How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Student]

[Replying to Korah]Korah, I’m at a loss to find the posts in which you claim to rebuff my rebuttals of your first two eye-witnesses. All I can discover are those where you accept that you have no evidence, but assert that your opinions are the “more probable�. That is of course just another unfounded assertion.

Perhaps we might discover something more concrete when we examine your third “eye-witness�, Nicodemus.

And here is yet a third eyewitness who wrote about Jesus in the Gospel of John…………………………………………………………………

If we look for clues within the text itself, we find (apart from the Prologue) that high theology begins in John 3, the night visit to Nicodemus. Did Nicodemus record this? Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive………………………………………………………………

Nicodemus is the third identifiable eyewitness.

You will note that I have omitted large sections of your post in which you refer to considerations of style. I do this simply because you fail to elaborate what these supposed stylistic distinctions might be, making it impossible to test your conclusions as to which passages we should, or should not attribute to your third eye-witness.

The nomination of Nicodemus as your third eye-witness rests largely upon your remark: “The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this�. Obviously Nicodemus must have been a real person, who was actually an eye-witness responsible for writing sections of John because no fictional character ever changes over time! What a revelation.

So, by your judgement, Hippothous, in Xenophon’s “An Ephesian Tale� must have been a real person, because his attitude changes over time.

Likewise Ebenezer Scrooge. His attitude changed over time so by your assessment he must also have been a real person, and not a fictional character invented by Dickens!

What you fail to recognise is that the dynamic character, i.e. a character who changes over time, usually as a result of resolving a central conflict or facing a major crisis, has been a common literary device, from the obscure to the ubiquitous, throughout history. The more extreme the transformation, the greater the dramatic effect.

If Nicodemus was indeed a real person, and an eye-witness to boot, why, in contrast with a number of the apocryphal gospels, was he, and his testimony, apparently ignored by the Synoptic evangelists?

Consequently I see no reason to consider Nicodemus as having any greater claim to reality than Scrooge. And if Nicodemus is a purely fictional character, a literary creation, how then should we judge his alleged eye-witness testimony, or the reality of the Johannine version Jesus with whom Nicodemus supposedly converses?

[ben76]

[Replying to post 1 by Zelduck]

Divine Insight has made several good points. Once upon a time I came to the conclusion that there must be a God. That if indeed their was a God he would have left hints of his truth. That furthermore his truth should by now at least in part be reflected in our world.

So in reflection nearly 55% of the population believes in a variation of the same thing. By using reasoning like the best lies usually have some truth I sorted through them. Sorting through them Jesus seemed to me to be well worth following. That if such a man/God existed he would be well worth following. In fact it was from his wisdom I cancelled out Mohammed. That by their fruits you would know them.

If God exists wouldn't he have revealed himself to more than one man? That cancels out most religions right there.

Then to the question of which books are right? Wouldn't God have given us enough information to attain salvation or find him? The fundamentals are simple; its the theology of everything else that gets complicated. I myself am of the mind that the bible is speaking literally with his message although sometimes metaphorically with the context. If God was writing something it has to transcend time because he says his word will endure forever and accomplish what he wants it to. Hence things like how he describes the creation of the world in ways that not only work for people that then thought the world was flat but could still be used metaphorically thousands of years later with the same idea being it was him that created it.

Then you have things go through your mind like hell is unjust, stories like Noah's ark are insane. Jesus the son is loving and the Father likes to nuke people.

As I studied further I started coming to different conclusions. How can I believe in creationism and resurrection without believing in miracles or the ultimate power of God? Anything the bible says no matter how insane it seems could be true. How can I judge God or the actions he takes from my limited perspective and intelligence? The people that surrounded the Jewish nations and that lost their land to them were detestable. Anyone that God kills could still be in the framework of justice. A child would go to heaven, a saint would go to heaven, anyone not foreknown would obey would be punished. That the whole was to discipline us. That just because I don't understand something doesn't immediately make it wrong. That if we are eternal putting significance on this life is like reviewing one night in a hotel as the sum of existence. That if it was always easy there would be no such thing as faith and the whole idea of an in-between would be null. If you look at it from that perspective God's motives and intentions seem different.

The only other route to a different option to me would be when you got to the point of there is a God to follow the alternative that he must just like to create things and see how they turn out; who knows what happens after.

