is again applied to the disciple “whom the Lord loved”. What does that mean? Only the akashic record can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own being into the being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world as the delineation of the being of Christ. That is why no disciple John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus….”
https://wn.rsarchive.org/GA/GA0112/19090630p02.html;mark=511,8,15#WN_mark
…………………….
“….the mighty cosmic influence exercised in the event that occurred on the bank of the Jordan, then you will also understand that an accurate description of such an event — the first description of it — could only have been achieved by one whom Christ Himself had initiated, by the risen Lazarus “whom the Lord loved,” thenceforth always mentioned as the disciple whom the Lord loved. It was the risen Lazarus who bequeathed us the Gospel; and he alone was able so firmly to weld its every passage because he had received the mightiest impulse from the greatest initiator, from Christ. He alone could point to something that later Paul, through his initiation, comprehended in a certain sense: that at that moment the germ of victory over death had entered Earth evolution….”
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA112/English/AP1948/19090703p02.html
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 12:51 pm
Derek, I doubt you have actually counted noses to know what the majority opinion is, but you are probably right that most Biblical scholars will either say that the traditional authors aren’t the actual authors, probably aren’t the actual authors, or that we simply can’t know who the actual authors were. However, a few things should be observed/noted.
First, truth is not determined by consensus. Reasons and evidence matter most. So what are their reasons for denying traditional authorship or saying we must remain agnostic? If they are not good, then the consensus is just a consensus of bad reasons/conclusions. Granted, I haven’t read a bunch of scholars who deny traditional authorship, but I have read a couple and I found their reasons to be of very poor quality. Furthermore, they didn’t seem to approach other historical works in the same manner. The skepticism meter was only applied to Scripture.
Second, observe that virtually all liberal scholars take one position and virtually all conservative scholars take another. That tells me that bias may be an issue here for either side. But that also explains why most scholars take the non-traditional view: most are liberal scholars with a liberal point of view. If most Biblical scholars are liberals, it’s no surprise that a liberal view on the gospel authorship would represent a liberal perspective as well. So again, what matters is not nose counting, but reasons and evidence for each respective view. And I think the external evidence for the gospel authorship is impressive in that it is early, abundant, and virtually univocal in who it identifies as the authors. If no one knew who wrote the gospels, we would expect for different regions of the church to be claiming different authors, and we would expect early manuscripts to differ in their attributions as well. We don’t. They all agree.
Third, you asked why most scholars take the position they do. I am not a psychologist, so I can’t analyze their motivations. What matters is their evidence and reasons.
LikeLike
February 3, 2022 at 12:55 pm
Thanks for that info Max. Never heard of Steiner, but I know I am not alone in my thinking. Other theologians, such as Ben Witherington III, agree.
Is Steiner claiming that Lazarus wrote the gospel after Jesus raised him from the dead, or that he wrote it after he went to heaven? Also, I wonder how Steiner deals with the external evidence regarding John’s authorship of the gospel. I don’t think any theory that says Lazarus wrote it from beginning to end and no one named John was involved, will work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 8, 2022 at 2:59 pm
“John” was the name given to the one who was called “Lazarus” before his death and initiation, just like Venus is sometimes called “Evening Star” and s9metimes “Morning Star.”
LikeLike
February 8, 2022 at 9:47 pm
That is quite a strange view, IMO.
LikeLike
March 15, 2022 at 11:18 am
Great article Jason. I really enjoy this type of expository and you’re really good at it. I’ll admit I’m a bit confused about an email at the Last Supper though.
Keep up the good work
LikeLike
March 15, 2022 at 5:36 pm
Oh my goodness. I’ll fix that error. Quite funny though!
LikeLike
May 19, 2022 at 6:32 am
“First, truth is not determined by consensus. Reasons and evidence matter most.”
I agree wholeheartedly on that. We can’t determine with absolute certainty explanations that are true, only false. The consensus is the expert opinion of the vast majority of experts who come to the same conclusion, but that is never a guarantee of truth. Nothing is.
“So what are their reasons for denying traditional authorship or saying we must remain agnostic?”
Traditional claims don’t mean much if they can’t be demonstrated. But when most historians and scholars reach a consensus based on evidence, their positions hold more weight than any traditional claims. Of course they can be wrong, but they’re more likely to be right than laypeople.
“Granted, I haven’t read a bunch of scholars who deny traditional authorship, but I have read a couple and I found their reasons to be of very poor quality. Furthermore, they didn’t seem to approach other historical works in the same manner. The skepticism meter was only applied to Scripture.”
Poor quality based on what? Your own opinion of the evidence, or the quality of the evidence itself? I’m sure you would disagree with the conclusions of, say Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier or David Fitzgerald, but they do present claims supported by the evidence. For example: https://youtu.be/AymnA526j9U
“Second, observe that virtually all liberal scholars take one position and virtually all conservative scholars take another.”
That’s why it’s the evidence they can demonstrate that counts, not just the claims.
“If no one knew who wrote the gospels, we would expect for different regions of the church to be claiming different authors, and we would expect early manuscripts to differ in their attributions as well. We don’t. They all agree.”
Well, they don’t all agree, which is one of the reasons why the traditional authorship is called into question. In fact, you yourself call into question the traditional authorship in your post. I’m not saying you are wrong, only that nobody really knows who the authors are.
LikeLike