Adam

The burden of proof falls upon whomever claims a text can be disregarded without considering it. Realistic elements? How about John 18:3 "lanterns, torches, and weapons"? 18:18 "made a charcoal fire because it was cold...and Peter was also standing there and warming"? 18:27 "Then again Peter denied, and immediately a cock crowed." The details in the text show it was nighttime, regardless of the rules centuries later from the Talmud. How do you know better 2000 years later 5000 miles away, what was realistic better than the author of the Passion Narrative writing within a generation?
Are you speaking here about the Form Critics, who have now fallen into disfavor? Their assumptions are no longer just accepted, and certainly no one has proved what you say here.

Adam

I'm not talking about adding plausible elements to a mythical story. I have made clear throughout that I am speaking of sources underlying the gospels,; the largely undisputed Passion Narrative, Q, and L. These have been set up objectively by stylistic markers. Where there are such objective criteria, wherever there are realistic details we have evidence that must be considered.

I would help if members would have engaged my OP in this thread instead of taking potshots now at tertiary material. (In the OP one link goes to a Post #35, but states in error that #31 is the relevant one.) I state there the exact limits of the underlying Passion Narrative.

Adam

So you agree that decrying "supernaturalism" is no proof that associated textual materials does not give evidence, particularly if such material is separable from the supernatural elements? If the texts wound up giving support to "supernatural" events, they would cease by definition to be supernatural and would be part of nature? Sounds reasonable.

Toto

You just made that rule up so you can continue to shift the burden of proof.

Most fiction adds realistic elements. The cock crowing is heavily symbolic.
Wait a minute - that's what you are trying to prove, that the text is based on eyewitnesses. Know much about circular reasoning?

Not form criticism. The use of the various criteria to separate out history from myth in the gospels that Ehrman et al use.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Adam,

Okay, let us examine the evidence that Nicodemus could have been an eyewitness who wrote some eyewitness account.

Nicodemus, the character in the gospel of John, does not say that he was an eyewitness or that he wrote anything. Nicodemus appears briefly in three different scenes in the Gospel of John. There is nothing else about him in the other gospels, the New Testament or the early Christian literature.

What does he do in these three scenes. He plays a modest part in one of them and a tiny part in the two others. This is his most substantial scene starting at John 3:1:

Nicodemus is apparently a ruler of the Jews and apparently a "teacher of Israel." He comes to Jesus and declares that Jesus is also a teacher. He then asks Jesus two questions. The first is, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Basically, he's asking how do you teach an old dog new tricks? Jesus says he means being born spiritually. Nicodemus gives a follow up question "How can these things be?" This is just so Jesus can elaborate on his answer.

Nicodemus is not really a person. He is simply a literary device to allow Jesus to say how unfeeling/unspiritual and stupid the Jewish leaders are by not listening to him.

Nicodemus' first appearance is just a quick praise of Jesus as a teacher and two rhetorical/dumb questions, his second appearance in chapter 7 is even less substantial.

Nicodemus here asks another rhetorical/dumb question. It is obvious that a person should not be condemned without first hearing what the person he has to say. Nicodemus is only there to emphasize the point that the ruling Pharisees judged Jesus without listening to him.

Nicodemus doesn't talk in his third appearance after Jesus' death, he just helps with the burial:

Nicodemus begins by calling Jesus a teacher (rabbi) of the Jews. He ends by helping to bury Jesus. By giving Joseph of Arimathea a helper, John makes the burial more realistic. However, there seems to be something else going on here. Joseph of Arimathea is described as a μαθητὴς (learner or student) of Jesus. The fictional town Ἀριμαθαίας that Joseph comes from seems to have something to do with being a learner if we imagine someone trying to make up a fictional town based on the Greek word μαθητὴς.

Joseph is connected with being a learner, but the role fits more concretely with Nicodemus. He is the teacher who became a learner. We may suppose that two stories floated around about the burial of Jesus. In one story his father Joseph buried him. In the other story Nicodemus, the Jewish Ruling class Pharisee Teacher who became a student of Jesus buried him. The writer has elided the two stories together. Joseph is just a duplicate of Nicodemus.

Anyways, there is still no evidence that Nicodemus is meant to be any kind of writer or eyewitness. He is meant to represent the Jewish elite who went over to the side of Jesus (not necessarily in the First century, but probably in the Second Century).

We know from Justin Martyr's work and Clement of Alexandria that Jews in the second century were willing to regard the Jesus character as a teacher. There is no reason to believe that Nicodemus represents a First century viewpoint, rather than a Second century viewpoint. He is a character that just as well could have been invented and added to the text any time in the Second century as in the First.

