Lazarus in Luke and John

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Huiou Theou

Except the wishing to fill his belly with the scraps from the rich man's table; I wonder if having one's sores licked by dogs is a sign of destitution.
I mean, that's medicinal after all.

Really? I know that dog saliva (or for that matter, saliva in general) does get ascribed curative properties in old wives' tales and does seem to have some bactericidal effects against Escherichia coli and Streptococcus canis, but there seems to be much more risks in allowing animals to lick sores.

But, in the case of Lazarus, what makes you think he was rich?

I am thinking it is Beth-ania, the house of the poor?
eg: It is not the same Beth-anias, of Mark 14:3?
I need to guess the Hebrew from the sound, beth is obviously house.
Ania / Anias, is perhaps aniwim? "poor" ? I'll have to look, but it's very close.

The exact etymology of Bethania is uncertain. One theory does propose that it comes from Aramaic beth 'anya or Hebrew beth 'ani "house of [the] poor," which is supported by St. Jerome's Onomasticon (domus adflictionis). Brian J. Capper ("Essene Community-Houses and Jesus' Early Community," in James H. Charlesworth's Jesus and Archaeology) uses this for his idea that Bethany was in reality one of several Essene poorhouses near the Jerusalem area.

Wikipedia summarizes it rather well:

The root meaning and origin of the name Bethany has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. William Hepworth Dixon devotes a multi-page footnote to it in his The Holy Land (1866), largely devoted to debunking the meaning "house of dates," which is attributed to Joseph Barber Lightfoot by way of a series of careless interpretative mistakes. Dixon quotes at length a refutation of Lightfoot's thesis in the form of a letter by Emanuel Deutsch of the British Museum, who notes that neither the name Bethany, nor any of the roots suggested by Lightfoot, appear anywhere in the Talmud. Deutsch suggests a non-Hebrew root, a word transcribed in Syriac script whose meaning he gives as "House of Misery" or "Poor-house."[7]
This theory as to Bethany's etymology, which was eventually also adopted by Gustav Dalman in 1905, is not without challengers. For example, E. Nestle's Philologica Sacra (1896) suggests that Bethany is derived from the personal name Anaiah, while others have suggested it is a shortened version of Ananiah, a village of Bethel mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah (11:32). Since Greek can neither reproduce an 'h' sound nor the Hebrew harsh 'ch' sound (cheth) in the middle of a word, a derivation from the personal name Chananya ("Yah has been gracious") is also possible. Another suggestion, arising from the presence of nearby Bethphage ("house of unripe figs"), is that its name comes from beit hini, meaning "house of figs".
Deutsch's thesis, however, seems to also be attested to by Jerome. In his version of Eusebius' Onomasticon, the meaning of Bethany is defined as domus adflictionis or "house of affliction." Brian J. Capper writes that this is a Latin derivation from the Hebrew beth 'ani or more likely the Aramaic beth 'anya, both of which mean "house of the poor" or "house of affliction/poverty," also semantically speaking "poor-house." Capper concludes, from historical sources as well as this linguistic evidence, that Bethany may have been the site of an almshouse.[8]
According to Capper and Deutsch before him, there are also linguistic difficulties that arise when the Anaiah/Ananiah, "house of figs" or "house of dates" theses are compared against the bethania form used in Greek versions of the New Testament. Additionally, the Aramaic beit 'anya is the form used for Bethany in Christian Palestinian and Syriac versions of the New Testament. Given this, and Jerome's familiarity with Semitic philology and the immediate region, Capper concludes that the "house of affliction" / "poor-house" meaning as documented by Jerome and in the Syriac New Testament usage is correct, and that this meaning relates to the use of the village as a centre for caring for the sick and aiding the destitute and pilgrims to Jerusalem.[8]
It may be possible to combine the Ananiah (as a personal name) and "house of the poor" derivations, since the shortening of Ananiah ("Yah has intervened") to Anya is conceivable though unattested (cf. the common shortening of Yochanan [and perhaps also Chananyah?] to Choni), whence a typical semitic wordplay might arise between Anya as a shortening of the personal name within the name of the village and as Aramaic for "poor". Such a wordplay may have served the choice of the village as the location for an almshouse.[9]

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Huiou Theou

In the RKV, it does not say a stone hewn tomb ... although, in likeness to Jesus, he is placed in something similar; It says:
"John 11:34 Where have you laid him? he asked. Lord, they said to him, come and see."