[Student]

Moving on Korah, let’s examine your fourth eyewitness:

I have already explained in that long second paragraph in Post #2 ("Yet little else...") how the Passion Narrative in John got expanded into the Ur-Marcus found still in many of the passages where Mark overlaps Luke. Aware that the early state of John had placed Signs Source in front of the Passion Narrative and incorporated Nicodemus’s Discourses, all set primarily in Jerusalem, next John Mark sought to write a gospel set primarily in Galilee and adding events in the middle of Jesus’s ministry instead of just the earliest and latest. To do this he got biographical information from Peter and used Matthew’s Q. The date of 44 AD for this seems early, and sets the 1st edition of John as even earlier. In that process the eyewitness testimony of Peter came in. Up to this point we already have four eyewitnesses, John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, and Peter. The verses attributable to Peter(including verses in Mark 14 and 15 already written by John Mark) are these [ur-Marcus]:
1:16-28,x. 2:18-3:5,xv. 5:1-43,lx. 8:27-9:13,xlv. 9:30-31,v. 9:38-42,v. 10:13-34,x. 10:46-52, v. 11:27-33,vi. 12:18-23,iii. 12:35-13:17,xv. 13:28-31,v. ,14: 28-42,xx. 14:48-52,v. 62-72;xv. 15:3-27,xxx., 33-40,xii. and continuing in Luke 24:1-3,iv.,11-12,v; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17. (The Roman numerals represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony.)
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
In Addition I suggest that the rest of the verses in Acts 1:6-12:25 and perhaps up to 15:35 be considered additional testimony by John Mark. As the primary Petrine sections conclude at Acts 12:17, it is most likely that all this eyewitness testimony of Peter (as well as the earlier eyewitness testimony of John Mark in John 18-20 as initially stated) was written down in 44 A. D.
Note that these are the verses specified in my article, “Underlying Sources of the Gospels�, less the verses therein from John Mark or Andrew as seen initially above. However, I have added in Mark 14:62-72 as from Peter (or John Mark) even though in my article I followed my stylistic rules and listed it as from Q. (I’ll make an exception now by pleading that the word-use in Mark and Luke is dissimilar only because John Mark and Peter were both involved here, but as eyewitnesses from slightly different vantage points.)
Note [by studying the verses above] that what I call Petrine Ur-Marcus excludes not only that Marcan material not found in Luke, but also anything that I say derives from Q [shown in Post #5 also called here the"Twelve Source"]. It is distinguished from the latter by its style in which frequent consecutive words are exact in both Mark and Luke. This came about because Luke copied Petrine Ur-Marcus in Greek into the already existing Proto-Luke. (Peter is the fourth identifiable eyewitness.)
Edited to add: For additional support read the first six short paragraph in the first of my four articles at that same website as above.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common

I have, I think, included all of the relevant content of your post #82 regarding your fourth eye-witness, “Peter�. I have done this simply to illustrate the paucity of any argumentation, and/or substance in support of your assertions.

For example, you state: “In that process the eyewitness testimony of Peter came in.� You fail to describe what this “process� is, or explain exactly how Peter’s testimony “came in� to it.

You then go on to list a number of verses that you claim should be attributed to Peter, including some which you claim, were already written by John-Mark! Why they should be attributed to Peter, especially those already written by John-Mark, you omit to say.

You claim that you “found details in those passages that could indicate eyewitness testimony�. What exactly these details are, you omit to mention. However you do explain that the Roman numerals you associate with each reference “represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony�. Once more you fail to mention exactly what these details might be so it impossible to verify what you claim.

N.b. the links to the external website are broken.

You then proceed to list a number of verses in Acts which you say should be attributed to John-Mark. Why they should be attributed to John-Mark, or why they should now be included in a discussion about Peter, you omit to mention.

Next you refer to an article “Underlying Sources of the Gospels� but fail to provide any links to that article so, short of clairvoyance, we have no idea what it contains. Apparently in this article you mention that you follow certain stylistic rules and why, in it [the article] you originally attributed Mark 14:62-72 to Q. However, you now attribute these verses to Peter. I wonder what exactly are the stylistic rules you follow and why the change of heart?

As for your concluding sentences, once more comprehension eludes me. I can only echo the sentiments of Disraeli, when he said of a parliamentary opponent, “He is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

[Korah]

[Replying to Korah] Korah...of course just another unfounded assertion.

Surely this forum deserves better than anything less than a syllogistic proof being labeled an "unfounded assertion". Is that an Ignostic ploy, an ironic absolutism in what passes itself off as relativism?

