Talk:Lazarus (New Testament)

Historical Evidence
Do we have any historical evidence outside of the bible to suggest that either Lazarus was a real person. Please add some sources. If not then the first sentence should be altered.


 * Do you honestly expect there to be any?


 * Is there some reason to suggest that Lazarus of Bethany is not a real person? Even if there is only a single primary source mentioning him, that would not be unusual for antiquity. Does the fact that the single source is the Bible somehow make it less reliable than say Tacitus? This Lazarus has generally been considered a real person throughout history.
 * Regardless, I think the first sentence now has a neutral POV.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Parable of Lazarus
“A Fundamentalist Protestant belief is that ...". Why restrict this to Fundamentalist Protestants?  Most Protestants are not Fundamentalists, and many Christians have the same belief.  I have changed it to “Many Christians believe...” Ergateesuk (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Software
"Lazarus" is also a well known software. lazarus.freepascal.org

--

Information on the Lazarus software project has been moved to Lazarus (software) Peter Grey 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question
So the Bible didn't say why Jesus raised him from the dead? --Menchi 14:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems that Jesus was rather upset about the news of Lazarus' death, and also that he was a close personal friend (or friend 'of the family'). The Secret Gospel of Mark may indicate an even closer relationship.--81.156.179.151 20:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * One could look at as Jesus' explanation in the context of the narrative - "for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it."--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Osiris
Could we have a name of one of the `scholars` talking about Osiris in this context? In my opinion this paragraph is speculation at best and doesn`t warrant inclusion. User:Andycjp 13th March 2005
 * It's been over a year, and no citation has appeared, so I removed the dubious paragraph. Wesley 06:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Unrelated" uses
The X-files clearly is related, and Swarbrick's group.

Whilst other characters mixes related and unrelated.

-- Beardo 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
In the disambiguation page says that this article is about the Lazarous who was raised from the dead by Jesus. All the reference related to the Lazarous of the Parable must been moved to the article Lazarus and Dives. (es:) Eloy


 * The disambiguation page has since been changed. This article is now more of an extended disambiguation which also explores the conflation of the two figures.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tombs of Lazarus
This is duplicated in Lazarus of Bethany where the paragraph is fuller. This section should be linked to that article. Ergateesuk (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this section could be moved there entirely. - Nomadic Whitt (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved most of the material. What now remains here is a short summary with a link to the full section at Lazarus of Bethany.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Site error?
As of August 26 2006 trying to load the Lazarus article brings up only a blank white screen. Perhaps this is a database error?

JohnH 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: As of August 28, this problem seems to have been fixed. JohnH 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Lazarus die a second death?
Just out of interest, since Jesus raised Lazarus from death, would it not be theologically logical (a theological loophole in a way) that Lazarus would just continue to live forever, because biological death was completely reversed (Lazarus had already began to decay)? 6 Nov 06.

Interestingly, in some esoteric circles this is exactly what is believed to have happened. Various esoteric writers have identified figures such as the Comte St Germain and/or Christian Rosenkreutz as being Lazarus. Indeed I have read one author argue that John the Beloved (the disciple mentioned in the Gospel of John as lying on Jesus' breast at the Last Supper) was Lazarus. Interesting ideas. ThePeg 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The usual Christian theology is that Lazarus certainly did die a normal death again. In Nikos Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ, Lazarus is killed by the Zealots shortly after his new life. Tb (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Different Lazaruses? (Lazarusi?)
The article begins by stating the Lazarus of the parable (Luke 16:19–31) and the Lazarus that Jesus resurrects (John 11:41–44) are two separate characters. However, this assertion doesn’t seem to be defended by citation. While this may be a traditional interpretation of the New Testament, it is not the only one possible. In the alternative, the authors of Luke and John could have been telling radically different stories about the same character named Lazarus. This would be in line with other discrepancies between the gospels, for instance the difference in Jesus’ last words according to Luke 23:46 as opposed to those at John 19:30. Plaidscreen 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Plaidscreen


