Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Lazarus" or "Eleazar"
#1
In looking at GJohn 11 the other day, I came across an interesting Puzzle:

The Greekies have "Lazarus" which supposedly came to us from "Eleazar", as in 1 Chronicles 24:

[1] The divisions of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
[2] But Nadab and Abi'hu died before their father, and had no children, so Elea'zar and Ith'amar became the priests.


Now, in looking at our esteemed Younan's Interlinear, we find:

John 11: 11 (Younan, in part):

These things | said Yeshua | and afterward | said | to them | *Lazar* | our friend...

Any direction here as to word development?  If it should read "Eleazar" why not change it?  Perhaps it doesn't need changing...

CW
Reply
#2
I'll just chip in to say, the middle chapters of John's Gospel are relatively questionable, from a text-critical perspective, whereas the pericope about Lazar and the rich man, starting in Luke 16:19 is pretty much safe, even attested in Marcion's edition.

Irregardless, whoever wrote John chapter 11 would have had access to Luke's Gospel.
Reply
#3
Thank you, sestir, as usual.
This is a Puzzle for sure.  I view John as giving an answer to - correcting - the Synoptics.  I still see it that way although Teeple and a few other Sources vastly complicate the Story.  More on this later.

Consider the following, replacing "Lazarus" with "Eleazar":

John 11:

[1] Now a certain man was ill, Eleazar of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.

[2] It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Eleazar was ill.
[3] So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill."
[4] But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it."
[5]Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Eleazar.
#####
[6] So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.
[7] Then after this he said to the disciples, "Let us go into Judea again."
[8] The disciples said to him, "Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?"
[9] Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world.
[10] But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."

Note: These verses, 6 - 10, are important.  I had a Post which, for some reason, did not make it here -"User Error" no doubt.  PY's Interlinear has "...there is no FLAME in him" and THAT may point to knowledge only a few could have.  "Flame" may be a Priestly reference, a reference to the "Chamber of the Flame".  In the Synoptics, Peter et.al. are sitting.  In John they are standing.  This is where Peter's Denial occurs and it is Priestly in nature.  It HAS to be this way.  It is John who points to this.

[Edit Notes: Plz see: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...literature for a drawing of the Temple area and
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...service-of for the explanation.
If you may be allowed into the Chamber of the Flame, you are Priestly.  You must stand.  If you need to sleep, sit, take a break, you go out the door to the Chamber of the Hearth. 
[10] But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the FLAME is not in him." ]
#####
[11] Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend Eleazar has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep."
***
[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Eleazar is dead"
***
[17] Now when Jesus came, he found that Eleazar had already been in the tomb four days.
[28] When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you."
***
[43] When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, "Eleazar, come out."
[44] The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go.

Does the use of "Eleazar" instead of "Lazarus" (The Greek version of Eleazar) change the meaning, the Intentionality, of the Story?  I think it does.  "Lazarus" is a person.  "Eleazar" is a person and more.  The name goes back to 1 Chronicles 24  and the "House of Eleazar".  16 of the 24 Mishmarot Groups come from the House of Eleazar.

These are Priestly Stories.  That the Priestly Aspect of the Stories has been hidden from obvious view I do not doubt.  One of the oddities of John is the listing of Anti-Semitic tones at various places.  Teeple is of great help here - from an intensely Greek Intensive perspective.  Yet, the Judaic Priestly Perspective has not been obliterated.  It is there.

So, "Lazarus" or "Eleazar"?

I would vote for "Eleazar" but...

More later,

CW
Reply
#4
I look forward to your follow-ups!
In John 18:15, Papyrus 66* has a minus of:

Quote:ὁ δε μαθητης εκεινος ην γνωστος τῳ αρχιερει
the other disciple was an acquaintance of the high priest

That is, this piece of text is missing in P66*.
In the next verse it differs from other Greek witnesses like this:
Quote:P66*: εξηλθεν  ουν  ὁ  μαθητης                 ὁς ην  γνωτος  του  αρχιερεως  και  ειπεν  τῃ  θυρῳ
P66*: So, went out the disciple,            who was kinsman to the high priest and spoke to the door
א:     εξηλθεν  ουν  ὁ  μαθητης  ὁ  αλλος  ὁς ην  γνωστος  τῳ  αρχιερει  και  ειπεν  τῃ  θυρουρῳ
א:    So, went out the other disciple, who was known to the high priest and spoke to the door keeper