Perhaps we might discover something more concrete when we examine your third “eye-witness�, Nicodemus.

And here is yet a third eyewitness who wrote about Jesus in the Gospel of John…………………………………………………………………
If we look for clues within the text itself, we find (apart from the Prologue) that high theology begins in John 3, the night visit to Nicodemus. Did Nicodemus record this? Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive………………………………………………………………

Nicodemus is the third identifiable eyewitness.

You will note that I have omitted large sections of your post in which you refer to considerations of style. I do this simply because you fail to elaborate what these supposed stylistic distinctions might be, making it impossible to test your conclusions as to which passages we should, or should not attribute to your third eye-witness.

This is disingenuous when you acknowledge that you have gotten Howard Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John and have seen how detailed is his study which it would take me a hundred pages to introduce. I notice you failed to quote the one criticism of Teeple that has stuck throughout the years, the small difference between
G and E. I had written:
"Robert Kysar did not see G and Teeple's later “E� Editor as distinct. I take a middle position, that the E material does contain much that is from an Editor, but much of it is best merged with G. I see the dividing line as between whatever can be regarded as Discourse, basically G plus the other teachings, and narrative that is contained wholly within E."

The nomination of Nicodemus as your third eye-witness rests largely upon your remark: “The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this�. Obviously Nicodemus must have been a real person, who was actually an eye-witness responsible for writing sections of John because no fictional character ever changes over time! What a revelation.

Correction: the above is my icing on the cake, evidence that whoever wrote this wrote it in the course of a long period of time listening to Jesus. Note that the person Nicodemus is never said to change--only the nature of what I identify as what he wrote changes. Thus it's not a plot device. Would you have us believe that the author intended for us to believe that Jesus changed (from uncertain to antagonistic to benevolent)? My naming of Nicodemus is mostly due to his name occurring in three key places. That's a lot for a follower of Jesus other than the Twelve Apostles. Why would you expect him to be named in the Synoptics, where not even any of the Seventy-Two in Luke are necessarily named? Why would you expect what he wrote to be used in the Synoptics when most of it extracted only what could be presented against Jesus at his trial?
And that addresses the remainder of what you wrote, however cleverly you put it--it just doesn't hold up.

[Korah]

Moving on Korah, let�s examine your fourth eyewitness:

I have already explained in that long second paragraph in Post #2 ("Yet little else...") how the Passion Narrative in John got expanded into the Ur-Marcus found still in many of the passages where Mark overlaps Luke. Aware that the early state of John had placed Signs Source in front of the Passion Narrative and incorporated Nicodemus�s Discourses, all set primarily in Jerusalem, next John Mark sought to write a gospel set primarily in Galilee and adding events in the middle of Jesus�s ministry instead of just the earliest and latest. To do this he got biographical information from Peter and used Matthew�s Q. The date of 44 AD for this seems early, and sets the 1st edition of John as even earlier. In that process the eyewitness testimony of Peter came in. Up to this point we already have four eyewitnesses, John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, and Peter. The verses attributable to Peter(including verses in Mark 14 and 15 already written by John Mark) are these [ur-Marcus]:
1:21-28,x. 2:18-3:5,xv. 5:1-43,lx. 8:27-9:13,xlv. 9:30-31,v. 9:38-42,v. 10:13-34,x. 10:46-52, v. 11:27-33,vi. 12:18-23,iii. 12:35-13:17,xv. 13:26-31,v. ,14:1-8, 28-42,xx. 14:48-54,v. 62-72;xv. 15:16-24, x., 33-42,xii. [with some changes in the preceding verse numbers] and continuing in Luke 24:1-3,iv.,11-12,v; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17. (The Roman numerals represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony.)
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
In Addition I suggest that the rest of the verses in Acts 1:6-12:25 and perhaps up to 15:35 be considered additional testimony by John Mark. As the primary Petrine sections conclude at Acts 12:17, it is most likely that all this eyewitness testimony of Peter (as well as the earlier eyewitness testimony of John Mark in John 18-20 as initially stated) was written down in 44 A. D.
Note that these are the verses specified in my article, �Underlying Sources of the Gospels�, less the verses therein from John Mark or Andrew as seen initially above. However, I have added in Mark 14:62-72 as from Peter (or John Mark) even though in my article I followed my stylistic rules and listed it as from Q. (I�ll make an exception now by pleading that the word-use in Mark and Luke is dissimilar only because John Mark and Peter were both involved here, but as eyewitnesses from slightly different vantage points.)
Note [by studying the verses above] that what I call Petrine Ur-Marcus excludes not only that Marcan material not found in Luke, but also anything that I say derives from Q [shown in Post #5 also called here the"Twelve Source"]. It is distinguished from the latter by its style in which frequent consecutive words are exact in both Mark and Luke. This came about because Luke copied Petrine Ur-Marcus in Greek into the already existing Proto-Luke. (Peter is the fourth identifiable eyewitness.)
Edited to add: For additional support read the first six short paragraph in the first of my four articles at that same website as above.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common

