This is my reply to an article at "Tough Questions Answered" entitled
Some critics have cast doubt on the veracity of the raising
of Lazarus in John’s Gospel because it is not recorded in the other three
Gospels.
That's perfectly reasonable given that both historiography and rules of evidence in American courts have prescribed the conditions under which the argument from silence will have force. Only stupid people insist that all arguments from silence are necessarily fallacious. Though I admit that this particular argument from Synoptic silence isn't exactly forceful, which is precisely why I don't use it myself.
John’s Gospel is believed to be the last Gospel written, so the
critics allege that John invented the story to further his particular agenda.
Because, among other reasons,
Clement of Alexandria said John knew the Synoptic authors already published the "external facts", and not wishing to duplicate their efforts, instead wrote a "spiritual gospel". The way Clement sets "external facts" apart from "spiritual gospel", certainly justifies the interpretation that he meant that John wished to give the reader something "deeper" than mere "external facts".
While that need not require that he
invented the resurrection of Lazarus, rules of historiography don't require one interpretation to be "required" before one can be reasonable to hold it. Otherwise, 99% of all Christians are unreasonable, given their differing views on all biblical matters, since the numbers of disagreements and willingness of Christians to change their minds seems to indicate they don't hold their current interpretations to be "required" except on basics.
Andreas Köstenberger, in The Gospels and Acts (The Holman Apologetics
Commentary on the Bible), argues against this viewpoint.
This critique is part of a larger argument against the
historicity of John’s Gospel based on its omission of many events found in the
Synoptics and its inclusion of material absent from the other Gospels. However,
this critique is ultimately unconvincing. For no matter one’s theory as to how
John composed his Gospel, it is apparent that he had a large amount of material
from which to choose. If John was aware of the Synoptics as he was writing,
which is probable (see Bauckham 1997a, esp. 147– 71; Köstenberger 2009, 553–
55), then he could reasonably be expected to assume much of the material they
contain.
I don't see how imparting to John a knowledge of the prior Synoptic gospels, does anything to weaken the argument from silence that says the Synoptic authors didn't know Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, because they surely would have mentioned such a strong supporting proof for their theory that Jesus was God's Son, had they known about it, or believed the story to be true.
It his unlikely that they would have known and believed such story but yet "chose to exclude" it from their gospels nonetheless. This whole idea that the gospel authors "chose to exclude" ANYTHING they believed God did on earth in the person of Jesus, just doesn't make sense. If the gospel authors seriously believed Jesus was the divine Son of God, they would more than likely have found it best to record as many of his words and deeds as they could possibly remember. Choosing to exclude some of these is what we'd expect only if they viewed Jesus as something less.
Other Christians agree that
John's gospel is far more complicated than the "external facts" that average Christians think that gospel provides. It is far from certain John is talking about real events when describing something Jesus said or did.
On the other hand, if John wrote without knowledge of the
Synoptics, then it is likely that at least some of the differences can be
attributed to the large amount of material from which he had to choose.
Since I late-date John, I need not worry about the possibility of John being ignorant of the Synoptics.
This
corresponds with what John later writes: ‘Jesus performed many other signs in
the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book’ (20: 30).
The author felt compelled to admit he wasn't giving a full record. Obviously, he was a truth-robot, incapable of lying. Please excuse me while I go consign the rest of my life to investigating biblical inerrancy.
Craig Blomberg rightly notes, ‘Any two ancient historians’ accounts of a given
person or period of history differ from each other at least as much as John
does from the Synoptics, when they do not rely on common sources for their
information’ (Blomberg 2007, 207).
The issue is not John "differing" from the Synoptics, it is the Synoptic
silence on the resurrection of Lazarus, and the argument that they surely would have mentioned it had they believed it true, that justifies skepticism toward John 11, even if such argument is not a "smack-down". Christ knows apologists don't have any "smackdowns" themselves.
In addition, it stands to reason that John had his own
theological emphases and unique perception of the significance of the events
surrounding Jesus, not to mention his own individuality, style, interests, and
distinctive eyewitness recollection from which to draw.
