Adam

You're a clear thinker, Dio,
And you're in synch with most scholarship here.
However, agreement on this point is easy when there is an "unholy alliance" in favor of late dating of gJohn by both non-believers and the most traditional of Biblicists. First Century Judaism is too variable and multi-faceted to know what banning from the Synagogue meant during Jesus's ministry nor when later editorial touches may have been inserted. My thesis is that Nicodemus wrote very early and most of gJohn is early,but not all of it.

I'll admit that I show the relevant verses (John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2) from the earliest layer, but Howard Teeple shows all three as from E, the Editor (but not from the latest R layer). In any case these particular verses do not undermine a very early date for the great majority of gJohn (the Discourses from Nicodemus, the Signs Gospel from Andrew, and the Passion Narrative from John Mark).

Adam

It's time to resurrect my peer-reviewed serialization in my thread Significance of John because I did present evidence there that people here endlessly accuse me of never giving. As above Vork was the only scholar who engaged me on that thread much past the OP, so my evidence there thus still stands uncontested other than by tiny or frivolous posts.

A little later in time on Dec. 18, 2011 I did take up the objection Vork raised above:
And of course I must point out that my thesis is that an eyewitness wrote this, not that this necessarily has to be John Mark. Nor does an eyewitness always have to be accurate. But that it was John Mark fits neatly with John Mark's mother being a Mary (Acts 12:12), apparently one of the "Mary and Martha" sisters, and Lazarus being their brother according to John 12:1. The dinners of John 12 and 13 were apparently at this house, so the eyewitness role of John Mark can expand to include these as well as the more narrowly defined Passion Narrative.

Resurrecting this thread is not to prove John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative, but that evidence exists that there are distinct strata in the gospels. The MJ people here at FRDB seem especially resistant to sources that can be delineated by stylistic criteria. My case is that the layers thus identified show unique perspectives that fit best with one man having seen/heard it. They don't fit with later fictionalizations. So let's get beyond critique of just the OP and #2 and #13. Here are the serialized posts:
FRDB #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles.

Adam

This Post #7 from Vorkosigan never got properly answered for various reasons tracing to faults by both of us, but ultimately because the answer needed to wait for the serialization of my article to conclude. That the Discourses came from a source is shown by at least three subsequent layers of editing. Recent academic scholarship has recognized a latest layer from an antidocetic Redactor. It's similar to
(found in this thread at Post #80, noting particularly the "eating my flesh" from John 6:54-57, 58b-59 insertions into the Discourses).
The more extensive previous editing employed anarthrous style (omission of articles "a", "the"), and Teeple uniformly found this came from insertions into the Discourses, which was thus a source. See my Post #63 in this thread.

There is also an apparently earlier editorial layer I recently studied in its own thread Pharisee Strand in gJohn: Key Theology?
With some variations it continues my research developed in my 1988 article
here transcribed in this thread in Post #30.
Note that verses from John 7 and John 12 are inserted into Discourse material.

I had earlier written in my Post #2
"The discourses were originally written in Aramaic, according to the Aramaic scholars."
but Vork seems under the misunderstanding that I said the Discourses were written in Greek originally. This is yet another proof that the Discourses came from a source.

The above serves as my explicit answer to Vork in Post #7 that I had only answered implicitly previously. There were at least three subsequent editorial layers after the Discourses (in the main) were written. (Vork's assertions about "fiction" were the kind of question-begging that hindered an earlier reply from me.)

Adam

The refrain here in FRDB is always that I make assertions without documenting evidence. Largely that's because my peer-reviewed article on John has received few comments. Shesh had very little to say about it. See my current summation in my Post #84 and the series "The Significance of John" as published (and supplemented) in Cincinnatus Society Bulletin, No. 3 (May-July 1988), pg. 1-13
(posted here in FRDB as #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles).
Elsewhere Shesh (and everyone else) seemed to have forgotten about it:
And in the lapse of time since Shesh posted the above on June 3, 2012, I looked back and felt I had failed to take due note of it. That drew me into researching this old thread of mine where I do think I regarded my Post #102 on June 6 here at that time was my answer.
Shesh had attacked me earlier on Jan. 22 on my earlier thread:

My reply to this is hopefully in just re-opening this old thread. Here I documented the existence and nature of sources within gJohn, adding the Signs Source, Discourse source, and editorial strand to the already well-recognized Passion Narrative that is shared with the Synoptics (where the rest of Mark and the Q Source are already well recognized by scholars). For our purposes here on FRDB any names suggested for the writers are not relevant, as the most I can demonstrate to an atheist is that MJ is surely false because of the sources that have to go back to the first decades after 30 CE. Information however garbled at first, second, or third hand still testifies to the existence of Jesus the Galilean prophet who was crucified. Eyewitness, oral tradition, even gossip at such close hand proves HJ.

Sheshbazzar

Bring it on Adam. And I'll again show that you are simply promoting your imaginary horse shit.

Adam

In the above Post #54 Jake did what I have always encouraged here, criticism specifically of what I wrote. However, Jake fired in several others posts shortly afterwards, and my response did not include anything to this charge. I could pick out some specific points from my Post #2, but practically the whole post answers Jake, particularly the last half. (It's hard for me to believe he read it.) I made my case so well, I still think, that I was quite chagrined that my editor deleted all the best parts (perhaps eliding unwittingly because of my repeated series of numberings one to three).

Please reread my Post #2. If no one comments, I'll select some of my best from there and post it again. Significance of John Post #2

Sheshbazzar

You reopened this thread. I hope you have something to present other than simply mining quotes from and providing links to your various previous failures.

Adam

You've reread my Post #2 and still find it wanting? I should have mentioned that the first six lines of Post #13 continue the same theme of Nicodemus's ongoing presence in the scenes.

Overlapping it somewhat, refer also to my largest thread Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #38 in the last half. Jake at least stated specifically that my evidence was insufficient (but had he read both post #2 and #13 here, presumably not this new link to Gospel Eyewitnesses), but neither he nor you has stated which posts or parts thereof are insufficient. I consider it substantive, so I have to assume until told otherwise that no one person has read all three. Other than the impossible demand, "Show me the 1st Century manuscript!", how do you know that I can't be taken seriously? All the scholars (except the Evangelical D. A. Carson) who initially dismissed Howard Teeple later reversed themselves (Dwight Moody Smith and Robert Kysar). All you guys are standing pat on the undocumented put-down by Carson? His objection was just that Teeple's stylistic criteria were too detailed letter by letter. (I suppose he was correct--everyone felt unable to top Teeple, so they ignored him to avoid having to get up to his level.)

Sheshbazzar

Yes Adam I have reread your post #2, (and just finished reading it again now) probably for about the tenth time now, and the rest of your material I have read over and over and over and over.
As far as I know there isn't anything that you have written in these threads that I have not already read multiple times.
Even your damned walls of dense text.
So what? You haven't convinced me.

And reading that same mutilated material, and your imaginative speculations over yet again is not going to change that.

And here you are Teepling us again. You may be impressed with Teeple's methods and reasonings but I am not.
Heck, if you ever bothered to read anything on here but your own repetitious postings you would be aware that even the mythicists here are not always impressed with or persuaded by one another's arguments.

Far as I'm concerned you are off living in some weird world of your own. I recall advising you to 'get a life!' once before.
Yours is growing shorter day by day, and here you are still just frittering it away. How sad.
At least you could be peddling your pet theories to a more appreciative audience. ...well maybe not, perhaps there isn't one.

Your postings here, in case you haven't noticed, are failing to connect, and as far as can be determined by the responses, are failing completely to convince anyone at all of the validity of your various claims.
I do well recall that your 'Nicodemus theory' when closely examined was discovered to have been founded upon your misreading of a text. I'm sure that with a little searching I can recover that bit if necessary.

But like I said you have reopened this thread, I hope you have something to present other than simply quote-mining yourself, and providing links to your various previous failures.

If it is just re-quotes of old quotes and posting links to your previous failed arguments, you are not going to get any further this time than you did before.
Actually when you do that you are only helping us to spot further flaws in your arguments and to refine and polish our rebuttals.

ta ta.

Adam

deleted (I already have infractions).