I have, I think, included all of the relevant content of your post #82 regarding your fourth eye-witness, �Peter�. I have done this simply to illustrate the paucity of any argumentation, and/or substance in support of your assertions.

Let me enter in here the aforesaid six paragraphs now inaccessible due to the broken link" (some of which I would alter slightly due to the intervening decade). This is of course from my article, "The Underlying Sources of the Gospels":

"The four Gospels and Acts can be shown by simple common sense to be very early in date. Putting aside a priori theology that Christ is God on the one hand, or on the other hand historical method that proceeds as if supernatural events cannot happen, let�s see what the texts themselves show.

"The proper starting point is the Gospel of Luke and its continuation, The Acts of the Apostles. In the second half of the latter, the author at times slips into �we� (or �us� or �our�) sayings that indicate he was with Paul of Tarsus during the latter�s missionary journeys. These three passages are Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18, and 27:1-28:16. At the conclusion of these, Paul is still alive and in Rome, which can be dated by reference to Paul�s epistles in the New Testament to be about 64 A.D. The most sensible date for the Gospel of Luke and its complementary Acts is thus 64 A.D. The author (presumably Luke) could have written this much later in his life, but it would by common sense analysis still be early.

"The Lucan author employed sources, as he himself tells us in Luke 1:1-4. These would necessarily have been earlier. At least one source bears some connection to the apostle Peter, whose name appears frequently in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of Acts. The mention in Acts 15:7-11 occurs in the context of Acts chapters 13 to 28 that focus on Paul, so the source connected with Peter seems to end at Acts 12:19. The death of King Herod Agrippa I (12:23) sets the date at 44 A.D. This likely sets the date of the writing of the source and also establishes the likely author, as this is when Peter �went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark.�[Acts 12:12 Church tradition also supports this logic, that Peter�s scribe was Mark, and critical scholarship calls this source �Ur-Marcus.� It would have been as well titled �Ur-Lucas� to acknowledge that it underlies not just the Gospel of Mark, not just the Gospel of Luke, but also the Acts also written by the writer of Luke.

"The earliest version of this Ur-Marcus was evidently written in Aramaic and included at least the Passion Narrative and the Feeding of the 5,000, as these are recounted in all four of the canonical Gospels. The composition of the Fourth Gospel, John, seems best regarded as having been rotated in composition among a team of the apostles, making an early date sensible for it as well.

"Peter (after Jesus, of course) is the focus of the Ur-Marcus Aramaic draft, but his name is primary in many other passages of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as well. Verbal identities in the Greek among these passages between the Gospels of Mark and Luke establish that this second (?) draft should be called Greek Ur-Marcus. This stage of the collaboration between the men Peter and Mark would thus be most likely not long after 44 A.D."

For example, you state: �In that process the eyewitness testimony of Peter came in.� You fail to describe what this �process� is, or explain exactly how Peter�s testimony �came in� to it.

You then go on to list a number of verses that you claim should be attributed to Peter, including some which you claim, were already written by John-Mark! Why they should be attributed to Peter, especially those already written by John-Mark, you omit to say.

As shown in the interposed six paragraphs, Acts 12 shows the close tie between Peter and John Mark. Naturally John Mark would have available what he had already written. More scholars would acknowledge that the Passion Narrative comes from Peter, not John Mark, anyway.

You claim that you �found details in those passages that could indicate eyewitness testimony�. What exactly these details are, you omit to mention. However you do explain that the Roman numerals you associate with each reference �represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony�. Once more you fail to mention exactly what these details might be so it impossible to verify what you claim.

Obviously I was giving my subjective estimate.

N.b. the links to the external website are broken.