 * The difference is deeper than that. In John's gospel, Lazarus is a character, a part of the tale.  In Luke's, Lazarus is merely a name used by Jesus in telling a story.  Tb (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The "In modern culture" trivia section
I've made an effort to drastically reduce the number of examples of Lazarus in pop culture, because, besides making it clear that Lazarus is entirely pervasive in all different forms (movies, music, tv, etc.) pop culture, the examples provide no new information relevant to the article. Therefore, including every last example is totally unneeded. Now, if you can provide some evidence that your example for a particular form of media is more notable than the current example, feel free to replace the current example with your own. (Please discuss the change here, first). johnpseudo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with some slight caveat. I think this is a good rule of thumb. But the overriding principle is: "how does this addition help to understand Lazarus better?" Pointing out tha Lazarus is pervasive is certainly a help, and unending lists is not. But if there is an edit which is a mere addition, but which also helps the user understand Lazarus better, I think it would be ok. The comment added by johnpseudo is a good rule of thumb, but the real test is the usual one: does this help the reader understand the topic of the article? Tb (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that lengthy lists can be tiresome, but part of understanding Lazarus better is to give clear evidence "that Lazarus is entirely pervasive." I believe this resonance is important in an of itself irregardless of how the examples may illuminate our understanding of the original parables. So I don't think this section needs such strict limitations (such as deleting an existing example before adding one that is more significant). I suggest that this guideline be modified to: "addition of new examples must be accompanied by an argument that they as significant as existing examples." That said, I'd like to add two example from popular music that I believe are at least as significant as the two already cited. Woody Guthrie's "Dead or Alive (Poor Lazarus)" from the 1940's and Nick Cave And The Bad Seeds' "Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!" a 2008 album where the parable of Lazarus resonates throughout the album's lyrics most especially in the title track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpdt (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your standard is a poor one. It tends to Listiness.  Instead, how about this: don't add examples unless they better make the case that Lazarus is pervasive.  How does knowing fifty famous and important songs make the case better than knowing forty-five?  Tb (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely if this section exists, it should include the album "Dig, Lazarus Dig!!!" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.101 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the second point to include Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! since people are just going to keep complaining about it's absence. -86.166.192.132 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If people want to engage in this conversation and address the concerns I've raised about a ballooning modern culture section, then I'm all for it. Simply ignoring my suggestion to remove a less-important example when adding a new one and claiming that it is futile to resist the efforts of "people" who aren't talking here is not going to fly. johnpseudo 02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised at the omission of Joyce's reference to Lazarus - ''Come forth, Lazarus! And he came fifth and lost the job. ,as it is a reference to the widespread Come forth!.. .and if you come fifth you'll lose your beer money!''-type pun. From the previous discussions this would seem to come within the 'better make the case' criterion for proving that the Lazarus story is pervasive in modern(-ist!) culture. --Gilgamesh2000 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgamesh2000 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the Star trek episode The Alternative Factor as an example in pop culture to diversify the chronological appearances of Lazaus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.115.232 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the examples of bands who have written songs should be allowed to be edited. With all respect to the band I Am Ghost They are basically a local band currently playing clubs, although they seem to be quite talented (I did give a listen on their myspace page) they have only been playing for 5 years and are a local phemomenon. I suggest replacing this example with the band moe.. A much more widely known band,moe. has been playing for 20 years, tour internationally, headline ampitheaters, host their own festival attracting other big name acts, and just finished playing the Bonnaroo music festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8ful ken (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor's Note: This section has been copied in its entirety to Talk:Lazarus of Bethany to follow the material discussed to that page. Feel free to continue the discuss there.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To Nomadic Whitt- My argument has never been over which artist or song is more worthy of being included. It's that adding more examples doesn't add anything of value to the article.  If you think that Porcupine Tree is more worthy of inclusion than Chimaira, moe., or Placebo, please feel free to make that argument and the substitution.  This section has a tendency to bloom beyond what it reasonable. johnpseudo 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnpseudo- I understand your reluctance to add additional cultural references to a character that is ubiqitious, but I felt your deletion of the latest addition by the unregistered user without any discussion was unwarranted. I looked up Porcupine Tree when I saw the addition, since I had never heard of the band before. The fact that they were equally or possibly more notable than the other bands listed, and that they had released this song as a single, made their inclusion o.k. to me.


