The Gospel of St John - Yet Another Piece of Pious Fraud?

Probably the most profound irony of the Christianis it to you (Peter) if I will that he lives till I return."
religion is that so much commitment in faith andThese words, purportedly spoken by Jesus, and
trust is demanded in return for so little in whatreferred to, on two occasions, in the Gospel of
can be substantiated or reasonably vouched for.St. John, suggests very strongly, that the death
The Gospel of St. John, the fourth gospel of theof John had caused some disquiet in the Christian
New Testament scriptures, is an illustration of thecommunity concerning the belief in the second
vexing problem in the barter exchange ofcoming of Christ. It is well known that the early
evidence for faith.Christians had believed that the return of Christ
Even though the Gospel of St. John is traditionallywould be in the life time of the twelve Apostles.
ascribed to John, who was of the inner circle ofAnd that was what the Apostles themselves had
three disciples of Jesus, practically nothing can bebelieved judging from the synoptic gospels and
independently corroborated concerning the writerthe Book of Acts. How aghast they would be if
of this book and his relationship, if any at all, tothey could learn that two thousand years later his
the Apostle who died at ripe old age sometimereturn is still being awaited by Christians.
towards the end of the First Century A.D.,The Gospel of John appears to have been written
probably during or just before theprimarily to reassure Christians of the hope in the
commencement of the reign of the Emperor"coming of the Lord." This, in itself, would be a
Trajan. The book, however, contains sufficientlegitimate purpose for writing a Johannine version
internal evidence to allow reasonably certainof the gospel, but the writer, in his anxiety to
conjectures of when, why and by whom it wasconvince his audience of the Christian hope of
written.Jesus' return, would appear to have indulged in
To start with, the Gospel of St. John waspure fabrication to aid his cause.
certainly not written by John himself, but byThe story of the resurrection of Lazarus of
someone, very likely, a second generation gentileBethany appears to have been fabricated to
Christian claiming John as the direct source of hisconvince second generation Christians that Jesus
information. We know nothing about this writerwas the "resurrection and life." By any standard
besides his claim of having been a close associateof judgment, the Lazarus miracle, as related in the
of John in his lifetime. But objective biblical scholarsGospel of John, was the high point in Jesus'
have learned to be skeptical of the self-legitimizingministry before his death and resurrection. It has
claims of apocryphal writers. We would, therefore,always appeared to me odd that Matthew, Mark,
better take this anonymous writer's claims with aand Luke, or some common source of the
pinch of the proverbial salt.synoptic gospels, would neglect to mention that
The internal evidence, however, tells us that theevent in their accounts. While I do not belong to
book was written by a second generationthe group of critics who argue that an incident
Christian with a Hellenistic cultural worldview. Hisrecorded in a first gospel account and not in the
consistent use of the term "Eternal Life," in placenext could only have been an invention of the
of the more Jewish "Kingdom of God," and hisfirst writer, it is difficult to refrain from expressing
references and teachings about Jesus as thethe view that the Lazarus story might have been
"Word"(Greek: Logos) betray the incipient patternconcocted by the writer of the Gospel of St.
of Hellenization which would blossom into theJohn. That the Apostle Matthew or the disciple
unguarded mysticism of Gnostic Christianity. HisMark, both writing their accounts of the life of
artificial and fictitious reconstructions of the veryChrist within a few decades of his death and
Jewish Jesus in tortuously sophistic dialecticalresurrection, could have commonly neglected to
confrontations with the people he refers to inmention that momentous incident at Bethany, can
detachment as "the Jews," all tell us plainly thatbe compared to Arnold Toynbee writing his book,
the writer couldn't have been directly representingA Study of History, and forgetting to mention the
the recollections of John who had spent most ofRoman empire. The fact that the first three
his life as a Jew in the rustic province of Galilee.gospel accounts do not mention the Lazarus
The evidence from the closing paragraphs of theincident casts a dark shadow of doubt on the
book is that it was written by a member of theauthenticity of the Lazarus story recorded in St.
late first century to early second century gentileJohn's Gospel. The circumstances of the Lazarus
Christian community, soon after John himself hadmiracle are such that, it either had been entirely
died, to dispel fears and rumors that the death oftrue or entirely false. No swoon theory could
John was evidence that Jesus would never returnaccount for the story related in plain words in the
as Christians believed and hoped. Thus, we findGospel of John. It is very significant that we read
the comment at the end of the book: "And soof the Lazarus story for the first time in the
went around the rumor that the disciple (i.e. John)Gospel of John, written at a time when most of
would not die (till kingdom come), yet Jesus neverthe people who had been eyewitnesses might
said to him that he would not die, but that, whathave died.