Strange, that Lazarus were really rich -- with his own garden and tomb -- that Jesus wouldn't know where he was. He did know and love Lazarus specially.

"John 11:38 So Jesus, once more sighing to himself, came to the tomb; it was a cave, and a stone had been placed over the mouth of it."

http://biblos.com/john/11-38.htm

The word immediately after tomb -- is a contradistinction word, the most common (literal) translation of the word is "But";
biblos.com says the word is "moreover", which is less often used -- but acceptable. The "cave" comment is used to clarify that Lazarus' burial wasn't a glorious tomb ... but something different than the word tomb might signify.

I am wondering if this tomb is more of a common catacomb; for I don't suppose it was special like the rich man's tomb which Jesus was laid in -- although the rock laid in front of Lazarus' cave is a more decorative kind of rock. (Lithos.)

Often, Lepers lived in wild places -- in Caves, even. This might even been where he lived up and until he died?

At the time of Jesus, there were at least two popular modes of burial: the method more popular with the poorer classes - which of course in those days meant the majority of the population - and some groups such as the Qumran community involved burying the body of the deceased (sometimes placed in a wooden coffin) in a trench grave, not unlike modern day grave cuts. After the pit was filled in, the grave was marked either by erecting a headstone or a pile of rocks at one or both ends, or simply pouring a mixture of lime/chalk and water over the backfill, so that people would recognize the presence of a burial - and thus avoid accidentally passing through it and becoming ritually impure as a result. Given the inconspicuous and highly flimsy nature of this type of grave, relatively few examples of this type of burial survives in the archaeological record.

For those who could afford to make and/or own one meanwhile, the other option was a burial cave, either natural or man-made (completely man-made burial complexes were apparently more rare and costly than natural caverns), which were family affairs, unlike the individual trench graves: the bones of generations upon generations could all be interred in a single cave. The basic design of these rock-cut tombs consists of a square or rectangular room with benches on three sides of the chamber, leaving a pit in the middle, and a low, narrow doorway which could be closed with a blocking stone, which could be either a round disk which could be rolled over the entrance, or more commonly, square/rectangular 'plug-type' stones). Some tombs could be more elaborate - for instance, having multiple chambers, decorated with carvings, and whatnot. Around the time of Jesus you also had tombs with shelves cut into the walls of the interior: one type of shelf is called the arcosolia, which has a bench-like aperture (known as an arcosolium) with an arched ceiling hewn into the length of the wall. Another is the loculus or kokh, a narrow shaft running perpendicularly back from the chamber wall.

In this scenario, the body of the deceased would usually first be laid on the bench, a shelf (arcosolium) or on a niche (kokh) inside the burial chamber and left there, allowing the flesh to rot (the Jews did not practice embalming) until it has totally decomposed - something which is usually considered to occur within the space of a year. Sometimes the body could even be placed on a sort of coffin when it is placed on the shelf. This is what is known as primary burial. At the following year, once the flesh had decomposed, family members would return to the tomb and practice the continuation of the funerary rite known as secondary burial, which involves taking the bones and reinterring it in some way, either by depositing it in a specially-designated area somewhere inside the tomb or - more common at the time of Jesus - in stone boxes called ossuaries, which would then be also placed on a certain spot inside the burial chamber, in the loculi or on the benches.

Single-chamber tomb from Herodian period, located at Gilo, Jerusalem, shown with (square) blocking stone


Single-chamber tomb (Tomb of Caiaphas) from Herodian period with kokhim, located at Jerusalem, Peace Forest


Ossuaries


Tomb with the corpse in an arcosolium and ossuaries on shelf and loculi


Kokhim atop benches


The tomb of Joseph of Arimathea where Jesus was buried, a newly-hewn tomb (Matthew 27:60; Luke 23:53; John 19:41), would have probably looked like this. You can notice that only the benches are present: the first stage in tomb construction is the cutting out of the chamber with the benches on three sides. Other chambers and niches and shelves could then be added.

