Sunday, September 9, 2018
Lazarus - Fact or Fiction?
9/9/2018
Hi, Pat - and Nora - and Everyone!
My friend, Pat, asked me to note references to the story of Lazarus from The Gospel of John - as probable fiction or fabrication - in my writings. Here are 3 examples. I do reference the story of Lazarus in my book:
FIVE HEAVEN ON EARTH STORIES too, but featured as discussion among characters. If you want those references, I will research their locations too, but for now, here are 3 examples from my various essays: Hope this is satisfactory.
Needless to say, this offering can only appeal to some. If you are not one who one who finds it interesting, then, as usual, skip it. OK? Thanks for asking, Pat! And as Pat asked, everyone is welcome to do the same. Alright?
All is well here in Laramie. Hope it is where you are too.
Have a Good One!
Gently,
Will - and Nancy General References to Lazarus
From my writings:
1.
From book WILD FLOWERS,
Essay: Know Thyself
About pages 53-56
To interrupt my main strain of thought, however, let me offer a non-scholarly opinion. When people ask me about so called gospels like THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS, mostly they wonder if they are authentic. My answer to that is I DON’T KNOW, but neither do I know that the regular gospels of the BIBLE are authentic either. I mean I was not there when any of them were written.
Being a writer myself, however, I am almost 100 % sure that all gospels were written by men - not by God. I am writing this article. God is not writing it. I am a man - not God. Thomas was a man - not God. Matthew was a man - not God. Mark was a man - not God. Luke was a man - not God. John was a man - not God. All gospels were written by men - not God.
As a man - and not God - I can err - or make up things to make a point as if they really happened. Just because I may have written something does not make it true. Does it? In all likelihood, those who wrote about Jesus probably “created events” to better persuade potential converts to follow them.
Did Jesus really heal the sick and dying? Who knows? Some gospels claim he did; but, again, one has to keep in focus why those gospels were written - to convert others of another faith or belief to a faith in Jesus. Could Mark have lied to make a convert? Of course, he could have. If I can lie to make a convert of you, then Mark or John or whoever could have lied to make others converts to their cause.
I think it worthwhile to point out one very likely fabrication; and if one of the gospel writers could have fabricated one event, there is no reason to believe that other events could not have been fabricated too.
Case in point: the story in THE GOSPEL OF JOHN that offers that Jesus raised his friend, Lazarus, from the dead after Lazarus had been dead for three days. The reason I believe that was fabricated by John is that John is believed to have written his gospel long after the first three - Mark, Matthew, and Luke (in that order) wrote their gospels. All three of the earlier gospel writers offer various miracles by Jesus to illustrate that Jesus had some extraordinary power. Yet none of the earlier three mention anything about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Just how likely is it that three gospel writers could all either omit or forget a miracle so great that it is considered to be the “greatest miracle of all time”? How likely is it that three gospel writers - who all feature miracles by Jesus - could have possibly bypassed the telling of a story so great as the raising of someone from the dead? How likely is that?
2.
From book LOVING EVERYTHING,
Essay: On Visions & Dreams
About pages 164-165
Any student of the various gospels of Jesus should be able to see similarities. It is my opinion that THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS may have been written first – and then the other gospel writers of the BIBLE may have copied from THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and fitted narrative stories around the various Jesus said statements. In the process of doing that, they may have retained much of what is in Thomas, but may have also discarded and confused things too. It is difficult to say. Isn’t it? Who came first? Who came second? Who copied from who? Who fabricated tales? Who stuck to the truth? Etc.
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS is lacking any stories of miracles. From that point of view, too, it would seem that THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS was first because subsequent stories tend to exaggerate from earlier stories. Thus, in all probability, the version that exaggerates the least is probably the first. All subsequent versions, then, probably copy from a first where there seems to be much similarity; but it stands to reason that subsequent copies are offered in order to establish some different point of view. I think it highly likely that the gospel writers included in the BIBLE wrote their various stories in order to supplement the story of Jesus with fabrications. I think that it is highly probable that Peter was behind much of this exaggeration because he had the most to gain and wanted stories to be told to make Jesus look like a Jewish messiah and not just a morality philosopher – as one might conclude if the only source of information about Jesus was THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS.
