Thank you, sestir, as usual.
This is a Puzzle for sure. I view John as giving an answer to - correcting - the Synoptics. I still see it that way although Teeple and a few other Sources vastly complicate the Story. More on this later.
Consider the following, replacing "Lazarus" with "Eleazar":
John 11:
[
1] Now a certain man was ill, Eleazar of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
[
2] It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Eleazar was ill.
[
3] So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill."
[
4] But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it."
[
5]Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Eleazar.
#####
[
6] So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.
[
7] Then after this he said to the disciples, "Let us go into Judea again."
[
8] The disciples said to him, "Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?"
[
9] Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world.
[
10] But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."
Note: These verses, 6 - 10, are important. I had a Post which, for some reason, did not make it here -"User Error" no doubt. PY's Interlinear has "...there is no
FLAME in him" and THAT may point to knowledge only a few could have. "Flame" may be a Priestly reference, a reference to the "
Chamber of the Flame". In the Synoptics, Peter et.al. are sitting. In John they are standing. This is where Peter's Denial occurs and it is Priestly in nature. It HAS to be this way. It is John who points to this.
[Edit Notes: Plz see:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...literature for a drawing of the Temple area and
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...service-of for the explanation.
If you may be allowed into the Chamber of the Flame, you are Priestly. You must stand. If you need to sleep, sit, take a break,
you go out the door to the Chamber of the Hearth.
[
10] But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the
FLAME is not in him." ]
#####
[
11] Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend Eleazar has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep."
***
[
14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Eleazar is dead"
***
[
17] Now when Jesus came, he found that Eleazar had already been in the tomb four days.
[
28] When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying quietly, "The Teacher is here and is calling for you."
***
[
43] When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, "Eleazar, come out."
[
44] The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go.
Does the use of "Eleazar" instead of "Lazarus" (The Greek version of Eleazar) change the meaning, the Intentionality, of the Story? I think it does. "Lazarus" is a person. "Eleazar" is a person and more. The name goes back to 1 Chronicles 24 and the "House of Eleazar". 16 of the 24 Mishmarot Groups come from the House of Eleazar.
These are Priestly Stories. That the Priestly Aspect of the Stories has been hidden from obvious view I do not doubt. One of the oddities of John is the listing of Anti-Semitic tones at various places. Teeple is of great help here - from an intensely Greek Intensive perspective. Yet, the Judaic Priestly Perspective has not been obliterated. It is there.
So, "Lazarus" or "Eleazar"?
I would vote for "Eleazar" but...
More later,
CW