 * But to be honest, to follow your line of reasoning, I don't see how including any of these bands really sheds any additional light on the topic of Lazarus, since they are simply listed. If someone could add some context, like how Lazarus was referenced in their works for example, that may be more useful. If for example a song applied some aspect of the story in a way relevant to modern culture, it would warrant inclusion, while simply entitling a song "Lazarus" would not. As it is, however, one can see no reason for inclusion at all.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As an example, I've added the popular (for its genre) gospel song by Carman, including some context. I admit the references are pretty lame; I didn't think I could mention its popularity in gospel circles in the 1980s without a better reference, since that would probably constitute Original Research.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you want to add more popular culture information? I agree with you that most of these bands don't shed any additional light on the topic of Lazarus, but I think that's the case even with more "context".  The point of the section is just to show how widespread the cultural references are throughout history and in prominent examples of various genre.  It's not to further explain the myth, and it's not to better explain those examples- that's for their own articles.  I think we need to weed out less-notable examples, especially in the Lazarus and Dives part of the section, since as you say, "The majority of the references are to Lazarus of Bethany". johnpseudo 11:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree that the whole point of this section is to "show how widespread the cultural references are." While that is one important aspect of the section, I rather agree with Tb's comment above: the overriding principle is: "how does this addition help to understand Lazarus better?" So part of its purpose is indeed to further explain the "myth" - i.e. what relevance the original biblical stories have in today's popular culture. As for your second point, I don't see any "less notable" references to Lazarus and Divas to remove; all of these seem rather significant in literature and music.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how detailing the cultural references to Lazarus adds to the understanding of Lazarus. None of these cultural references explain or add any nuance to the Lazarus myths- they're simple references.  I agree that we should explain what relevance the stories have in popular culture, but that is done by showing the prevalence of the myths' inclusion in all different notable media, not by explaining the manner in which the myths were included.  There may be exceptions to this- for example if there happen to be references in which the Lazarus stories are changed or re-interpreted.  But otherwise, I think that if our standard for inclusion is simply that the piece of art itself is notable (and not whether the reference to Lazarus is notable), the section will balloon beyond a manageable size.  I've deleted hundreds of different Lazarus references originating from "notable" media from this section over the last 3 years. johnpseudo 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've reorganized the section to more prominantly highlight retellings and reinterpretations of both of the stories. I concede that simple allusions are ubiquitous and only need a passing mention (with no context) and only if they are in significant works. I do, however, like the extended Melville and Elliott examples since the Lazarus and Dives story is alluded to so less often that the point needs to be made that these allude to that particular story.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, allusions- that's the word I was looking for. Good job with the section! I disagree that the Melville and Elliot explanations should be kept, though.  I think you already made the distinction about which story the authors refer to without having to get into the specifics. johnpseudo 11:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a Video Game referrence now in Mass Effect 2. The Lazarus Project resurects the main character after his/her death between the game. ME2 Wiki on the Project 207.71.14.3 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requiem quotes
This paragraph from the article doesn't seem to make any sense: 'In the section In paradisum, which often appears embedded in the Requiem, the deceased is wished to Paradise—In paradisum deducant te Angeli— with Lazarus, who once was poor (cum Lazaro quondam paupere); the text reminds us how often the Lazarus of John, who possessed a rock-cut tomb and was resurrected, has been conflated with the beggar Lazarus of Luke.'

