The Strong Possibility That Lazar Wrote the Fourth Gospel

[gregglaser]

Wow!

I miss an answer to the obvious question though: Was Lazarus present at The Lord's Supper?

And when it was evening, he came with his twelve. And as they reclined and ate, Jesus said: Verily I say to you, That one of you that eateth with me, will betray me... — Mark 14:17.

... but ...

And Simon turned himself, and saw coming after him, that disciple whom Jesus loved, who fell on the breast of Jesus at the supper, and said, My Lord, who is it will betray thee? ... This is the disciple who hath testified of all these things, and hath written them: and we know, that his testimony is true. — John 21:20,24.

Excellent question, Sestir, thank you; I should have included a section on this in my study.  For now, I’ll just summarize the answer of Jim Phillips on the question – I’ll summarize his argument though from the Aramaic perspective:

                Bible Answer


Technically, the gospel of Mark never states “the twelve” were the only ones present at the last supper; it just states they were present.  The gospel overflows with examples where others are present at an event even though they are not separately identified in one of the gospels.  See e.g., John 19:39-40 (Nicodemus anoints the body).
 
And here, the Messiah says in Matthew 26:18, “I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.”  

The fourth gospel is unique in its special insights.  For example, if we only read the synoptics, we would assume Simon Peter was the only disciple on the night he followed Yahshua into the palace of the high priest, because only Peter is named and no other disciple is named in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.  Yet we know from the fourth gospel that Peter was not alone when he entered the palace of the high priest that night, because the other disciple helped him gain access.

And the converse is also true -- the gospel writers frequently used specific language to identify a limited attendance (i.e., the transfiguration where only Peter, John, and Jacob were allowed to witness the event). Examples: Mt. 14:23, Mk. 5:37 & 9:8, Lu. 8:5. 
 
So, in the absence of specific limiting language for the last supper, there’s no need to assume limited attendance.  Indeed, in the gospel, the Messiah routinely dines with his disciples and others, especially the host of the house. See e.g., Mark 2:15, Luke 7:36, 10:38-40, 11:37, 24:29-30, John 12:2. 
 
I think you’ll also like this logical point -- in Mark 14:20, the Messiah identifies the traitor, “It is one of the twelve that dips with me in the dish”. 
 

ܚܕ ܡܢ ܬܪܥܣܪ ܕܨܒܥ ܥܡܝ ܒܠܓܬܐ

 
Logically, if “the twelve” were the only ones with the Messiah, then why would he need to use the limiting expression “one of the twelve”?  If no one else was there, wouldn’t he have said,  ܚܕ ܡܢܟܘܢ
(“one of you”)? In fact the only other time the Messiah used the term “the twelve”, he said that same expression “one of you” -- it was when “the twelve” affirmed their commitment after many “disciples” forsook the Messiah and he responded, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a satan?” John 6:70.
 

ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܐܢܐ ܓܒܝܬܟܘܢ ܠܬܪܥܣܪ ܘܡܢܟܘܢ ܚܕ ܣܜܢܐ ܗܘ

 
Moreover, the Messiah used the term ܚܕ ܡܢܟܘܢ  (“one of you”) earlier at the supper (Matthew 26:21, Mark 14:18). So when he went on to caveat that his betrayer would be “one of the twelve” (Mark 14:20), that crucial detail would have been superfluous if there were only 12 present.  And incidentally, it would have brought relief (so it had purpose) to those disciples who were not part of “the twelve,” and it also set the stage for the next event where Simon Peter asks Lazar “who is it?”
 
Here’s another logical point -- the Bible tells us the Messiah washed the feet of “the disciples” (John 13:5). Then, after the Messiah sat down again, he said, “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen”(John 13:18). Here he contrasts a larger group (“you all”), with a subset (“chosen”).  We know “the twelve” were “chosen” (John 6:70, Luke 6:13).  However, if “the twelve” were the only ones who were present, then what distinction was the Messiah making here?  We are tempted to assume these words were meant to exclude Judas Iscariot. Yet Luke 6:13 tells us the Messiah, “called to his disciples: and chose from them twelve, those he named apostles” and it goes on to list Judas by name (Luke 6:16); see also John 6:70 above.  Therefore, Judas was plainly “chosen”.  So who was the Messiah referring to when he said, “you all”? His words here are one more indication that he and “the twelve” were not alone during that supper, as here again he refers to more than just “the twelve” whom he had “chosen”.
In any case, there is also a possibility that the Messiah sat down to supper first with “the twelve”, and then the beloved disciple joined them later after the supper. The sequence of events in the fourth gospel seems to indicate that is what occurred.  See e.g., “And the supper being ended...” (John 13:2).

It’s fun to wonder
 
Meaning
Recognizing Lazar outside the 12 is probably important to understanding his purpose in the body of the Messiah.  For example, Lazar was not apostolized to preach from place to place like the twelve were sent to preach, but rather he was a wanted man.  As for himself, Lazar wanted to remain as close to the Messiah as possible.  So, the fact that Yahshua invited him into family fellowship with his mother Maryam at the crucifixion is quite telling of Yahshua’s close relationship with his mother.