James, John and Peter was chosen by Jesus to witness many miracles and to be present with him while he was praying in the garden the last night before the coming of juda and the soldiers. If John was the author of the gospel he would have written for sure about Jesus transfiguration and Jairus. I have read that another John (the Presbyter)in Ephese could have been the author of several johannic texts and even than Lazarus could have been the beloved disciple (not beloved apostle) that has written part of this gospel. Thank you for your help

  • This is a truly huge subject. The four evangelists write four accounts which show four very different aspects of the Person and work of Jesus Christ the Son of God, each clearly collated with a definite purpose in mind. Chronological order is not, necessarily, followed. Persons present at any one time are not, necessarily, mentioned. The content is spiritual and all else is subservient (though never in a contradictory or false fashion) to the purpose. But your question covers a very broad spectrum and I would not even attempt an answer in the necessarily limited confines of an SE website.
    – Nigel J
    May 22, 2020 at 13:50
  • Probably for the same reason (or lack thereof) for which is also omits the temptation in the wilderness, for instance.
    – Lucian
    May 22, 2020 at 14:44

3 Answers 3


Using the KJV, copying from my paper entitled, "God's Day-Five Creation, Life by grace through faith in the WORD of God", Page 19-20:

The Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God

The four gospels of Jesus Christ—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are each written with some overlapping facts. Yet, these four gospels each respectively reveal the good news about one of the four major prophetic requirements of the Messiah, as follows:

Matthew: Jesus Christ, “the Lion of the Tribe of Judah”—the King of kings on the earth.

Mark: Jesus Christ, “the Obedient Servant”—the Man of Sorrows.

Luke: Jesus Christ, “the Son of Man”—the seed of the woman.

John: Jesus Christ, “the Son of God”—the eternal Word of God made flesh.

These distinctions become very obvious upon comparing the viewpoints of these four gospels.

Matthew’s gospel is entitled “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (Mat 1:1) ” Matthew’s genealogy did not go back beyond Abraham because his genealogy is primarily dealing with the right of Jesus Christ to rule as King of kings in Jerusalem upon the throne of David. Mathew’s gospel describes the God of heaven’s “Kingdom of heaven” on earth (Dan 2:44) . Christ’s subjects will be His “servants”, not the “sons” of God.

Mark gives no genealogy. Mark shows Jesus as the obedient “servant”—that “man of sorrows” of Isaiah 53:3. Mark begins telling about Jesus’ strenuous work on earth during His earthly ministry, healing the sick and ministering to the poor. Mark ends by telling of how Jesus bore the burden of the sin of all mankind. Mark clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the man of sorrows who was “despised and rejected of men”. Mark more intently than the other three gospels reveals that Jesus is that “righteous servant” who bore the iniquities of all mankind.

Luke wrote about certain things—certain facts—concerning Jesus Christ for the reason stated in Luke 1:4: “That thou mitest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” He began by telling about the physical birth of Jesus as a visible flesh and blood Jewish man-child on earth. Jesus is shown by Luke as being born of a Jewish virgin, but not begotten of any man. Luke listed the full lineage of Jesus from Seth through Eve to Jesus through Mary. Luke’s gospel, more than the other three gospels, reveals the humanity of Jesus Christ as that Son of man/seed of the woman.

John gets right to the point that Jesus is the eternal Word of God who was made flesh on earth as “the only begotten Son of God”. John stresses matters pertaining to the invisible “Kingdom of God.” John did not give us the lineage of the Lion of Judah. Matthew did that. John does not tell us about all of Jesus’ toils, burdens and miracles. Mark did that. John does not tell all the details about the generations of those “men of renowned” through whom Jesus, the seed of the woman Son of man, was born. Luke did that. John’s gospel more intently reveals the eternal spiritual Godly nature of Jesus Christ—that Word-of-God “I AM”—who was made the Son of God.

John 5:20-27 tell us that Jesus distinguishes between His two major operational functions—the Son-of-God Savior and the Son-of-man Judge:

For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

These four gospels GENERALLY stay in their own lane. As shown above, John does not tell us about all of Jesus’ toils, burdens and miracles. Mark did that.


