What is the origin of the idea that Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention Lazarus in order to protect him?

Upvote:0

Evidently the idea for why the raising of Lazarus is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels is known as "protective anonymity".

Grotius' comment about "ancient" appears to reflect the various anonymous accounts in the Gospels of other events. For example in Mark, the "naked man" who ran off or the disciple who cut off the ear of the servant are anonymous presumably to protect them from the authorities. But there doesn't appear to be any other sources that I can find who actually outline this "protective anonymity" idea prior to Grotius.

Upvote:1

Reconsidering Johannine Christianity: A Social Identity Approach, by Raimo Hakola, page 17 and 18, elaborates that Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) was the first to theorize this need for not mentioning Lazarus with Matthew and Mark, yet further, according to [Richard] Bauckham that as for Luke, certain more intimidating details like a person being raised from the (3rd day, definitely) dead may have been left out for political reasons; to make the Christians seem less threatening.

From one miracle to the next, there is one more detail of significance to the raising of Lazarus. I have heard audible discussions of professors of ancient religion at Brigham Young University (difficult to source) include mention of a belief of the Jews at that time that a person is really finally dead and the spirit is finally left after three days, hence the drama and added uncertainty that might be directed at anyone who could then raise that person alive again. Even without that detail, this was the pinnacle of miracles publicly accepted as literal facts that could not reasonably be denied at the time (John 11:44-48).

[ and ] denote a guess of which Bauckham that Raimo was referring to.

More post

Search Posts

Related post