The fact that there is no evidence of him existing or writing anything does not disqualify him as an eyewitness. The text conceivably could have had him in every scene hiding behind a corner or rock to indicate that he was witnessing things. That is certainly not the intention of the text.

Why would any one come up with the idea that he was an eyewitness? That is relatively easy to figure out. We need only look at the alternatives. Here is a list of all the named characters in the Gospel of John and how many lines they each speak and in which chapters:
We note that Jesus has far more lines than all the other characters put together, about 5 times as many, and about 17 times as much as the next significant character, John the Baptist. However, he cannot be a writing eyewitness as he could hardly be an eyewitness for himself.

Eliminating Jesus, who is the best eyewitness? We have to eliminate immediately the five named characters who appear each in just one scene and don't have any lines. That leaves just the 12 characters with speaking parts. John the Baptist disappears from the story after announcing that Jesus is the Christ in chapter 3, so he can't be a writing eyewitness. Pontius Pilate is only in one scene, so he can't be a writing eyewitness beyond that one scene. Simon Peter as Jesus' chief sycophant could be considered, but he already has his name attached to Mark's Gospel in Christian legend. Also Jesus treats him rather harshly in this gospel, and how can you trust someone that Jesus didn't trust and yelled at a lot. Mary and Martha should be considered, but Martha is only in two minor scenes and doesn't even bother to go to the crucifixion, while Mary already has her own gnostic gospel. The other five named disciples are not named in the Passion scenes, or are not reliable - Judas and Thomas. That leaves only Caiaphas and Nicodemus. The High Priest Caiaphas' only action is to predict the death of Jesus. It is hard to imagine him writing so sympathetically about Jesus. Thus we are left with Nicodemus.

He is only in three scenes and has just four lines, but he is the best choice, as he doesn't have the problems that the other 11 speaking characters have. Thus by default, we have to choose Nicodemus as the eyewitness.

Again there is no positive evidence for this, but there is nothing in the text to preclude him from having written an eyewitness account.

He is the equivalent of Alfred the Butler for the HB (Historical Batman) enthusiasts seeking an eyewitness named in the text. Like Alfred, he is an inconsequential friendly plot device used for exposition purposes that stands off to the side and doesn't do too much, but might observe things other characters could or would not. Assuming the passion narrative is real and there has to be a named eyewitness writer in the text, he is the logical choice.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

steve_bnk

No, No! A thousand times no!!!

There is no proof or justfication for the miraculous events in the bible. The point is anything that exists is no more or less natural than anything else.

Do you really believe Jonah survived the belly of a whale?

Adam

steve bnk,
You've retreated back into your shell of denial.

steve_bnk

Explain. What am iI n denial over? You have proffered ino proof other than invoking ancient documents which ca not be independently vlaidated.

Again two questions.

1. What exactly do you believe and why.
2. On what basis do you accept one doucment and reject another?

No answers and no further responses from me. Your OP is headed where many theist threads have headed, down to repeated posts with no prgress along with repeatted statements that atheists are wrong.

The State Of Denial...warm sunny beaches, gorgeous women, and cheap drinks.

Adam

Thanks for dropping your usual philosophic posing and doing (apparently) original research. Sydney Temple in The Core Gospel in 1975 decided upon Nicodemus as author for his Core Gospel, consisting of the greatest part of gJohn. I don't usually cite him because I can't remember whether I got my idea for Nicodemus as author before or after reading Temple.

You did not cite the Beloved Disciple among your possible writers, apparently because we don't know his name. If he was John (as I believe), he becomes a candidate, and I attribute the editing of gJohn to him. I list the Signs Gospel as Andrew's even though he is only #10 on your list, but he is supplemented by his constant pairing with Philip, who is #6.

Likewise you do not list "the disciple known to the High Priest", again no doubt because we do not know his name. I attribute the Passion Narrative to him because he could have been present at each verse.

Appropriately like Nicodemus, you seem to have changed your mind in the course of your writing of this post. Thus you did your thinking on this matter today, not like so many others who used to think decades ago, but have not really rethought anything in years. You have restored my faith in people with imagination.

arnoldo

If memory serves me correct the synoptics have the overthrow of the moneychangers towards the end of Christ's ministry while the gJohn has it towards the beginning of Christ's ministry. It is the raising of Lazarus from the dead (which is not mentioned in the synoptics) which seems to be the final straw that leads to the death of Jesus. See John 11:47-49 below;