Sorry, that only happened recently and may be temporary. In any case much of my stuff is duplicated (as I entered above) at

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #4 and all my other posts in that thread are relevant to other eyewitnesses.

You then proceed to list a number of verses in Acts which you say should be attributed to John-Mark. Why they should be attributed to John-Mark, or why they should now be included in a discussion about Peter, you omit to mention.

Next you refer to an article �Underlying Sources of the Gospels� but fail to provide any links to that article so, short of clairvoyance, we have no idea what it contains. Apparently in this article you mention that you follow certain stylistic rules and why, in it [the article] you originally attributed Mark 14:62-72 to Q. However, you now attribute these verses to Peter. I wonder what exactly are the stylistic rules you follow and why the change of heart?

See the new paragraphs I entered above within quotation marks. Note also that we don't hear more in Acts about Peter or John Mark after each is mentioned in Acts 15. In contrast the gospels and Acts through Acts 12 is about (other than Jesus) mostly Peter, whose story gets written up after he arrives at John Mark's house at Acts 12:12 in 44 AD. As for style, I prefer to use its objectivity, but sometimes a common sense subjectivity should intervene--with full disclosure.

As for your concluding sentences, once more comprehension eludes me. I can only echo the sentiments of Disraeli, when he said of a parliamentary opponent, �He is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

Actually, based on my Post #160 about Steve Mason and "the gospel", I've taken the opportunity to update that ending, as here from Christian Forums (I can't edit my DC&R posts):
"Note [by studying the verses above] that what I call Petrine Ur-Marcus excludes not only that Marcan material not found in Luke, but also anything that I say derives from Q1 [shown in Post #5 also called here the"Twelve Source"]. It is distinguished from the latter by its style in which frequent consecutive words are exact in both Mark and Luke. This came about because Luke got this part of the shared material already in Greek. (Peter is the fourth identifiable eyewitness.)"
To which I have now boldly entered Q2 now as from Peter, even though not in Mark at all, instead of from some later disciple from Qumran:

"Furthermore, these identities in Greek between Matthew and Luke distinguish from Q1 these verses as Q2, presumably from Peter (who is named at Luke 12:41): Lk. 3:7-9, 16-17,; 6:24-26, 36-42, 7:18-23, 9:57-10:3; 10:12-15, 17-24; 11:1-4; 12:2-7; 12:26-31, 39-46; 13:34-35; 17:1-2. These passages are disproportionately about John the Baptist and apocalypticism. That there is so much about John the Baptist does not fit with Matthew the Apostle, but does fit with Peter as the brother of Andrew, a known disciple of John the Baptist (John 1:40)."

[historia]

You've made this claim repeatedly in this thread. What you have yet to do, however, is provide any evidence to support these assertions. I'll ask you for a second time now: Have you actually read the scholarly literature on Q? Can you tell us, then, which authors and works establish your claim that this is a "purely religious device to achieve a purely religious end"? If you are unwilling or unable to cite specific works to establish this claim, the rest of us have no reason to accept these assertions as anything other than empty rhetoric.

As I have thoroughly established the existence of the "Q" document is completely hypothetical. No such document exists today, no such document has ever been KNOWN to exist, and no such document can be shown to have ever existed historically. It's existence was imagined out of thin air around about 1900 to satisfy an entirely doctrinaire religious dispute within the Christian system of belief.

So, in other words, you are incapable of citing any evidence to show that Q is a "purely religious device to achieve a purely religious end."

The mere fact it is a hypothetical document does not establish this. It never has. If you have not read the scholarly literature on Q and can cite no authors or books to establish your claims, your rant here is nothing more than empty rhetoric and a violation of the rules of this forum, which require you to support your assertions with evidence.

And this IS how Christianity works. This is how Christianity HAS ALWAYS WORKED! Assumptions built on elaborately constructed assumptions, which are in turn built on even more elaborately constructed assumptions.

Except that when "Christianity" produces scholars who conclude that Mark was the first gospel written or that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but rather is a composite of (hypothetical!) documents, you readily accept those conclusions.

You call Q "wish fulfillment" only because it is inconvenient to your anti-Christian beliefs. Which makes your assertions here no better than the Christian beliefs you decry.

[Student]

[Replying to Korah]

I think Korah, that you of all people are in no position to accuse me of being disingenuous.

You deliberately set out to distort what I write by selectively quoting from my posts. For example:

[Replying to Korah] Korah...of course just another unfounded assertion.

