The earliest physical evidence is dated by the most recent paleographical analysis as being between 125-175 (P52) (though it’s definitely a copy and far from home and on a codex instead of a scroll)and John may be alluded to, quoted or know known by several early 2nd century authors (maybe Papias, Ignatius and Basilides). It’s not named John specifically until the late second century in surviving evidence.
Based on external attestation and physical manuscript evidence (less helpful given the 50 year range), John dates anywhere from 30-110CE. To narrow it down further, many think Peter is already dead by the ending, and the text had layers (a second ending). So we are left with internal arguments. Most would appeal to the expulsion from the synagogue in the mid 80s.
While one does not have to accept the critical consensus, it is entirely reasonable. It is difficult to Though John has a very good knowledge of pre-70 Judaism and the Geography of Jerusalem.
I said based on those two things (1 physical copies/paleography/manuscript evidence, 2 external attestation). The third component of dating an ancient work is due to internal analysis. Before we get into literary analysis, there is nothing strange about dating John to 90CE. It fits well within the external parameters. If we accept the external attestation as true (not just that John existed but that it was actually written last, we would probably add 30 years to that and go 60-110. I did not offer a final dating of John. Only a broad range based on only two criteria. It’s about finding bookends to situate the gospel in using literary analysis.
I wonder whether “arguing” over the date of authorship is helpful Biblical Criticism. (Rhetorical). For one, it is speculation laced with vague evidence and second it seem to have only negative values.
I would claim this applies to much academic criticisms and commentaries on Scripture. They are missing the point and the Nature and value of Scripture. Perhaps Scripture can only be truly “criticised” by the faithful.
Christianity is tied to believing and following Christ as the Lord, the ‘only-begotten’ (monogenes) Son of God. That is true. Yet, it does not mean that the teachings about the nature of God are always 100% correct within the Christian churches.
History teaches that there may be misunderstood interpretations and teachings (classified as ‘heresies’) about the nature of God within the church that has yet been understood as a Christian church. For example, the century-long period when Arianism ruled within the church in the Eastern Rome. It would be a strong claim to say that the church stopped being a Christian church while the political pressure (by the Emperors) turned it to teaching Arianism.
I am perhaps more cautious in setting the limits although basically, I agree.
That is incorrect. John stil has the earliest manuscript evidence (P52 or the Ruland’s fragment) but it is now routinely dated 125-175 which means it doesn’t necessarily establish a first century text. Mark (Papias) and Matthew (Ignatius—assuming the earlier majority camp) actually have much earlier external attestation (not manuscript) than John (assuming Papias doesn’t know John). All four gospels are generally dates as flllles by NT intros…
Mark 65-75
Matthew and Luke 80-100
John 90-100
These are not exact ranges and there are a lot of compelling reasons for these dates but they are by no means certain. Dating the gospels precisely outside of a large window is based on literary evidence and fraught with peril. What we do know is the brunt of the material in the synoptic tradition comes from Mark and Q, two sources written within living memory of the events. Mark is also an ancient bios and one written within living memory. The other gospels are on the cusp of living memory.
Though there are also potential reasons for dating them a bit earlier. I know two atheist scholars who have dated Mark to just after the Caligula incidents as opposed to the Roman Jewish war ca. 70.
But it is helpful to ask why the majority of trained experts have come down upon the dates they do though. Consensus is the best place to start evaluating arguments.
I’m not a stickler for exact doctrine and would probably distinguish between people and organizations. I realize we can love Jesus and not know much doctrine. My wife could care less for any of the debates or arguments. She finds all the studying I do strange. She wouldn’t’have any clue what the following mean: Marcionism, Docetism, Arianism, Pelagianism. Christianity is essentially about following Christ.
But organizations have to define themselves and have beliefs that distinguish themselves from other organizations. In today’s world we sometimes are more concerned with being seen as tolerant, inclusive and not offending someone than in common-sense truth. “Christianity” is a label like “American” is a label. A Muslim is not a Christian anymore than a Microwave is a toaster. Obviously there will be fringe groups and a line that will be difficult to draw the more we try to narrow a term held to by various groups for almost 2,000 years.
A Christian as a label needs to mean something and “follower of Christ” is the simplest. Everyone can draw their own lines or not draw them. The divinity of Christ and the Trinity is my dividing line for groups and organizations that label themselves Christian today. Your group is heretical if you deny these.
