Lazarus

Ben Witherington presents arguments for identifying

the "beloved disciple" as Lazarus.(1) However,

Bauckham earlier objected to this hypothesis on the

grounds that it requires "us to think that the Gospel

sometimes refers to the Beloved Disciple as an

anonymous figure and sometimes names him.

Whatever the function of anonymity in the Gospel's

portrayal of the Beloved Disciple, it would be defeated

if it were not consistently employed."(2) Bauckham's

argument disappears if we suppose that Lazarus

remained a fugitive and that the partial anonymity was

for his own protection. We see that Lazarus is given

that name only when information is given about him

that was already public knowledge (see John 12:9-10).

By contrast all mentions of the beloved disciple give

information that was not public knowledge. The

information about the beloved disciple would have

made Lazarus a bigger target for reprisals if the author

of John's gospel had called himself "Lazarus" at those

points.

It might be countered that Lazarus was a wanted man and would therefore have gone into hiding

and would not have boldly attended the crucifixion. However, we do not know that he was a wanted

man at that time, or that he knew at that time that he was a wanted man.

If Lazarus was indeed the beloved disciple, he may have taken the name "John" as an alias (for his

own protection), for there is evidence that the beloved disciple was John the elder.