* Schwarz seems to be alone in disputing the site; but many modern travellers are incredulous about the vault at the bottom of 26 steps, in the middle of the village, which is shown as the tomb of Lazarus.
one and the same tradition, and that a very frag. mentary one, is now much more fully realize It has been seen that this common fragmentary record has preserved hardly any particulars about the interval between the close of the eee | in Galilee (which is its chief theme) and the last Passover. St. Luke alone has done anything con- siderable to fill this blank, and the silence of the Synoptists should rather be called ‘the silence of St. Luke.’ And here again a similar explanation is applicable. ‘The great intercalation’ in the third Gospel (9°!-18") is itself very fragmentary, and seems to come from more than one source ; and there is nothing very astonishing in the fact that St. Luke had no source which mentioned the raising of Lazarus. Indeed there is nothing un- reasonable in the conjecture that, if he had used a source which mentioned it, he would still have omitted it; for he had already recorded two instances of Christ performing this miracle. And we misunderstand Jn 11% if we suppose that it was the raising of L. which determined the hierarchy to put Jesus to death. Some time before this His enemies decided to kill Him, and tried to do it, as St. John himself tells us (71" 35: 38. Ἡ 859 1051, and even in this very narrative 1116), The raising of L. was the cause, neither of the enthusi- asm of the people at the triumphal entry, nor of the deadly hostility of the priests. It merely augmented the one and quickened the activity of the other. Both would have existed and have been eflicacious, even if L. had not been raised. None of the evangelists need the story of L. to make the narrative intelligible. John, knowing that the others had omitted it, tells us what he himself had heard and seen. [t was of special interest to him, because of its effect in converting some of ‘the Jews’; and he had recorded no other instance of Christ’s raising the dead.
(2) Is it correct to say that the raising of L. ‘transcends all other miracles which the Lord wrought’? It would be safer to affirm that it seems to us to transcend them. But is this view correct? In the main it is a modern view. To us raising the dead seems to be a miracle sui generis ; and raising a man who has been dead four days seems to be a stupendous instance of a stupendous kind of miracle. But to the philo- sophic believer in miracles all genuine miracles are alike. When natural causes are inade- quate and a supernatural cause is admitted, all degrees of difficulty are excluded. One who has Omnipotence to aid him cleanses lepers and raises the dead as easily as he heals ordinary diseases. If any miracle is credible, raising a man who has been dead four days is credible. It is illogical to say that the evidence would warrant us in believing a miraculous cure, but does not warrant us in believing in the raising of a dead man.
The objection, that Jn 1147-8 is inconsistent with the fact that in accusing Jesus before the Sanhe- drin and Pilate no mention is made of the miracle, is not reasonable. It would have paralyzed the Sanhedrin to admit that Jesus had worked such a sign. The dismay of the priests at the miracles, and their silence about it at the trial, are entirely consistent.
Some of the criticisms of the details require notice. Very different views are taken about the ‘four days’ (see Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 405). Probably L. died the day that Jesus heard of his illness, and was buried almost immediately (2 K 9%, Ac 5% 1°), This would be all the more neces- sary if he died of some infectious disease. Then, after two days (11), Jesus set out for Bethany, and was part of two days on the road. But this is unimportant. It is urged that His wait-
| LAZARUS OF BETHANY
ing two days and allowing L. to die, in order to prove the sisters and reveal His own glory more signally, was heartless. So far as we know, He did not act thus. Had He started at once, He would probably have arrived too late to see L. alive. ‘But he could have healed him from a distance.’ No donbt He could, if it had been God's will. But He ever worked in accordance with the divine plan; and in this plan the raising of L. was to do three things: (a) strengthen the disciples’ faith; (ὁ) convert many of the Jews; (c) cause the priests to hasten their movements, so as to be ready when ‘his hour had come’ (1115. 4-53), Healing L. from a distance would have been less efficacious for the first of these, and would have done little towards the other two.
The indignation and sorrow attributed to Him (1138. 86) are said to be unworthy of the incarnate Logos. Evidently St. John, the exponent of the Logos doctrine, did not think so. ‘To those who believe in the reality of Christ’s humanity there is nothing strange in His being angered by the hypocritical wailings of His enemies, and shedding tears of sympathy with the sisters (11%).