O se talanoaga i le lelei o le lelei na toe faʻatuina mai ai le fesili sili ona manaia: Aisea e toe faatuina mai tala ia Lasalo aʻo le toe faʻatuina mai le oti e foliga mai i le tala lelei a Ioane? Ae uma ane, I luga o le foliga, o Iesu lea’ Sili-vave vavega: Afai o lea na tupu moni, pe faapefea ona le ta'ua e isi tusitala o le talalelei?

Le talitonuina?

Faʻaeteete i le 'Hollywood Effect’

O la'u ata vaaia sili ona tumau o lenei tala e mai i se tasi o na ata mata'utia na fa'aalia ai toetoe lava o le nu'u atoa o Petania o va'ava'ai mamao mai ma le maofa ma le maofa a'o oso a'e le tino pa'epa'e o Lasalo mai le tuugamau.. O se taimi taualuga i le ata; ma faletīfaga tele: ae sa avea foi ma se faaseseina tele o mea moni.

Ua ta'u mai e Ioane ia i tatou sa i ai Lasalo i le tuugamau 4 aso na afio mai ai Iesu. O lona uiga sa i ai pea Maria ma Mareta i totonu o le vaitaimi o le faavauvau masani e 7 aso (lauiloa o ‘shiva‘), pe a asiasi atu uo ma tauaiga e tuuina atu a latou faamafanafanaga ma faaalu se taimi e faanoanoa ai faatasi ma i latou. O lea, ioe, there would still have been a significant crowd of people with them in the house 4 days after the funeral: but not the whole village.

Nor was the resurrection a public spectacle. Martha first met Jesus privately, then called Mary secretly to come and join her. Those from the house who chose to follow her did not know of Jesus’ arrival; they thought she was going to weep at the tomb. And even after seeing Jesus, their only thought was that he had come too late. O lea, it would have been, at most, the disciples plus a houseful of close friends who actually saw what happened.

The other factual misconception encouraged by the film-makers is the telescoping of time. E masani lava, this event, if featured in the plot, is immediately followed by the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Ae e ui lava o le tala a Ioane e faaseʻe toeitiiti lava a oo i le vaiaso o le Paseka, e agavaa o ia i le faapea mai:

‘Ua amata fo‘i i lea aso ‘ona latou taupulepule e fasioti ‘iā te ia. O le mea lea na le toe savali fa'aaliali ai Iesu i tagata Iutaia, a ‘ua latou ō mai ai i le nu‘u e lata ane i le vao, i le aai e igoa o Efaraima. Sa nofo ai o ia ma ona soo’ (John 11:53-4).

E mamao mai le agai sa'o i le fa'ai'uga mulimuli, Na tuua e Iesu le vaipanoa e nofo ai i Efaraima, nisi 15 maila (20km) i matu o Ierusalema. O lea, e ui lava o lenei mea na tupu ua faailogaina ai le tulaga na faia ai e le faitaulaga sili se ‘faaiʻuga pule’ e tatau ona maliu Iesu, e tupu moni lava i sina taimi muamua Iesu’ asiasiga mulimuli i Ierusalema. Ma, e aunoa ma le aogā o le vaai mamao ma le iloa i totonu o filifiliga a le ositaulaga sili, it is unlikely that its pivotal nature would have been so readily apparent.

The Selectivity of the Gospel accounts

We need to understand that all the gospel accounts are highly selective in their choice of incidents described. As the final verse of John’s gospel observes, “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn’t have room for the books that would be written.”

The relatively high correlation between the choice of incidents in Matthew, Mareko ma Luka (the Synoptic gospels) is very probably down to them having used existing written collections (vaai Luke 1:1) as an aid to memory. At the outset, o lea, we should note that, apart from the final week of Jesus’ soifua, the events described in the synoptic gospels are focussed on Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and the regions away from Jerusalem. This isn’t as strange as we might at first think. Writing materials weren’t very portable in those days: so it is not really all that surprising if Jesus’ early chroniclers were based in Galilee, where his support was strongest.

But John’s gospel is quite unlike the others. He makes no apparent reference to these earlier accounts, or the other gospels; preferring to rely on Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26). Nor does he attempt to give a full account of all Jesus’ travels and miracles. Ae leai, he focusses on a very limited choice of incidents that provide special insight into the purpose of Jesus’ life and ministry.

It should also be noted that John was in a unique position with regard to his access to the high priest’s household. His father appears to have been a fish merchant (Mk 1:20), his mother a social climber (Mt 20:20-21) and he was able to gain access even on the night of Jesus’ puipui (Jn 18:15). O lea, he was better placed than others to know the impact this miracle had on the high priest’s thinking.

So in asking why the story of Lazarus appears only in John, we must ask ourselves how many similar miracles the gospel writers had to choose from, and what considerations might influence their choice?

Selection Criteria

The available choices

The gospels describe four miracles performed by Jesus demonstrating his power over death (e ui lava, ona o mea na fai mai ai tusitala o le talalelei e uiga i le anoanoai o vavega na faia e Iesu, e le mafai ona tatou taofiofia le ono i ai o isi). O nei mea:

1. Le Alo o le fafine ua oti lana tane, Fa'atatau ile Luke 7:11-15, o le uluai vavega lenei o le toetutu na faamaumauina. Ua faasalaveia e Iesu le solo o le falelauasiga ina ia toe faaola mai le tama a se fafine ua oti lana tane. E faavae i tu ma aga faa-Iutaia i na taimi, semanu e tele itula na oti ai le taulealea: ae le sili atu i le aso.
2. Iairo’ afa'fine, O lenei mea na tupu, e aafia ai se teine ​​faatoa oti, na tupu i Kalilaia ma ua aliali mai i tagata uma 3 evagelia synoptic.
3. Lasalo, o lē na oti ma tanumia mo 4 aso.
4. Iesu, toetu mai le oti i le aso tolu, ua i ai i le tuugamau mo sina taimi 36 itula.

