Nicodemus in the Jesus traditions and in rabbinic traditions

Here’s where we have fun with things:  we go into the text and separate the Judean parts from the Greco-Roman bits.  It’s easier than you think.  Why?  Because the Greco-Roman bits generally refer to something we found in Philo, and the Judean bits refer either to something that comprises an intertextual conversation or to something that has a viable historical context as it relates to the Judean canon or to probably event in the bar Cochba revolt.

Let’s start with one of my favorites (and a big fave of the traditional, fundy community, but not for the same reasons):  John 3:1-16 is the pericope usually identified as “the conversation with Nicodemus.”  Properly speaking, it ends at 3:15, and 3:16 is that verse so well-loved by fundies: God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.

In other words, if you pay attention when you read the “conversation with Nicodemus” you note that the conversation doesn’t end.    The “God so loved the world…” is from Philo.

In the conversation, “Jesus”  tells Nicodemus that unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God.  He also says what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit.

More Philo.

“Jesus” concludes saying “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up.

The “son of man” reference is meant to indicate that this is an intertextual conversation between the “Jesus” narrative and the prophets.  Except that the intertextual conversation is actually between Exekiel and Philo.

And then the text segues into “God so loved the world…” which is pure Philo.

We find Nicodemus appears again in 7:50, when the “officers” are trying to find out if “Jesus” has done anything for which he could be punished.  Nicodemus says “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” He seems to have been converted to “Jesus’” teaching.

Finally, in 19:39, we see Nicodemus again.  Burying Jesus.  Nicodemus goes to the body with “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds,” and he and Joseph of Arimathea “bound the body in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.”

If the text was written for a Judean audience, it would not be necessary to note that the burial was in accordance with the customs of the Jews.  From this, we can infer that the text was not written for a Judean audience.

What can we deduce historically from this?  Nothing at all.

We find references to Nakdimon ben Gurion in rabbinic literature.  He is mentioned in one version of a tannaitic story (Sifre Deut. 305) concerning Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, as the aristocratic and wealthy father of a young woman reduced to abject poverty and humiliation in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. Like many figures mentioned in passing in the early tannaitic sources, the later talmudic and post-talmudic aggadah transmits many elaborate legends concerning his life and the dramatic events in which he reportedly took part. According to Bavli Gittin 56a, he was one of three celebrated wealthy men of Jerusalem during the last years of the Second Temple. Like his affluent associates Ben Ẓiẓit ha-Kassat and Ben Kalba Savu'a, Nakdimon studied under the rabbis and was highly regarded by Rabbi Johanan b. Zakkai. 

Legendary accounts are given of Nakdimon’s wealth and philanthropy. On his daily journey to the house of study (the texts of that period often confuse the house of study with the Temple), he had the whole way covered with woolen carpets which he left lying there for the poor to take (Bavli Ketubot 66b). Other accounts speak of his daughter's excessive use of cosmetics (ibid.) and his daughter-in-law's expenditure on her kitchen (Bavli Ketubot 65a). He was also regarded as a wonder-worker. During a water shortage he borrowed 12 cisterns filled with water from a wealthy Roman official on condition that by a certain day he would either return the cisterns full of water or pay 12 silver talents. On the evening of the last day of the appointed time, in answer to his prayers, rain fell and filled the cisterns. When the Roman objected that the sun had already set and the appointed time had passed, Nakdimon caused the sun to shine by means of his prayer (Bavli Ta'anit 19b).

During the siege of Jerusalem, he and his two associates promised to supply the city for 21 years with all necessary provisions. The Zealots, however, burned all the provisions so that need would induce the people to fight against the Romans (Bavli Gittin 56a). With the fall of Jerusalem, Nakdimon lost all his wealth, and Johanan b. Zakkai met his daughter (Miriam; Lamentations Rabbah 1:16) picking out barley corns from cattle dung (Bavli Ketubot 66b; Lamentations Rabbah 1:16.). According to a talmudic tradition his proper name was not Nakdimon but Boni (Bavli Ta'anit 20a).

What can we infer historically from this?  Nothing at all.  It would seem that the constructor of the Jesus narrative had access to the same legendary materials about Nakdimon ben Gurion as the constructors of the rabbinic traditions did.  The “Jesus” narrative pits legendary Judean philosopher/wonder-worker against up-and-coming philosopher/wonder-worker in a literary show-down.