For the post-apostolic history of the ceremony see Morinus, de Ant. Eccl. Rit. (passim) ; Suicer, Thes. s.vv. xeporovéw, χειροθεσία ; Dict. Chr. Ant. art. ‘Imposition of Hands’; Mason, Relatioa of Confirmation to Baptism. H. B. SWETE.
LAZARUS OF BETHANY.—The name Lazarus is an abbreviation of the Heb. Eleazar=‘ God hath helped.’ In the LXX we find both ᾿Ελεαζάρ and ᾿Ελεάζαρος ; in Josephus commonly ᾿Ελεάζαρος. But Λάζαρος occurs BJ ν. xiii. 7
All that we know of L. is told us in the Fourth Gospel. He was the brother of Martha and Mary, who are mentioned by both St. John and St. Luke. In Jn 11° the names are probably given in order of age, ‘Martha, her sister, and Lazarus.’ In both Gospels Martha seems to be the eldest, and the mistress of the house; and the fact that Luke does not mention L. points to his being younger, and perhaps much younger, than his sisters. All three were eral beloved by Christ (Jn 115). We know that He visited them more than once (Lk 10%-#, Jn 111-88). and it is probable that He often did so when He was at or near Jerusalem. They were probably well-off. The number of condoling friends from the city, and the costly ointment used by Mary, point to this. That they had a funeral vault of their own may be true, but is not stated. Luke does not give the name of the village in which they lived, probably because it was not stated in the source which he used; but John tells us that it was Bethany, which is barely two miles from Jerusalem. He calls L. ‘a certain
*See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Talm, 5.0. 73°20; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopidie, s.v. " Ordinirung’: a Rabbi could make his scholar a Rabbi by the use of a formula which was ordinaril accompanied by imposition of hands.
t On the occasional omission of the ceremony in the ancient Church (Hatch, Organization, p, 188f.) see Τὶ A. Lacey, L'imp
' sition des mains dans la consécration dea évéques, Paris, 1896.
δῦ LAZARUS OF BETHANY
LAZARUS OF BETHANY
man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha’ (112). There has never been any doubt about its site, and the modern name is derived from Lazarus—Jl-Azerijeh, or Lazarieh.* Here Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. Here Mary anointed His feet. Here He began His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Here He rested during several of the days before His Passion. And from some spot near to Bethany He ascended into heaven. L. was sitting at meat with Him when Mary anointed His feet, and his presence attracted many of ‘the common people of the Jews’ to the village, that they might see, not only Jesus, but the man whom He had raised from the dead : and the hierarchy in their plots against Christ ‘took counsel that they might put L. also to death, because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus’ (Jn 12%), The multitude that had been present when Jesus called L. out of the tomb were enthusi- astic in bearing witness during the triumphal procession, and attracted others from the city to meet Him (Jn 12!7 35),
Here all that we know about L. ends. The chief interest in the brief account of him lies in the miracle of which he was the subject. The raising of L. is commonly regarded as the climax of Christ’s miraculous activity; and perhaps no portion even of the Fourth Gospel has been more vigorously assailed by hostile critics. Not only the miracle as a whole, but a large number of the details, have been made the objects of rigorous and minute criticism. It would be hardly too much to ay that every objection, reasonable or unreasonable, that ingenuity could devise has been urged. And the reason for this is intelligible. The consequences of the truth of the narrative are so considerable. Spinoza is said to have declared that, if he could be convinced of the truth of the raising of L., he would break up his system and become a Christian (Bayle, Dict. s.v.). That is not a logical statement, for the Christian faith depends, not upon the raising of L., but upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet such a declara- tion shows that, as at the time when it was wrought, a miracle of this character is capable of exercising a mighty influence upon the intellects and hearts of men. It cannot fail to raise the question, ‘What manner of man is this, that even
eath and the grave obey Him?’
The two most reasonable objections to the nar- rative as a whole are (1) the silence of the Synopt- ists, and (2) the amazing character of the miracle. It will be best to take them in this order; for injustice may be done by taking the second to augment the weight of the first. It may be doubted whether any one evangelist was ever induced to record any particular miracle by the thought that it was of a specially surprising character. They give us samples of all Christ’s mighty works, especially those which had a marked effect upon His disciples and other hearers.
(1) The difficulty respecting the silence of the Synoptic Gospels as to the raising of L. has been seriously exaggerated even by apologists. Thus Trench says, ‘It must always remain a mystery why this miracle, transcending as it does all other miracles which the Lord wrought, so memor- able in itself, drawing after it the consequences which it did (Jn 115), should have been passed over by the three earlier evangelists’ (Miracles®, Ρ. 394). The Synoptic Gospels have been more minutely Biaitiedl ernie these words were written (1846), and the fact that in the main they give us