E ese mai ia Iesu’ O le toe tu mai o le tala e sili ona fiafia i ai o Iairo’ afa'fine, despite it being the least spectacular in terms of length of time dead. The most obvious reason for this choice must be that it is the best documented. Evidently it was amongst the miracles recorded by the early Galilean chroniclers. Lea, plus the detail and pathos of the story (with the panic-stricken father forced to wait while Jesus deals with a seemingly less urgent case) makes it a natural choice.

Iesu’ own resurrection, whilst taking place over a shorter timescale than the raising of Lazarus, trumps that one in that it was the miracle-worker himself who was now dead and who is supernaturally raised without human intervention from a sealed and guarded tomb.

Thus we have all four gospels recounting at least 2 resurrection miracles and Luke adding a third (Iesu’ first, at Nain) for good measure.

Pe latou te manaʻomia moni lava se isi mea? E mautinoa e leai. O le fesili la i le taimi nei, o ā ni mea e ono uunaʻia ai Mataio, Mareko ma Luka ia faaaofia pe tuuese le tala ia Lasalo?

Mafuaaga mo le Faaofiina

1. E sili ona mata'utia i tulaga o le umi o le taimi e oti ai. Moni, ma le manatu ua oti moni lava o ia. Ae o Iesu’ o le faasatauroga e maua ai se faamaoniga sili atu ona mautinoa o le oti.
2. O lona vaega tāua i mea na tutupu e taʻitaʻia atu ai iā Iesu’ lava le oti. Moni: ae sa lei manino mai lenei mea mai le taimi tonu o mea na tutupu. Na manaʻomia le malamalama mai totonu, lea na maua e Ioane. Ae na faia e isi? E le na o le pau lea o le mea e aafia ai pulega’ faaiuga.
3. O le tala, e pei o Iairo, o loʻo i ai le tele o faʻamatalaga ma faʻalavelave. Moni: a o Iesu’ tali i lenei tulaga e sili atu ona faigata ona malamalama i ai (vaai i lalo).

Mafuaaga mo le Fa'aofia

1. Afio mai, e pei ona faia, agai i le iuga o Iesu’ faiva, O lenei tala o se toetutu ina ua mavae aso e fa i le tuugamau atonu na vaai i ai nisi o se mea e aveesea ai le tumutumuga masani o le talalelei., Iesu’ own resurrection.
2. O lo'o i ai se mataupu fa'amaoni iinei. Sa lē faaitiitia foʻi le lē fiafia o tagata e talitonu i tala o le toetū i lenā taimi, nai lo o aso nei (vaai Acts 17:32). Aisea e faʻalauteleina ai lo latou faʻamaoni i luma atu o le tala sili atu ona lelei faʻamaumauina a Iesu’ own resurrection?
3. E ui lava i lona natura uiga ese, o le aafiaga o lenei vavega e foliga mai na gata i le lata ane o Ierusalema. E ala i le faimalaga na o 15 maila i matu, E foliga mai na mafai e Iesu ona ʻalofia iʻuga. E pei ona matauina, o le aofaʻi moni o molimau na sili atu ona toʻaitiiti nai lo le mea e masani ai. Ma ua tatou iloa foi sa i ai le tele o le feitaga'i i totonu o pulega a Iutaia, faia le molimau e uiga ia Iesu o se pisinisi lamatia i Ierusalema (cf. John 9:22 & 11:57). O lea na leai ai se molimau fa'amaonia lautele - e le pei o vavega a Kalilaia, lea na lipotia lautele.
4. E toʻatele tagata e faigatā ona malamalama i le māfuaaga na tuai ai ona alu Iesu iā Lasalo’ fesoasoani ina ua faatoa faalogo i lona ma'i. O loo saili Ioane e tuu atu i ana au faitau se vaaiga e faavavau i o tatou faalavelave pupuu: ae o isi tusitala o le tala lelei o loo latou faamatalaina mea na tutupu. Mo i latou, o nei fesili lona lua o le a avea ma se faalavefau mai le tala autu.
5. Po o le a lava le mea na tupu ia Lazarus? O le uiga o soʻo se tala o le toetu e sili ona faʻamaonia ai o le mafai lea ona faʻafeiloaʻi le molimau autu - i lenei tulaga., Lasalo. Ua taʻu mai e Ioane ina ua toe afio mai Iesu i le amataga o le vaiaso o le paseka, ‘‘Ua iloa e le motu o tagata e to‘atele o Iutaia o lo‘o i ai o ia, ona latou o mai ai lea, e le mo Iesu’ na'o le manuia, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead‘ (John 12:9). One might, o lea, have expected that, even after Jesus’ toetu, Lazarus would have achieved some notoriety as a living proof of Jesus’ resurrection power. But we never hear of him again; ma, ominously, John comments, ‘But the chief priests conspired to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus‘ (John 12:11-12). Did someone kill him? Pe, being an older man, did he just get ill again and die? Matou te le iloa. But the absence of the chief witness undoubtedly detracts from the story.

Fa'ai'uga

None of the arguments raised above give us good grounds for denying the truth of John’s testimony concerning Lazarus. Those who deny it do so primarily on the basis of their own unbelief, arising from our natural human experience of the finality of death.

As far as Matthew, Mark and Luke are concerned, it can be seen that they would have had good reason for not including this particular incident in their accounts. Ae, from John’s standpoint we can equally understand why, despite any arguments to the contrary, he would consider this particular incident worth singling out for special mention.