BTW, archaeologists have recently found the tomb of a 1st century man in Jerusalem who was afflicted with leprosy and tuberculosis, but was clearly a man of means - for one, our man was buried in an ornamented burial cave, had a well-groomed (no traces of lice), short-cropped hair, was apparently buried in burial cloths of some quality, and was buried close to other tombs of importance, notably the tomb of Annas/Ananus (cf. Josephus, War 5.506). Given the nature of the diseases however, the man's family did not return to practice secondary burial, but left him lying inside the tomb's kokh (which was where his bones and the fragments of his burial shroud were found) and apparently had the entrance to the tomb completely sealed with plaster.

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by Huiou Theou

I wonder if having one's sores licked by dogs is a sign of destitution.
I mean, that's medicinal after all.

Even a rich man, when ill, could not be healed as we take for granted in a modern medical facility. Even the Emperor's of Rome and the Kings (Herod?) fell ill to sudden and mortal illnesses from which there was no cure by antibiotics or minor surgery.

Some dogs are friendly -- but the ancients generally didn't keep them as mere pets. The Mastiff, for example, was meant to guard the home and wife and children -- so that when the Roman soldier went off to war; when they got home they *STILL* had a wife and children.

...my point is two-fold:

a) Lazarus was indigent not because dogs licked his wounds but because he sought to fill his stomach with the scraps that fell from the rich man's table; instead of attacking Lazarus, as most guard dogs would in order to repel an intruder, they recognized his state and did what dogs do (lick their wounds); this comparison is a demonstrative contrast to their master's ignorance of Lazarus' needs.

b) The rich man knew Lazarus, a beggar, and while he did nothing to assist Lazarus, he, in the least, did not contend that Lazarus was a threat, hence the dogs were not commanded to attack this particular interloper; Lazarus financial and physical condition would have inspired, from most people (including those barely above his station), distrust and rejection... maybe even outright loathing.

Coincidentally, Scriptures are not exact in to whom the dogs belonged; the passage only states that Lazarus laid at the rich man's gate and dogs came to lick his wounds--this does not automatically exclude strays or dogs from other households... the contrast is still vivid!

Maran atha!

Angel

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by Huiou Theou

Hi Angel!

Poking pfun yourself ?

Yes, I think Lazarus was not a grudge holder. His affliction, and illness, would be seen as something from God himself by many of that time. Both Lazarus' share that history. But he didn't rob the rich man in the parable; nor would Jesus have been said to have loved the real Lazarus specially if Lazarus were a thug-hypocrite in life.

Jesus associated himself with sinners, but he loved those who did the father's will. It is these he would call "friends."

What do you make of this, below?
"John 11:14 So now, Jesus told them openly, Lazarus is dead. And for your sakes, I am glad I was not there."

Did not Jesus, then, choose Lazarus' lot in life and his death?
For at the sight of weeping -- Perhaps Jesus would have not been able to resist preventing Lazarus' death ?

This is a very interesting passage... it demonstrates both Jesus' Divinity and His Humanity... as with many events, Jesus takes advantage of Lazarus' death to Teach His Disciples that He is in deed the Resurrection and the Life. By allowing the sickness to proceed to it's terminal end, Lazarus' return from the dead cannot be attributed to a natural occurrence (heart failure and self-resuscitation, etc.); while Jesus knows exactly what will take place (death and resurrection of Lazarus), once He is amongst Lazarus' sisters His Human Nature compels Him to feel empathy and Jesus shares their grief and their desolation--much like Isaiah's Suffering Servant, His Woes for Jerusalem, and His Lament for those who ultimatedly would insist on rejecting Him (the beggar, Lazarus, and the rich man and Christ's Shedding of Blood at mount of Olives) and thus will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Maran atha!

Angel