Doesn't matter, the resurrection of Lazarus ranks high on the scale of proofs that Jesus was the divine son of God, so it doesn't matter if it is true that the Synoptic authors believed it true but chose to exclude it for their own literary reasons from their own productions...the claim that John's gospel is historically reliable is a claim implicating historiography, which is an art implicating probability theory, which is a science implicating discussion of the argument from silence, which is an argument whose force depends on how likely it is that the author, whose silence is in question, would have mentioned a thing, had the author known of the thing.
The Synoptic authors' agenda was to provide literary evidence that Jesus was the divine son of God. Sorry, but only stupid people "choose to exclude" the most dramatic evidence underscoring their case. One has to wonder why the gospels authors picked and chose as they allegedly did, when in fact any Christian fool today can conceive of far more persuasive ways the gospel authors could have made their case. Such as comprehensively indexing each and every miracle of Jesus, names of eyewitnesses, obtaining their testimony, and recording how Jesus' brothers answered the question of why they refused to believe in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5, Mark 3:21). It is to the gospel authors' detriment that far more efficient and accurate means of arguing gospel truth were available to them, than the sorry 4 productions we now call canonical.
And the more you attempt to trifle that the Synoptic authors wished to prove their case
only implicitly, the more you get crushed under the wheels of the the Transfiguration; Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:29. The Synoptic authors were not likely to hold back from giving the reader knowledge of the more dramatic proofs Jesus gave of his divinity.
If the raising of Lazarus really did occur, why would the
other Gospel authors fail to include it in their biographies? Surely an event
of this significance would necessitate inclusion, the critics argue. Köstenberger disagrees:
Why does an event require multiple attestations in the
Gospels to be considered historical?
It doesn't. The rule is the more attestation, the more likely true, the less attestation, the less likely true. No, genius, we don't "just" believe singular testimony from ancient sources until a skeptic can prove it false, otherwise, since protestants cannot prove false the many allegations of Marian apparitions and healings in Fatima and Lourdes, they are obligated by their own reasoning to accept those accounts not just as true, but as also establishing the Catholic version of Christianity to be true.
Throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus
performs a host of miracles, including raising people from the dead (an
admittedly rare feature), so critics certainly cannot legitimately argue that
Lazarus’ resurrection fails to comport with the general Synoptic portrait of
Jesus.
The Synoptic evidence of Jesus raising people from the dead is scant and not very convincing:
They give a general report that Jesus raised people from the dead (Matthew 11:5 / Luke 7:22), but a detailed analysis justifies skepticism toward this generalization.
Jesus specifies that Jarius' daughter was
not dead but rather asleep (Matthew 9:24).
The parallel from Mark 5:39, by having Jesus specifically wonder and inquire
why the people would be so upset when she hasn't died, confirms that it was literally true that he hadn't died.
The parallel in Luke 8:52 also has Jesus specify that the girl wasn't actually dead, but only sleeping.
In Luke 7:11-18, it is specified several times that the person on the coffin whom Jesus raised back to life had actually been dead. This weakens to some degree the skeptical argument that the Lazarus story in John 11 is fiction due to Synoptical silence on it. But because this particular story is found only in Luke, Luke's credibility is at issue. Luke's report of the Council of Jerusalem spends 98% of Acts 15 telling about the apostolic
arguments, and about 2% recording short summary
statements of the Judaizer opinion, so Luke's bias is sufficiently high in favor of his own party that skepticism of his honesty is justified. Most scholars agree Luke depended to a significant degree on Mark, which makes Luke a liar for saying in his Preface that he drew from eyewitness testimony, leaving the false impression that eyewitness testimony is ALL he used.
But that Jesus' miracles during his earthly ministry were likely fake is justified on the basis the unbelief of his own family members in John 7:5, a point in time about a third of the way into his earthly ministry.
Matthew 11, John the Baptist sends from prison a question to Jesus about whether he is the messiah. Jesus asks his disciples to answer John the Baptist by mentioning that among the miracles, raising people from the dead is something Jesus has already done at that point:
1 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities.
2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples
3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see:
5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. (Matt. 11:1-5 NAU)
Luke 7 is the parallel:
19 Summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?"
20 When the men came to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, to ask, 'Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?'"