Surely this forum deserves better than anything less than a syllogistic proof being labeled an "unfounded assertion". Is that an Ignostic ploy, an ironic absolutism in what passes itself off as relativism?

Compare this with what I actually wrote:

[Replying to Korah]Korah, I’m at a loss to find the posts in which you claim to rebuff my rebuttals of your first two eye-witnesses. All I can discover are those where you accept that you have no evidence, but assert that your opinions are the “more probable�. That is of course just another unfounded assertion.

The difference in meaning is immediately apparent. I was specifically referring to your assertion, that your opinion is “more probable�. Where is your “syllogistic proof� of this? If this is not yet another unsubstantiated assertion, I don’t know what is.

What is perhaps worse than selective citation, is where you assert one thing in one post and then subsequently deny that you ever made such an assertion when your position becomes untenable. For example, here is what you originally wrote about Nicodemus in post #45:

Focusing now on the Discourses, where did they come from? The Discourses contain the Johannine Theology that has typically been considered as written down by John (or someone later) in his old age. As shown above, this is not necessarily the case. If we look for clues within the text itself, we find (apart from the Prologue) that high theology begins in John 3, the night visit to Nicodemus. Did Nicodemus record this? Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive.

[my added emphasis.]

Compare this with what you now write:

Correction: the above is my icing on the cake, evidence that whoever wrote this wrote it in the course of a long period of time listening to Jesus. Note that the person Nicodemus is never said to change--only the nature of what I identify as what he wrote changes. Thus it's not a plot device.

[my added emphasis]

So when you said of Nicodemus, that he "obviously become a Christian" and [Nicodemus’] "marked change in attitude toward Jesus", he is " never said to change". Which is it? It cannot be both. If Nicodemus is never said to change, then he could never have become a Christian. If Nicodemus’ attitude towards Jesus doesn’t change, how can you claim that “later chapters reveal more and more favour towards what Jesus had to say�?

Is it any wonder that you have failed to attract any discernable support for your thesis?

[Student]

[Replying to Korah]Returning to your accusation, that I have been disingenuous.
I stated that:

You will note that I have omitted large sections of your post in which you refer to considerations of style. I do this simply because you fail to elaborate what these supposed stylistic distinctions might be, making it impossible to test your conclusions as to which passages we should, or should not attribute to your third eye-witness.

In reply, you wrote:

This is disingenuous when you acknowledge that you have gotten Howard Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John and have seen how detailed is his study which it would take me a hundred pages to introduce. I notice you failed to quote the one criticism of Teeple that has stuck throughout the years, the small difference between
G and E. I had written:
"Robert Kysar did not see G and Teeple's later “E� Editor as distinct. I take a middle position, that the E material does contain much that is from an Editor, but much of it is best merged with G. I see the dividing line as between whatever can be regarded as Discourse, basically G plus the other teachings, and narrative that is contained wholly within E."

I do not believe that I have been disingenuous. I have previously acknowledged that I have recently read Teeple’s book. However, I suspect that very few others have done so, and will therefore remain in blissful ignorance of his detailed stylistic examination of John upon which you claim to rely. Your failure to elaborate therefore simply leaves the majority in the dark. I don’t see that it is reasonable or fair, to expect them to accept your conclusions, or my objections simply at our word.

Nor is it reasonable of you, to expect me to fill in the blanks for you, especially as you diverge from Teeple’s conclusions in any number of places and ways. You therefore cannot simply rely upon Teeple, with a wave of your hand, as your uncritical, authoritative support. If you want to be taken seriously, you should set out your methodology and illustrate the reasoning behind your conclusions by presenting, in detail, specific textual examples.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 307 by Student]
In response let me start by acknowledging that while I may have stated that Nicodemus changed, the Gospel of John neither presents anything as his personal testimony nor does it dramatize Nicodemus (or anyone else) as radically changing. I use the text as EVIDENCE of the change, not as stating it for effect.

Other than that, to get away from our apparent personality conflict, let me quote from what I wrote in my paper "Significance of John" in 1980. It covers many of your objections. (Both places where I had posted the entirety on the internet are now down. I plan to repost it soon at EarlyChristianWritings.)

Why would the discourses not have been included In the Synoptics, if early? (1) They might have been unknown until later. (2) They might have been in Aramaic, difficult to work with. (3) They might have been unpopular. Indeed, all three of these reasons seem likely.

