's narrative is of an essentially
different kind from the accounts of miracles of which the Synoptists
are full, and which are the outcome of the popular imagination. Let us
add that John is the only Evangelist with accurate knowledge of the
relations of Jesus with the family at Bethany, and that it would be
incomprehensible how a creation of the popular mind could have been
inserted in the frame of such personal reminiscences. It is,
therefore, probable that the miracle in question was not amongst the
wholly legendary ones, for which no one is responsible. In other
words, I think that something took place at Bethany which was looked
upon as a resurrection." Does not this really mean that Renan surmises
that something happened at Bethany which he cannot explain? He
entrenches himself behind the words: "At this distance of time, and
with only one text bearing obvious traces of subsequent additions, it
is impossible to decide whether, in the present case, all is fiction,
or whether a real fact which happened at Bethany served as the basis
of the report that was spread abroad." Might it not be that we have to
do here with something of which we might arrive at a true
understanding merely by reading the text in the right way? In that
case, we should perhaps no longer speak of "fiction."

It must be admitted that the whole narrative of this event in St.
John's Gospel is wrapped in a mysterious veil. To show this, we need
only mention one point. If the narrative is to be taken in the
literal, physical sense, what meaning have these words of Jesus: "This
sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of
God might be glorified thereby." This is the usual translation of the
words, but the actual state of the case is better arrived at, if they
are translated, "for the vision (or manifestation) of God, that the
Son of God might be manifested thereby." This translation is also
correct according to the Greek original. And what do these other words
mean, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he
that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"? (John
xi. 4, 25). It would be a triviality to think that Jesus meant to say
that Lazarus had only become ill in order that Jesus might manifest
His skill through him. And it would again be a triviality to think
that Jesus meant to assert that faith in Him brings to life again one
who in the ordinary sense is dead. What would there be remarkab