21 At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He gave sight to many who were blind.
22 And He answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. (Lk. 7:19-22 NAU)
It thus appears that about a third of the way through his earthly ministry, Jesus had raised people from the dead, and yet
it is about a third of the way through his earthly ministry that John says is the point at which his "brothers" were still refusing to believe in him, John 7:5.
From this I deduce that his brothers likely had good reason to believe whatever miracles Jesus was doing, were not likely to be authentically supernatural. John 7:5 passes the criteria of embarrassment, so that verse deserves our trust more than other parts of John.
And because the circumstances of how exactly the brothers of Jesus named James and John rose to positions of leadership in the post-resurrection church are never stated in the bible, we have justification to believe that they obtained those positions more because of their relation to Jesus and less because of any theory that they believed Jesus risen from the dead.
Indeed, there is no evidence Jesus' brothers
did ever believe, until after Jesus died. So his brothers apparently stayed in unbelief
throughout the entirety of Jesus' earthly three year ministry...(!?)
You lose, no matter what theory you fantasize about. If you say Jesus' brothers during his earthly ministry were just stupid idiots would couldn't get the point if they sat on it, then you lay a good ground for skeptics to say their resurrection testimony lacks credibility. If you were falsely accused or murder and facing a prosecution witness on the stand whose credulity soared the same heights as those of Jesus' brothers during his earthly ministry, you'd be screaming your head off about how absurd it is to believe willfully blind idiots like this.
If you say Jesus' brothers didn't believe him in spite of the miracles
because they had good reason to believe those miracles were fake, then such fakery justifies skepticism of Christianity in general.
The desire of John and James to allocate the entire Gentile ministry to Paul while they themselves would confine their ministry solely to Jews (Galatians 2:9), constitutes their disobedience to the resurrected Jesus' alleged mandate that
they, and the original 11 disciples, evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20).
Therefore, we are justified to believe that if John and James got to high positions in the church after Jesus died, they likely did so through sheer politics in spite of their less-than-amazing experience with the allegedly resurrected Jesus, which means they carried around unbelief toward their messiah brother
despite his alleged doing of miracles during their lifetimes where they could have checked the facts very easily.
This problem of the unbelief of Jesus' brothers during Jesus' earthly ministry either justifies rejection of Christianity in whole, or justifies viewing the resurrection testimony of these dolts as more credulous than believable.
God gave Adam and Eve freewill...it's your choice.
Although it is impossible to know for certain why a given author selects
or omits particular material in his or her account, one possible reason for the
omission of the story of Lazarus in the other Gospels is their focus on Galilee
(the raising of Lazarus takes place in Judea). Also, in Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses, Bauckham (2006, 184– 87) cites favorably G. Theissen’s theory of
‘protective anonymity,’ according to which the evangelists sought to shield
individuals who were still living from persecution by not naming them.
So the gospel authors did not agree with the author of Acts, that suffering for the name of Christ was a blessed thing about which one should be happy. Acts 5:41. Another reason to think Acts has, at best, white-washed history. Nobody said truth is required to create a spiritually edifying story.
If
Lazarus was still alive when the Synoptic Gospels were written, but died in the
interim between their publication and the composition of John’s Gospel,
Sorry, John 11 contains a shitload of evidence that Lazarus' raising was to teach "resurrection", not "reviving", and as such, if he was "resurrected", honesty requires that he was raised in a resurrection body
that cannot die. Skeptics have everything in John 11 on their side, Christians (who say Lazarus died again) have NOTHING in John 11 on their side to support their theory.
this,
likewise, may account for the Synoptic non-inclusion of the account and John’s
inclusion of it. Lazarus’s death would have meant he no longer needed
protection from persecution, so that John was free to include the account of
his raising from the dead by Jesus.
Sure, skeptics who push the argument of the Synoptic silence on Lazarus, aren't giving the world's most powerful argument, but that criticism plagues Christian apologists equally well.
I believe that the argument from John 7:5 is conclusive against any trifles of gospel miracle details any apologist can bring up.