The quotations from 'In Paradisum' don't in any way suggest that it is Luke's Lazarus that is being talked about. I would change it myself, but I'd rather wait for a second opinion (change it if you agree).163.1.143.131 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? The "who once was poor" is the reference to Luke's Lazarus.  Tb (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Tb that "who once was poor" refers to Luke's Lazarus. The problem with the paragraph is that there is no reason to think the In paradisum refers to the Lazarus of John. It is in the context of Paradise, after all, a subject treated in Luke's narrative and not in John's.
 * --Nomadic Whitt (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger to Lazarus of Bethany
There are existing articles for Lazarus of Bethany and Lazarus and Dives, as well as a disambiguation page for Lazarus. This page therefore seems to be redundant. Since most of the information here refers to the character in the Gospel of John (and saint in Orthodox and Catholic traditions) and not the subject of the parable in the Gospel of Luke. I propose we merge this page into Lazarus of Bethany and include a short section there that refers to Lazarus and Dives and any alleged connections (or historic conflations) between the two. -- Texas Whitt (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article currently opens with
 * Lazarus (Hebrew: אלעזר, Elʿāzār Eleazar "God (has) helped") is the name of two separate men mentioned in the New Testament. The more famous one is Lazarus of Bethany, the subject of the miracle recounted only in the Gospel of John,[1] in which Jesus raises him from the dead. The other appears uniquely in Jesus' parable of Lazarus and Dives, reported only in the Gospel according to Luke.


 * Further down it explains that
 * Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus the resurrected were combined in Romanesque iconography carved on portals in Burgundy and Provence.


 * Wikipedia, as should be expected, gives the history of the texts, and reports the changing interpretations in the history of ideas. Is the intention now to blur the two separate figures together, as was done in the Middle Ages? The essential fact of Lazarus is precisely that the name refers to two separate men mentioned in the New Testament. So why is Lazarus necessarily Lazarus of Bethany? Who is deciding that? Doesn't the Wikipedia reader get to sort out which Lazarus is being referred to in the passage that sent her to Wikipedia in the first place? Source texts are primary at Wikipedia, not some specific "tradition" that might be concerned to blur the two identities. --Wetman (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of this page is redundant with the Lazarus of Bethany page, but I agree with Wetman that a disambig page would be insufficient to explaining the history of the term. I suggest we remove ~50%+ of the "Lazarus of Bethany" section on this page, leaving more for the main article. johnpseudo 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're both missing my point. The vast majority of references to "Lazarus" in literature and popular culture (in particular, all of them listed at the bottom of this page) refer to the Lazarus raised from the dead, i.e. Lazarus of Bethany. Additionally, the Lazarus honored as Saint Lazarus in the Eastern and Catholic traditions (the traditions where saints are important) is Lazarus of Bethany. Therefore it seems IMO that this should be should the primary character found when one searches for "Lazarus".
 * In the opening section of Lazarus of Bethany, the reader is immediately made aware of a second biblical "Lazarus", that of the parable of Lazarus and Dives, and can go to that article. In no way does this conflate the two characters.
 * As it stands now, we have what amounts to two articles about Lazarus of Bethany, one of which (Lazarus) also happens to contain a small paragraph about the Lazarus of the parable (which, of course, already has its own page). If some additional clarification of the "history of ideas" (I'm not sure what that would refer to in this context) is needed, it can be placed on both the Lazarus of Bethany and Lazarus and Dives pages, without creating what is basically a second disambiguation page here.
 * If you want to do as johnpseudo suggests and delete 50% of this page, you would somehow need to ensure that the discussion of Lazarus of Bethany (as most of this talk page is devoted to) is moved to that page. A full merger as I suggest would accomplish that.
 * - Texas Whitt (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean. That sounds like a good idea, then. johnpseudo 18:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RC doctrine asserts that there is no historical development in doctrine, merely progressive revealing of what is "truly" inherent from the beginning. Thus the obedient may not be "sure" what relevance the history of ideas has here, if any. However, for the secular observer, if the medieval conflation of the two Lazarus figures were obscured or suppressed, wholesome and neutral information would be lost. Deleting 50% of this cannot be a healthy step towards building an encyclopedia. We all agree, surely, that Wikipedia is not the diocesan newsletter.--Wetman (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm now leaning toward keeping this page for Wetman's benefit, but it still seems like a redundant disambiguation page. I reworked it a little to make it more clearly distinguish between the two figures in question (from the literary point of view). I'll try to find more references to the medieval conflation of the two, since I agree with Wetman that this could be historically important and should be included. I think it would be helpful for Wetman to add whatever references he/she has on that as well, since I haven't found much on that yet. I'm assuming johnpseudo's call for deletion of the material refers to removing redundant material (such as section on tombs) which exists on another page already and not for any suppression of ideas, so I have no qualms there. As far as anyone seeking to promote RC doctrine at the expense of others (which I understand to be Wetman's contention), I haven't seen that on this page so far (in the article history or this talk page). I'm not Catholic myself, so I know that isn't my intent. - Nomadic Whitt (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Interfaith Wikiproject
Does anyone know why this article is listed in the Interfaith project? I guess that the folks in that project would be the ones to say definitively, but this seems to be a mis-categorization, since this seems to be an exclusively Christianity-related topic.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Interfaith Wikiproject
Does anyone know why this article is listed in the Interfaith project? I guess that the folks in that project would be the ones to say definitively, but this seems to be a mis-categorization, since this seems to be an exclusively Christianity-related topic.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No reference to doubtful origins?
...The Holy See has repeatedly stated that it does not regard the present-day Order of Saint Lazarus as the continuation of the historical order by that name. It has denounced the order by name as a fraud, first in a lengthy note in L'Osservatore Romano in 1935, then again in 1953 and 1970. To this day, the Holy See has not changed its position. The Italian government has placed the Order on its official list of bogus orders. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta discourages its members from joining the Lazarists. The French government, which regulates orders and decorations, does not recognize it as an order either, and its official position remains that the last knights of the historical order were nominated in 1788, that the order was abolished in 1791 and never officially revived. Under threat of prosecution, the Paris branch of the Lazarist organization has in fact changed its name, ranks and insignia to comply with French law in 1980. There isn't a government on earth that recognizes the order, save perhaps the Franco government in the 1940s, and, it is now claimed, Croatia and South Africa.