One must put these reasons together to explain why John left out Jesus' transfiguration and miracle of Jairus’s daughter, as well as other parts of the Synoptics. First the Gospel of John was written after the synoptic gospels. Some evidence for this is only the Gospel of John mentions Peter by name as cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant. The speculation is that Peter was alive when the synoptics were written, and his name was left out to protect him. Another is that the synoptics left out the account of Lazarus being raised from the dead. The speculation is that this was also to protect Lazarus. If John wrote his gospel after their deaths, then they no longer needed protection.

A second reason is John’s Gospel is about as long as what’s practical to write on a scroll, and he avoided repeating what was in the synoptics as if he expected his readers to already be familiar with them. When John did repeat accounts, he seemed to do so to include details left out of the synoptics. Note John 20:30-31 in ESV:” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Also note John 21:25 in ESV, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Thus, the best guess as to why John didn’t include Jesus transfiguration and the miracle of Jairus’s daughter in his gospel is that John thought they were adequately addressed in the synoptics and didn’t see the need to include them.


I know you already posted this over there at my topic, but I thought I'd post this here for completeness.

Here is one question that explores one theory of authorship of the Gospel of John. I suggest the author is actually the Apostle Thomas Didymus (yeah, "Doubting Thomas"). Obviously, the fourth evangelist has a very high Christology, and the concept of being "raised up" or "coming from heaven" appears throughout the fourth gospel. John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am."

If John were the author, and had actually been present at the Transfiguration, this would have been the central axis of his gospel given the other concerns listed there. At least it would have made it into the seven signs. This alone (for me) rejects John as the Fourth Gospel's author.

Feel free to read my argument in more detail, but one major thrust is as follows: Why wasn't Thomas at the first meeting of Christ with his disciples after the resurrection? Why was Thomas only able to meet Christ eight days later?

If Thomas is the Beloved Disciple (and author/witness of the fourth gospel), then he would have entered into the tomb (John 20:8). According to the Torah laws of corpse cleanliness,

Numbers 19:16, "Whoever in the open field touches one who has been killed by a sword, or who has died naturally, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days."

They are then clean at sunset on the seventh day. So they are presentable on the eighth day. The Beloved Disciple paused before entering the tomb and allowed Peter to rush headlong in. He weighed the gravity of the situation and the implications for uncleanliness.

And of course, Thomas visited with Jesus after EIGHT DAYS (John 20:26). The NRSV and NIV translates the greek as "a week later"... Which is a tragedy! KJV respects the greek and writes "eight days" (as in a new baby must be circumcised on the eighth day after purification from the womb).

An observant Jew would know that the beloved disciple could not have been at that first meeting with Jesus (who knows where impetuous Peter was, but most of the text of John seems to be polemical towards Peter). The Beloved Disciple would never expose himself before his Lord in a ritually impure state. Also, the name Thomas is the only one that appears exactly seven times in the received text. Seven is number of completeness and purity (hence seven days of purification).

  • 1
    The man that touches the corpse cannot be more impure than the very corpse it touches; yet Christ, whose very body was a corpse just days before, had no moral qualms in "defiling" his Apostles through His physical presence, by appearing to them before the time span you mention.
    – Lucian
    May 23, 2020 at 3:54
  • God does what he will. Humans are bound by the law
    – Gus L.
    May 23, 2020 at 23:11
  • 1
    God's will is expressed in the Laws he gave, so...
    – Lucian
    May 23, 2020 at 23:45
  • Then how do you square this up? Does resurrection negate the fact that there was a dead body in the tomb? What is your basis for supporting this claim? Please don’t take that as argumentative... the idea that the tomb was technically unused seems dangerous... kind of implying that Jesus didn’t actually die (as in gnostic interps)
    – Gus L.
    May 24, 2020 at 14:17
  • The tomb was already empty by the time they got there (John 20:1-8). So the only other reason would have been the presence of other bodies. But this clearly wasn't the case either (John 19:41).
    – Lucian
    May 24, 2020 at 14:26

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.