Adam

Your post #189 quotes my Post #2 in my Significance of John thread, which is poor form and generates quotes that do not name me as source, no do you provide orientation by mentioning my name.
I provide my argument for Nicodemus writing while Jesus was alive in the paragraphs following where your quote of me stopped.
Let me quote Howard Teeple for G being relatively early (he dates all John late):
"The use by an editor of a written source....is a major feature in Bultmann's hypothesis....It is easily demonstrated that most blocks of speech material were not composed or inserted by the Redactor....It contains linguistic features not found in the writings of either the editor or the redactor." (p. 147, Literary Origin of the Gospel of John.)

Toto

I suspect Vorkosigan posted in the wrong thread. If so, I can move the post.

But here is the rest of your post. I fail to see any good reasons for "Nicodemus writing while Jesus was alive."

Adam

You are correct. I failed to notice that the immediately following key sentence was not in my Post #2. Here's the rest of what I published in 1988 about Nicodemus and the Discourses:
(3)After the voice from heaven glorifying Jesus as of John 12:28, Nicodemus recorded the full theology of Jesus from a believer’s point of view. He must have been a Christian at that time, at least, to be present at the Last Supper to record the Farewell discourse, John 14-17.
It follows necessarily from the foregoing analysis of Nicodemus’s changing perspective, that the discourses were written simultaneously with the speeches, or not long afterwards. John 3 must have been written before John 5, 7-10 occurred. I therefore go even farther in some parts than the startling thesis of Vacher Burch that John was written shortly after the Crucifixion. (Howard, p. 62) I hold that all the discourse portions were written before the Crucifixion.
I have not mentioned the Prologue and John 6. The Prologue was certainly the last discourse portion written, necessarily after the Crucifixion. Much has been made of its stylistic contrasts with the discourses of Jesus. I emphasize the stylistic similarities, regarding the differences as the author’s choice of worlds in contrast to his literal rendering of Jesus’s words.
The Eucharistic Discourse in John 6 is a more complex matter. It somewhat fits the general rule for John 5-10 that unpalatable statements of Jesus are included. However, a fuller picture of the related theology is presented. Where does John 6 fit into the overall context of the discourses?
That John 6 should precede John 5 used to be almost a canon of scholarship. Little weight is placed upon this arrangement today. However, the earlier critics were correct. John 5:47 flows into John 7:11 as if nothing had intervened. The latter section through John 10:21 is the Feast of Tabernacles. Sydney Temple, an expert on chronological matters, recognizes John as also a Feast of Tabernacles. Paradoxically, however, Temple regards John 5 as Tabernacles a year before. (Temple, p. 32) If John 5 is also Tabernacles and fits perfectly with John 7, then John 6 can reasonably be regarded as preceding John 5 or following John 10:21 or 10:40. The older critical choice of switching John 5 & 6 is satisfactory. (Howard, p. 264) With John 6 rearranged to follow John 3 without intervening discourse, it blends the more neutral presentation of Nicodemus’s visit with the abrasive excerpt from the Tabernacles Discourse of John 5; 7-10.

Yes, Toto, moving the relevant posts over to The Significance of John would be a good idea. That's #189, 193, and 202 by my inspection. You are probably also considering spliting off Sheshbazzar's Clifford Principle accusations. I see that as #190, 191,192, 196,197,198,199, 200, and 201 thus far. I might make some personal remarks about The Ethics of Belief myself. Does it stay in BC&H?

Diogenes the Cynic

This is pretty wildly ad hoc, especially since Jesus is very unlikely to have known Greek. Occam's razor simply points to a Greek composition.

What evidence do have, by the way, that the character of "Nicodemus" is actually the author of the Gospel of John, or that "Nicodemus" historically existed at all?

Also, do you disagree with the scholarly consensus that GJohn is a layered work, with accretions from multiple authors over time? Do you believe it's the work of a single author?

If so, why does that author believe that Christians were expelled from synagogues during the life of Jesus?

Adam

Your Occam's Razor would apply if we knew John was written in the 2nd Century outside Palestine as 19th Century critics believed, but might cut the other way with more recent thought that it could have come from before 70 A.D. in Jerusalem.I'd prefer to hold off on this question until Toto gets posts here that got into Gospel Eyewitnesses. My post currently #202 (that I'm expecting will be about #15 here) over there gives the answer, but #189, 193, and 195 are relevant.I absolutely agree that there were multiple authors. I wrote this paper to explore how this knowledge can finally be applied to state authors and dates.As I said, "Not so." In any case, there is less and less agreement that there was any specific Jewish council at any specific date that first cast Jesus's followers out of synagogues. Acts of the Apostles tells us that worse things were happening informally quite early. John 9:22 is not from the earliest written strata.