γνωτός, as far as I know, does not occur anywhere else in the mainstream Greek Bible. Its sense overlaps to an extent with γνωστός, so if this text was composed in Aramaic, they could translate the same word.
Reply
#5
(07-14-2020, 06:12 PM)sestir Wrote: I look forward to your follow-ups!
In John 18:15, Papyrus 66* has a minus of:

Quote:ὁ δε μαθητης εκεινος ην γνωστος τῳ αρχιερει
the other disciple was an acquaintance of the high priest

That is, this piece of text is missing in P66*.
In the next verse it differs from other Greek witnesses like this:
Quote:P66*: εξηλθεν  ουν  ὁ  μαθητης                 ὁς ην  γνωτος  του  αρχιερεως  και  ειπεν  τῃ  θυρῳ
P66*: So, went out the disciple,            who was kinsman to the high priest and spoke to the door
א:     εξηλθεν  ουν  ὁ  μαθητης  ὁ  αλλος  ὁς ην  γνωστος  τῳ  αρχιερει  και  ειπεν  τῃ  θυρουρῳ
א:    So, went out the other disciple, who was known to the high priest and spoke to the door keeper

γνωτός, as far as I know, does not occur anywhere else in the mainstream Greek Bible. Its sense overlaps to an extent with γνωστός, so if this text was composed in Aramaic, they could translate the same word.

P66* gives more information than the others here: "who was kinsman to the High Priest".

"Kinsman" is a Technical Term.  It does not imply familial relationship.  It is reflective of Greek Court Ordering.
A. H. M. Jones, The Herods of Judaea:

" As he replaced the sacerdotal Sanhedrin by a secular council, so Herod built up to replace the old hereditary aristocracy a new aristocracy of service whose members should owe their rank and their wealth to him and to him alone. They were graded according to regular Hellenistic practice in progressive ranks of dignity, "the friends" being the lowest, then "the most honoured friends", then "the guards of the body", and finally "the kinsmen"; the last title, it may be noted, was like others purely honorific and implied no real relationship..."  

See also: Josephus, War..., 1, 23, 5.
See also: "The Banquet", where you sit with your "Friends" at the social lower end of the Banquet Table until you are asked to "Move Up" so that you may be "Honored" by your "Friends".

Herod ordered the Court along Greek Lines and P66* - if taken to its Logical Conclusion - implies that the High Priest and the High Priest Apparatus was at least describable by this Greek Ordering.  The phrase "Acquaintance of the High Priest" moderates and possibly deflects the meaning and relationships here.

The High Priest Apparatus knows Jesus and Peter (Simon Peter figures in as well...).  The "Gallilean Accent" of Peter is Historical.  The Hasmoneans gave Settlements in Galilee to the 24 Mishmarot Groups.  We would expect this.

In short, the events appear to be Historical ("Possible", "Probable", "Definite": Season to taste.).  Details may be Literary but the H P Apparatus operates as we would expect.
P66* is of great help here.  John gives us details not found in the Synoptics and these details change the Story.

Thanx, sestir.
Reply
#6
Take it easy, please!
I translated γνωτος  του  αρχιερεως to 'kinsman to the high priest' mainly to show that γνωτός and γνωστός are different words and do not necessarily have exactly the same meaning. My dictionary (Liddel & Scott) gave:


Quote:γνωστός, ή, όν, collat. form of γνωτός, known : as Subst. a friend.     II. to be known.

γνωτός, ή, όν, also ός, όν, (γνῶναι) known, well known :—as Subst. a friend, kinsman, brother; γνωτοί τε γνωταί τε brothers and sisters.

A newer LSJ states γνωτός [is an] "older and more correct form of γνωστός". They could be translated as "known to" or "friend of" in both instances.

Probably, the analysis which you found for a Greek word which is translated to "kinsman" is about συγγενής. LEH notes it is "tit. bestowed at the Hellenistic courts as a mark of honour".

I am thinking more along the line of:
The disciple who was known to the high priest was almost certainly not one of the 12 as then he would have been recognized easily (Acts 4:13). However, the gospel author, in these verses, assumes that he is known to the readers. I speculate therefor that he would have become more active in the faith after these events. As such, he may have been solicited to provide accounts of things that happened in connection with Jesus execution, and while he's at it, why not also recount some sayings that he heard from Jesus when a disciple?

The temple was central to everybody at the time so nothing precludes the son of Sebedee to weave priestly symbolism into the message, but that other unnamed figure could be a suspect for some of the stories.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)