Dating johns gospel


  1. Dating the New Testament - John
  2. Dating the New Testament
  3. John 5:2 and the Date of John’s Gospel: A Response to Dan Wallace
  4. Navigation menu

Early church tradition is unanimous in ascribing the fourth gospel to John 1.

Dating the New Testament - John

John was either cited or named as authentic during the first four centuries by the following 2 a. Clement of Rome c. Clement of Alexandria c. The Muratorian Fragment c. The Latin Marcionite Prologue c. Cyril of Jerusalem c. The information from within the Gospel itself supports the universal tradition of the early church fathers who assigned the work to the Apostle John: The author was a Jew: He understood and quoted from the OT He knew and understood Jewish customs: He knew and understood the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah 1: He perceived the religious differences between the Jew and the Samaritan 4: The author was a Jew from Palestine: He knew the pool of Bethesda had five porches 5: He knew that Bethany was only fifteen furlongs away from Jerusalem He knew that Ephraim was near the wilderness He knew that there was a paved area outside of the praetorium He knew about the sacred mountain of Samaritan worship 4: He was aware of Galilee 1: The author was an eye-witness of what happened a.

He does not state his name, but there are traces of his own hand in the Gospel b. He knew the number of pots used at the wedding at Cana 2: He knew the value of the anointing perfume He was at the crucifixion The author was an Apostle, probably John: This conclusion is arrived at through external and internal considerations B.

Dating the New Testament

Allows for a date between 1. Extant manuscripts argue for around the turn of the century: AD offer significant sections of John c.

Dating, Courtship, and Marriage - Paul Washer

This suggests a date for John to be at least around the turn of the century 2. Therefore, if John is the author of the Gospel, then a date between seems to be possible C. This was, and continues to be, my point. Rather than there being a lack of evidence, it appears, the issue rather seems to be that you do not accept the evidence I have already provided. For my part, I continue to believe that the prima facie reading of John To my mind, at least, Dan, you have therefore not established the implausibility of a past-referring use of a present tense form of eimi in John 5: What is more, I am currently working on a major Johannine theology and hope to explore some of these issues in greater depth in this forthcoming volume.

Once again, thank you for honoring me with this thoughtful response. This is a general comment: Instead of thinking John is completly independent of the Synoptics, I think John assumes knowledge of the Synotics on the part of his readers who I think are both Jewish and Gentile in audience.

John 5:2 and the Date of John’s Gospel: A Response to Dan Wallace

Andreas, thanks for your kind remarks. But you also mention something that I would take issue with: I am NOT convinced of the rightness of my view; I am convinced by clear, unambiguous data. As evidence of this, anyone who knows me knows that I change my views all the time—far more often than some are comfortable with.

  1. Gospel of John.
  2. An Introduction To The Gospel Of John |;
  3. can you hook up with your ex.

You even admit that the case you make is possible, but not required by the data. Dating John late in the 2nd Century has ceased being in vogue partly due to the implications, mentioned earlier, of significant archaeological discoveries. An earlier date for John has not been without advocacy, the most catalysing of which arrived via J.

Navigation menu

An early date of AD, just prior to the zenith of the Jewish-Roman Wars, would be my personal conclusion, though AD is not an inappropriate suggestion. The question is not mutually exclusive from the varying theories of authorship and date, but we shall attempt to approach the issue independently.

There is nothing explicit in the text itself, though the patristic testimony nominates Ephesus via Irenaeus quoted earlier and Eusebius. This logic is curbed somewhat if concessions are made to John being an evolving literary composition, with the final touches administered by later Johannine redactors.

My problem with the Israel provenance theorem is that masterful authors, of whom John is the archetypal example, do not necessarily require present geographic affinity in order to recall with vividness and accuracy the narratives of their homeland. Observing the lack of a credible alternative, it is difficult to overlook Ephesus as the location of provenance.

As a young convert with fairly limited Bible acumen, my response was naively to retrieve my New Testament and request that he read John Subsequent to this, he humbly replied that perhaps his stance was not as watertight as formerly presumed. The Recent Growth of Johannine Studies.