Adam

My post #15 referred Diogenes (his #14) to the third in my series of 1988 posts, which comes in here now as #13, not #15. My #13 contrasts Nicoedemus's new Christian with the antagonism he showed in my Post #2.
Thank you, Toto.

Solo

So, IIUC, if the pun does not work in Aramaic then Jesus and Nicodemus actually acted out the pun privately in Greek while the Aramaic speakers in the room were apparently busy with other things. When Nicodemus wrote down what took place that night he wrote that part in Greek because he knew that if he were to translate the exchange into Aramaic, the pun would be lost.

The problem with this kind of retrofitting of a theory is that it ends up protesting too much. Were the discourses by Jesus in Greek or were they in Aramaic ? You cannot claim that John's discourses were written up originally in Aramaic and when it is pointed out to you that this does not work for a part of text, you say, 'well that part was written up in Greek'. One reason is that if Nicodemus switched to Greek in talking to Jesus in the presence of Aramaic speakers, it would have to be specifically because he knew he was going to get an ambivalent answer that would not make sense in the default language of discourse. And that is just not credible.

Incidentally, John's text says nothing about anyone being in the presence of Jesus when Nicodemus came calling or that the conversation took place in a room. These appear to be elements of a confabulated scenario.


So, eg. when Jesus reveals to the Jews what appears Mark's gospel's central pun (derived from Paul's 1 Cr 6:19) in 2:19-2:21, he would be delivering it in Greek, right ?

Thanks for the reference, Adam. For clarity, the referenced page does not say that Mark was a "direct translation" from Aramaic; it says the text he relied on was.

Best,
Jiri

Sheshbazzar

Something seems to have gotten lost here.
I posed Adam with a very serious question. One omitted in the thread split that has a strong bearing upon his proceeding argument.
To wit;
Again Adam.
Adam. Do you really and truly believe that there really was a 'voice from heaven glorifying Jebus..' saying;
"I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."
The people therefore, that stood by, and heard, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him." (John 12:28-29) ?

This is a significant question in this context, as your further arguments concerning your Nicodemus figure are based upon some alleged change in the Nicodemus' views which you are evidently attempting to posit came about via means of the reality of this particular supernatural event having actually taken place just as it is reported in John 12:28-29.

It must be established with all certainty what your personal beliefs are with regards to the actuality of this alleged miraculous voice from heaven, to assess the credibility of your further arguments vis. Nicodemus's' alleged 'changing perspective'.
As your rationale as presented seems to hinge upon this miraculous voice from heaven being the impetus behind this alleged 'changing perspective'.

Adam

Thanks, Sheshbazzar,
For giving me the context of the question I had deliberately ignored, in accordance with my introduction to my two OP. I also tend to ignore arguments against me of the "it's impossible" type. I don't believe anything is impossible--even all the wildest imagined worlds of science-fiction could be possible if God provides for such somewhere.
In the context of Nicodemus, he would presumably have been evaluating Jesus's sayings and coming to an understanding and approval of them. Miracles in earlier chapters (5 and 9) had not won him over. With an increasing predisposition to believe, he would have been inclined to record the voice from heaven in John 12. He would not have suddenly switched to believing in Jesus. Teeple does not think John 12:27-34 came from G, anyway.
I willingly answer relevant questions Yes, I am a Christian believer.

Sheshbazzar

And we are to understand that you claim this 'voice from heaven' really occurred, and that those that stood by plainly heard it?
And on the basis of -your religious beliefs- WE are expected to accept and to follow your totally imaginary speculations about the thoughts, convictions, and actions of Nicodemus?

Sorry dude, but this is an Atheist and Skeptics website, and a Forum in which to critically discuss the contents of actual Biblical texts, not a bully pulpit to preach your personal versions of non-existent texts, and other present day fantasized christian horse-shit.

Get a clue. We do not believe in you magic sky-daddy, Zombie god, or accept that any of your beloved lying 'miracles' ever occurred.

If you attempt to go forward with such horse-shit excuses and explanations in this Forum, or continue to employ them as a basis of your speculations and reasonings, expect to be resisted at every instance.
You might choose to ignore me. But you can be damn well certain that I will not be ignoring you.
You write horse-shit here and I'll continue to call it what it is.
Nicodemus could not have recorded any voice from heaven, as there never was any such voice.