(1) The discourses may have been unknown to the Synoptic writers. The only reason to think that an apostle wrote the discourses is that the Farewell Discourse is set at the Last Supper, where only apostles are stated to have been present. However, cooks, servers, and even scribes could well have been present without specific mention. Besides, some critics believe that the “beloved disciple� was not an apostle; John Mark, John the Elder, or Lazarus being suggested variously. (Cullman, p. 76-77, 117)
(2) The discourses were originally written in Aramaic, according to the Aramaic scholars. Those who flatly deny written Aramaic discourse of any type are specialists in Greek. There is obviously bias on both sides, but the evidence of Aramaisms requires special pleading to attribute merely Aramaic thought-patterns. The most respected critic on the subject, Matthew Black, finds at least some discourse to be from an Aramaic original.(Black, p. 273). It is thus arguable that all the Johannine discourses were in Aramaic, but that some were retouched into smoother Greek when integrated with surrounding narrative.
(3) All the discourses are heady, and the dialogues with the Jews are outright polemical. Every reason existed to suppress the public discourses. The Farewell Discourse may have been regarded as private instruction unsuitable for general release until later.

What reasons argue for an absolutely early date for the discourses, rather than just a relatively early date as against the narratives? The same three reasons above argue for an early date in absolute terms.
(1) The discourses would easily have remained unknown if not by an apostle. To be included later, even though not by an apostle, would likely mean that some special value became recognized in them precisely because of early date. The discourses never record apostles as involved or even present in John 14. The discourses are set largely in Jerusalem, whereas Jesus’s ministry with his apostles is shown in the Synoptics to have been in Galilee. None of the apostles were natives of Jerusalem, and all traveled widely with Jesus throughout Palestine. The discourses thus were likely written by a non-apostle, at an early enough date to be later respected.
(2) John is now largely recognized as quite Aramaic, confirming Lightfoot’s evaluation over a century ago that John is the most Hebraic of the gospels. (Temple, p. 5) The most compelling reason for the discourses alone to be the most Aramaic section would be that the writer was writing from dictation. Even a native Greek speaker would prefer to write in Aramaic if acting as scribe. There is reason to believe that a Greek speaker wrote the discourses (see next paragraph and following), which he would have written in Aramaic only as a first-hand recorder.
(3) The controversial sting of the discourses preceding John 14 is not to be expected from a Christian presenting Jesus to the world in the best light. Nor would the later recollections of an anti-Christian be acceptable for inclusion in a gospel. The thrust of the case is that the dialogues must have been written at the scene (or shortly afterwards) by a non-Christian or pre-Christian, more likely the latter. The name provided for us is Nicodemus, a Greek name.

Nicodemus as author of the Johannine discourses makes good sense. His name occurs at John 3:1; 7:50; and 19:39. He was highly educated and a leader, well qualified to understand enough of Jesus’s theology to be able to record it well. He was not a committed follower, of Jesus, thus could record mere excerpts of Jesus’s public discourses which were most discreditable to Jesus (John 5:10 to 10:38). Only in John 3 is a more balanced, yet uncomprehending discourse presented. Yet all these different manners of recording fit around the person of Nicodemus. (1) In John 3 the visit by Nicodemus was a simple inquirer. (2) As of John 7:52 Nicodemus was given a charge to prove for himself that Jesus was not a prophet. This would explain the abrasive view of Jesus which is presented in John 5 and 7 to 10:21, all of which occurred at that same feast of Tabernacles. Nicodemus there recorded only criticisms of Jesus or Jesus’s least acceptable utterances.
(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.

[EbalT5]

Evidence exists that questions if our Bible is accurate.

Here are some comments by the 4th Century Church Historian, Eusebius, who wrote "Church History."

Eusebius
The Church History Paul L. Maier (1999)
 
 
They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study “geometry� [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above. Some of them study the geometry of Euclid and revere Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some virtually worship Galen. In using the arts of unbelievers for their heresy, they corrupt the simple faith of the Scriptures and claim to have corrected them.
 
That I am not slandering them anyone will learn who compares their writings, which are in great discord, for those of Asclepiades do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their “corrected� –though really corrupted-texts. Nor do these agree with the texts of Hermophilus, while those of Apolloniades are not even consistent among themselves, earlier copies differing greatly from later ones subjected to a second corruption. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed. They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction.

We are faced with a situation where we have no way of knowing if our Bible is translated from accurate copies or from corrupted copies.