Have any of the Fathers or contemporary exegetes ever dealt with the issue that one of Christ's greatest miracles on earth, the raising of Lazarus, is missing from the Synoptic Gospels and only appears in one - John?

Many with an axe to grind such as A.N. Wilson in his biography of Jesus (which was roundly criticized by Luke Timothy Johnson in the latter's book "The Real Jesus"), used this absence to draw doubt on the authority of the Gospels. (sidenote: Wilson seemed to return to belief after his atheism http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism)

But still personally I wish a good explanation for why such a great miracle would not appear in the Synoptics? I realize John's Gospel by many is dated as the last, but have always been curious of this.

In Christ.

I can research more scholarly answers, and will do so, but let this do for now: God only needs to say something ONCE for it to be true.

AMEN!

Many things found in one of the Synoptics are not found exactly the same in another. So why would one assume that all of the Gospels had to be identical?

Remember that the bishops who gathered to decide which of the many extant books should be included in the canon relied on the oral tradition that they had received. So if the whole Tradition was not found in each and every Gospel, at least enough was found for the particular Gospel to be found to be true to the Tradition.

Bob

One of the best explanations of the differing viewpoints of the gospels was illustrated to me in a class brilliantly. The teacher arranged with one of the students before class to jump up at a prearranged time, yell, bang his chair up and down, and storm out of the room.

The moment this happened, our teacher instructed us to write down what we had just seen. You can imagine how the lesson went from there. We all wrote down what we saw, and then he read our versions out loud.

They were all truthful and accurate accounts, but no two were the same. Some were very similar, some were wildly different, some stressed parts that others almost ignored.

A very cool lesson.

I think that analogy is naturalistic and ignores the reality of divine inspiration.

The ancient Church view, as expressed by Eusebius, is that John was familiar with the synoptics and filled in many of Jesus' sermons and miracles which they had left out. Yet as we all know, John filled in only a small amount (John 21: 25)

How so?

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. One should take into account that each Evangelist had a unique perspective, and a specific audience in mind. One might as well ask why the three Synoptics include the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist, but John does not.

John's Gospel, by the way, in addition to being the last redacted into its current form (near the end of the first century), was probably also the first started. It includes details of life in Judaea and Galilee before the Jewish War that only an eyewitness could have known (some of John's details have only recently been uncovered by archaeologists). John also has the only coherent chronology, and is the only one to explicitly account for a three-year mission. The Synoptics, on the other hand, are not (except with regard to the Passion Narrative) not so much interested in chronology, but arrange their material thematically. The Synoptics imply a three year mission, but have artificially compressed everything into a one year schema.

Ancient historiography is not like that of today. There were different standards regarding evidence and how material should be presented. But, as compared to other ancient historical and biographical books, the Gospels stand up very well with regard to their veracity and authenticity.

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Dear Stuart,

Is there a good book that defends the veracity and authenticity of the Gospels on an archaeological or other scientific/historical basis?

When I was a Muslim that belief in the validity of the Gospels was injured. I would much appreciate a good book on that from anyone. I'm not saying that I question their validity, how could I be a faithful Christian. But that is an area that needs beefing up for me.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

jjp,

The four Evangelists, while utilizing their own memories and style of wording, etc. each wrote, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, all that - and only that - which God wanted them to write. This is basic to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. Consequently the observation of how several persons witnessing an event relate it in various ways - a purely natural phenomenon - does not provide an adequate analogy, because divine inspiration is not at work.

Is there a good book that defends the veracity and authenticity of the Gospels on an archaeological or other scientific/historical basis?

Tons--most written by Anglican or Protestant scholars. The Catholics seem indifferent except when (like Luke Timothy Johnson), they put in their oar to make revisionist statements. I can provide a list later.

Thank you Stuart.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

I didn't realize that it was beyond the purview of the Holy Spirit to use natural phenomenon to achieve God's will. How did you come to this conclusion?

As StuartK said, the two are not mutually exclusive.

As I said, they used their own memories, writing styles, etc. That is natural. Yet these were illumined, strengthened, and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. This does not happen in such events as your classroom demonstration, which is why it does not work as an analogy for the differentiations in the four-fold Gospel.

Sorry, Gabriel, but you seem to have the notion that divine inspiration turns the writer into some sort of human dictograph. The Mormons and the Muslims might see it that way, but we Christians--and the Jews--have a more complex understanding that involves both human agency and human free will. And, sorry, but each of the Evangelists was a human being, and when he wrote, he wrote for a human purpose, albeit within the matrix of the divine plan. Four different observers of the same event will record four different accounts. And it is largely because of the differences among the four Gospels--both the Synoptics among themselves and the Synoptics against John, that historians are inclined to accept them as authentic witnesses to the events they recount.