Thus, Mark and Matthew and Luke and John could have been encouraged to tell tales of Jesus to make him look bigger than he was so that Peter – and any successors of Peter in the rite of authority - could look bigger than they were (and are) – as associates or friends of Jesus. Keep in mind, all gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. Much could have transpired from the time of his death to the writing of the gospels; and in that period of time, Peter could have persuaded much of the following of Jesus that Jesus had truly been a Jewish messiah – and much more importantly to Peter, that Jesus had chosen Peter as his successor.
It is now almost impossible to distinguish truth from fable because once fable is established, truth become much more difficult to know. One example of almost sure fable: In their order of writing, Mark first, then Matthew, then Luke – none of these three report the raising of Lazarus from the dead – and yet the final story from John reports the story. How likely is it that three reporters could tell a story about a man who is supposedly superhuman with all three offering tales of miracles performed by that man to make him look superhuman – and not report a miracle as outstanding as raising a man from the dead? So, why did Mark, then Matthew, then Luke all omit a story so huge as the raising of Lazarus from the dead? Why did only the last story report it? The obvious answer to that is that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were unaware of it. Why were they unaware of it? Probably because it never happened. And that suggests a fable on the part of at least one of the gospel writers. Now, we are faced with the question: what is fable and what is truth?
3.
From book LOVING EVERYTHING,
Essay: The Mystery Of Jesus
About pages 180-181
What’s Fact?
What’s Fiction?
Anyway, without a probability of God inspiring any one author, we are left with the obvious - the story we have been told is not exactly right. How do you sift the right from the wrong? By perception. If a tale seems right, it might be; and if it might be, accept it as true unless demonstrated later as wrong. If a tale seems implausible, then assume it is false unless demonstrated somehow as right; but it makes no sense to base your life on tales as absolutely right when the probability is that much about them is wrong - or told for another reason other than just to tell the truth.
Was Jesus, God (or of God), in a different way than we all are? It is unlikely Jesus was any different than any of us. If God is truly in everything – and not standing outside of us like an old fashioned “god,” why would God need to be sent to us by God – as is claimed by much “orthodox” tradition – Jewish, Islamic, and Christian?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have us believe Jesus was “Godly” in a way different than the rest of us, but consider the reason for that. The reason for believing that Jesus was God – or of God – was belief that the rest of us are not. Thus, that is the basis of their tale - to tell stories that seem to impress us that Jesus was God; but the reasonable person can tell some fact from fiction - not all fact from fiction - but at least some fact from some fiction; and watch out when some alleged fact is demonstrated as quite probably, fiction. Then the whole story becomes undermined because no one can be sure of what is fact and what is fiction.
Example: The raising of Lazarus from the dead. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all emphasized miracles of Jesus to prove that Jesus was more powerful than us - but not one of them "reported" the greatest miracle of all time - the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Why did they not report it? Going forward with possibility and probability again, they probably did not report it because they did not know of it; and they probably did not know of it or about it because it did not happen. Why did John report it? Probably because he thought it would impress people to follow his lord, Jesus.
Could it have been true? Not likely. If it had happened, a miracle of that stretch would have definitely been reported by the others - all of whom reported their stories long before John delivered his. Can you imagine it possible that three reporters knew of a miracle of such stupendous degree as the raising of Lazarus and did not report it? I cannot. And how could they have not known about it if it really happened? Again, the "probability" is that it didn't happen, thus making the reporting of it a lie. Right? So much for absolute truth in the BIBLE.
That is but one example; and it should "prove" that no one should believe everything as claimed in any book - be it a BIBLE - or any claimed biography. That leaves "being reasonable" as the standard of belief. I believe what seems reasonable. Contrary to those who would have me believe without evidence, I believe only on the basis of what I can see - or what seems reasonable. Like Jesus offers in another gospel, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS banned by the church by the 4th Century, Jesus said: Know what is in thy sight and what is hidden will be revealed to thee. Understandably, that is missing from the acclaimed gospels of the BIBLE because it does not support a need for believing without seeing. Does it? But which Jesus is right? Good question; but in the end, one has to decide that for him or herself based on overall perception of life.