There is no doubt in my mind that the present-day Order of Saint Lazarus is an early 20th century private revival of a defunct order. The original Order's French branch, having resisted Papal decisions, had become a royal order in the 17th century, and just as clearly its last Grand Master, once on the throne, purposefully let it disappear. No new appointments were made after 1788 and the last original knights died off in the 1840s. The revival took place around 1910, and is due to a strange coalition of French legitimists with a couple of experts in fake orders. The crooks dropped out of the picture at various dates, but the order continued. Its growth presents an amazing parallel with that of the fake Order of Saint George which involved some of the same people.

Of course, the Order has changed since then, and these unsavory origins have little bearing on the value of the Order's present-day activities, which is undeniable. But those who attach paramount importance to the notion of "legitimacy", indeed anyone who claims that this Order is the Order of Saint-Lazarus has to face the evidence. In my opinion, this order fully deserves the label of "self-styled". It has a definite role as an honourable charitable organization, and may even invoke the model of the hospitaller activities of the historical knights of Saint Lazarus as an inspiration. But whenever it tries to pass itself off as the Order of Saint-Lazarus, claiming to be in the same position vis-a-vis the historical order of that name as the Sovereign Order of Malta is vis-a-vis the historical Order of Saint John, it is perpetrating a fraud... http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/lazarus.htm#link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.30.94 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be relevant to the Order of Saint Lazarus page. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

this should be a disambiguation
This title should be the disambiguation page. There should be no substantial coverage of the two figures here, as they're properly described in their respective article. There's no need for separate "Lazarus (disambiguation)". There doesn't seem to be any signficant shared material to justify a shared article, except a few sentences where the two are conflated. --Rob (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll do some splitting and redirecting when I get a chance. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Shortening the section on "Saint Lazarus"
Given that the section on "Saint Lazarus" has an article specifically on it the extended explanation of it appears to be unneeded.

Any thoughts?

115.124.4.18 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Article is now OK, we not need shortening.--Yopie (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)