I think the Church makes a distinction between formal and material heretics. Material heresy is to have an incorrect belief based out of ignorance or a lack of understanding. Formal heresy stems from rebellion against God. I think the conditions are different as well. We also live 1700 years later than the start of the Arian controversy (which lasted a few centuries). Orthodoxy has been long settled and people back then didn’t have pocket Bibles and Arianism comes as close to Orthodox belief as you can without accepting it with Jesus being the highest and firstborn of God, supreme over everything else. In Arianism, Jesus is pre-existent and the creator of all things. Jesus is not simply another prophet or a good guy. A lot of people wouldn’t even know the difference and the language of Nicaea (that so many Christians affirm) was a direct response to Arianism.
John is an ancient bios of Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate about 30CE. Since John narrates those events John comes after 30 CE. Since there is mid second century manuscript evidence (on a codex not a scroll in, in Egypt far removed form its original location) and early 2nd century sources that either know or quote John, we can put the upper limit at 110. As I said there are three ways to date such an ancient work:
Manuscript
External Attestation
Internal contents.
Obviously John comes after the latest events it narrates. That is where internal contents come in. To narrow John down more than 30-110 you have to use literary evidence (does it know the temple was destroyed ca 70CE, does it know about the synagogue expulsion, is it dependent on Mark, do its contents show the disciples have mostly died, etc).
No one dates John near 30. I was trying to figure out why the poster considers 90 very late when it’s well within the confines of both manuscript and external attestation and fits not only the usage but accepting what external attestation says (John was written last at an old age).
This is an exercise in systematically determining an earliest and latest possible date (terminus a quo and terminus ad quem).
Once you engage in a full internal analysis you should move to earlier end of the range because imagining authors suppressing knowledge of major recent events is difficult. That is why the temple plays so heavily in dating
Yes, I’m familiar with all of that. Question: how much of John’s late dating is informed by “more developed theology”? That is regularly stated as a justification.
Some but that is irrelevant to me as I feel we should seek to steel man arguments in our quest for truth about the gospels, not dismiss critical scholarship on the basis of its weakest links.
Some Church tradition says John was last and some says it was written when he was very old.
Some think John is literarily dependent on one or more Synoptics and thus would date after them.
Some think John knows of a synagogue repulsion they date to 80s.
Is John 21:22-23 correcting a failed rumor and thus dates after it?
Does John not reference the Temple destruction or does it know about it and simply reframed Jesus as the new Temple all along?
There are very strong reasons for thinking Mark dates just after 70CE and if you accept John comes after Mark the. John comes later. Not saying this is certain but there are good arguments in Mark that don’t just say “Jesus couldn’t have predicted the destruction of the temple beforehand.”
The theology argument is the weakest argument because it doesn’t require John to 90. It’s based on a. linear development of synoptic material which is also contestable. Not to mention that Paul already calls Jesus sustainer and creator by the 50s and John only reframes what the Synoptics themselves already say.
Dating the gospels is complicated. John to 90CE is quite reasonable if not probable.
You are absolutely right in stating that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for the study of faith and science (at least from Christian perspective). When creation is viewed as fundamentally trinitarian, it is understood as being created, sustained, and ordered by the Triune God, which matches well with verses like Colossians 1:15-17. Good Trinitarian theology understands the created order as a network of relationships instead of just a mere object created by some deistic god that now observes his creation from the “attic.” Here are some points you could takeaway from this:
There is no competition between scientific and theological explanations for various phenomena. Instead of debating whether something is a result of natural processes or something God did, we can understand God as working through natural processes. Trinitarian theology wards off problems caused by deism!
Humans aren’t the center of the universe- Christ is! Because all things are created through him and for him, how we treat creation carries spiritual weight. Humanities’ relationship to creation should be seen as special and carries more responsibility, but that does not mean that we should dominate creation.
The Trinity makes way for the Incarnation. We see the Son becoming human from the Father and through the Spirit. This means all three persons of the Godhead were involved in creation’s story of beginning, fall, and redemption. Therefore, we should be cautious of some atheists who make philosophical inferences about creation’s value from scientific observations. It also means that we should take evidence from creation seriously as part of natural revelation.
Although this was not an in-depth biblical defense of the Trinity (I might have to do a lot more research to do that), I hope that I have shown some of the ways the Trinity helps us make sense of the relationship between faith and science and why a mere deistic god is not enough. Let me know if you have any questions, and if you’re still curious I would recommend the book Christ and the Created Order, which can be found in the recommended books section of the BioLogos website.
As I write in my book Cosmic Franciscans: Duns Scotus , Bonaventure and an Evolving World. Colin David Hull (available from Amazon), Trinitarian thinking also includes “Kenotic” thinking , the Humility of God in using natural processes as the means of creating and sustaining life, as others like John Polkinghorne have also written.
Yeah, this is not a hill I’m ready to die on, I just find the “later date” arguments unconvincing.
John is the clearest and most specific about pre-70 Jerusalem geography.
John does less with “Temple destruction” than the Synoptics.
The developed theology argument falls apart in light of Bauckham (see above), Paul’s quite early “well-developed theology,” and Qumran documents demonstrating the same kind of “darkness/light” themes dated probably pre-70.
As for John 21, it seems clear (to me) that this was an add-on to the text, and I have no problem seeing that quite late-dated.
Ok, that makes sense. I got the impression from the way you phrased it that some-one had actually proposed 30CE as a possible date for John, not just that John could not have been written earlier than 30CE.
I don’t think 90CE would be a very late date for John. It may even be a bit early.
Yes, the Oliver discourse is missing but it’s conceivable the emphasis on Jesus as the new temple is reframing after the temple had been destroyed.
I agree this is the weakest argument.
The two strongest would be the synagogue expulsion and dependence on the Synoptics if you agree with that. Also external church tradition.
Per the critical scholarly guild, it is neither early nor late but within the standard consensus range.
Why would you say it’s possibly early? The external attestation caps it at 110 and the tendency is to move to the earlier range when all is said and done.
There have been recent arguments for a pre-70 dating of John. A repeat of Robinson, Wallace, Bernier (et al) but G.H. van Kooten advanced the discussion by settling the grammar objection to the pool still standing with appeal to classicists.
“An Archimedean Point for Dating the Gospels: The Pre-66 CE Dating of John, Luke’s Use of John among his ‘Polloi’ (93/94–130 CE), and the Implications for Mark’s and Matthew’s Place within this Chronological Framework”, Novum Testamentum 67.3 (2025) 310–331.
“The Pre-70 CE Dating of the Gospel of John: ‘There is (ἔστιν) in Jerusalem … a pool … which has five porticoes’ (5.2)”, New Testament Studies 71.1 (2025) 29–55.
I’ve a right to say things, haven’t I? Even odd things - haven’t I? Though I can’t claim to be a great expert on ANE dates, I’m as good at the next man at research (and possibly great)
Upon reviewing the situation, and consulting several general reference sites, including one with great reputation for self-correcting errors until all is right…
I find the dates most commonly provided are 90AD to 100AD at most and though I know I cannot boast of any depth of expertise my mathematic mindset sees… that 90 is the bottom of the range.
Could it be then? Possibly. Later than then? Probably.
Though it’s possible 90AD is the actual date, it’s more likely that John’s gospel dates from two to four years lat-er…
I was only asking for the arguments or reasoning you have heard that makes you think 90 might be a bit early.
Ah, so you just meant 90 is the earlier end of the 90-100 range. I have no disagreement. I just wouldn’t call 90 an early date of John. Conservatives call it late. I call it standard because it’s in the majority range. I don’t think most scholars think 90 is an exact date if they say John dates to 90. Most would say around. I thought you meant 90 itself was early and the text was probably significantly later (like second century). Ten years doesn’t mean much here. All of these dates are educated guesstimates and working hypothesis. Experts disagree and the “consensus” is nothing like the consensus on climate change, evolution or the age of the earth. For the date of most of the gospels I wouldn’t even call it a true consensus. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth, that he was crucified, and Markan priority are actual consensus positions. The dates of the gospels are hotly disputed by a plethora of heterogenous scholars. I think majority position would be better but people like to use provocative language because it sells books and if you repeat something enough times we start adopting the language.
As an example, a ton of scholars of different backgrounds date Luke-Acts significantly earlier (before Paul’s death) or later (well into the second century) than the majority position (around 80-100). And both camps often will critique the middle position as being one of convenience that handles the evidence in the least plausible fashion. The earlier range is also not filled with only conservative scholars though they make up the brunt of it.
Remember, this is not a hard science, it’s not like chemistry, physics or biology. It’s informed scholars studying textually reconstructed literary evidence and making arguments off what they think it means, how it came to be, etc. There is a large degree of subjective interpretation here that you won’t find in the hard sciences proper.
But there were “Christians” who were worshipping Christ before scholars pinned down the Trinity. So, although we can say now that is the case. It was not always so.