Reconsidering the Date of John’s Gospel by Thomas L. Stegall Introduction The date when the Gospel of John was written is normally considered to be of little theological consequence or concern to most Christians. However, this subject merits a fresh survey of the evidence in order to address the lingering theories of liberal critical scholarship in addition to the recent claims of some Free Grace evangelicals that John is the only evangelistic book in the Bible and that it was written extremely early in church history.1 In addition, if a second century date is permitted for the composition of John in its final form as claimed by some critical, non-evangelical scholars,2 then the historical reliability and divine authority of the book is automatically impugned. Conversely, on the opposite end of the spectrum, if a timeframe as early as the 30s-45 A.D. is accepted for the completion of John, it may lend support to the view that this book has theological-evangelistic priority and preeminence within the New Testament canon. This article will therefore reinvestigate the question of John’s date by first reviewing the rationale of critical, unbelieving scholarship for a very late date that extends into the second century. The bulk of the article will then weigh the evidence for the two main views held by current New Testament scholarship— the more popular later-date view of the 80s-90s and the less common pre-70 view. This will be followed by an assessment of the extremely early 30s-45 view. A reexamination of the evidence demonstrates that a reasonable range of dates may be maintained anywhere from the 60s-90s, with the weight of the evidence tipping slightly in favor of a pre-70 date. But there are many insurmountable obstacles accompanying a date of composition as early as the 30s-45 A.D. or as late as the early second century. While Scripture nowhere provides a specific “born-on” date for John’s Gospel, or even explicit statements about its order of completion in relation to the rest of the New Testament canon, enough implicit biblical and historical evidence exists to conclude that both the 30s-40s and second century extremes lie outside the bounds of credibility. Before proceeding, three matters require clarification. Johannine Priority First, the terms “priority” and “precedence” need proper definition. When these terms are used in this article, they refer either to the theological priority of John’s Gospel over other New Testament books, or to John’s chronological priority to other New Testament books, or sometimes to both. The phrase, “the priority of John,” has taken on a near technical status since the publication of John A. T. Robinson’s book by the same title. There, he defends an early, pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of John’s Gospel—a date regarded to be decades prior to the timeframe traditionally attributed to John by conventional scholarly opinion. Thus, Robinson uses the term “priority” with a chronological, rather than a theological, 1 Robert N. Wilkin states, “I take the view that John’s Gospel was written in 45, before 1 Corinthians, and I think the first book was James in 34 and then I think John was 45” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007). Elsewhere, Wilkin writes that “the Gospel of John was written at least ten years after Jesus rose from the dead and it says that the way Jesus evangelized is still effective today” (Bob Wilkin, “Scavenger Hunt Salvation without a List,” Grace in Focus 23 [May/June 2008]: 4). John Niemelä, on the other hand, views A.D. 45 as possibly too late for the completion of John’s Gospel, seeing “no reason why it couldn’t have been written in the 30s” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007). 2 Barrett sees A.D. 90 as the earliest possible date (terminus post quem) and A.D. 140 as the latest (terminus ante quem), asserting that “none of the attempts to shift either date is successful” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978], 127-28). Bultmann held to a date range from A.D. 80-120 for the entire process of redaction leading to the final, completed form of John’s Gospel (Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971], 12). Similarly, Haenchen implies that the redactional process did not cease until sometime in the early second century (Ernst Haenchen, John 1, Hermeneia, trans. Robert W. Funk [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 6-7, 75). And though Van der Watt permits a possible completion date as low as the 70s, he extends the latest possible completion date up to A.D. 125 (Jan van der Watt, An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters [London: T & T Clark, 2007] 123). emphasis. However, with recent claims being made that John’s Gospel alone possesses an evangelistic purpose, the phrase “Johannine priority” is sometimes used in this article to indicate a theological- evangelistic preeminence for John, in addition to its chronological priority. Context will determine which sense is intended. Apostolic Authorship Second, the question of authorship naturally coincides with the date of composition for the Gospel of John. This article will assume, rather than attempt to prove, that John the apostle and son of Zebedee was the human author of the fourth Gospel.3 Critical, unbelieving scholarship generally regards John to have had little or no oversight of the Gospel’s final composition. It maintains instead that the book evolved as it progressed through several “stages,”4 thus revealing several “layers” or “strata” of varying ages,5 since it was redacted by the Johannine “community”6 that was two to three generations removed from John himself.7 However, this evolutionary theory of the fourth Gospel’s composition is built on multiple presuppositions rather than verifiable evidence. Current source and redaction criticism of John has become a highly speculative enterprise to say the least. Such speculations will not be addressed here since conservative scholarship has already demonstrated convincingly that apostolic authorship of the fourth 3 While many critical scholars prefer the label “fourth Gospel” over the traditional title, “Gospel of John,” because they do not believe that the apostle John wrote this book, no such implication is intended here. Instead, the phrase “fourth Gospel” is used as an alternative expression because (1) it reflects my own conviction that John wrote his Gospel chronologically after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and (2) it reflects the traditional canonical order of the New Testament. I recognize that John’s Gospel has not always stood fourth throughout the manuscript history, since Codex Washingtonianus, for example, has the order of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992] 56). But this is atypical; John is normally fourth. 4 Ashton represents an extreme example, seeing eight such stages in the development of John’s Gospel. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 163-66. Brown, on the other hand, originally held to five stages (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, 2 vols. [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-1970], 1:xxiv-xxxviii) but later condensed these to three (idem, An Introduction to the Gospel of John [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2003], 40-89). See also, Robert T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 10-81; Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), 1:59-74; Stephen S. Smalley, “Keeping up with Recent Studies: XII. St. John’s Gospel,” Expository Times 97 (1986): 102-8; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989). 5 Van der Watt, An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters, 93-121. 6 See especially, Barnabas Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1971); J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979). 7 For internal evidence establishing the unity of the fourth Gospel and its single authorship by the apostle John rather than an evolving communal composition, see Vern S. Poythress, “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions,” Westminster Theological Journal 46 (Fall 1984): 350-69; idem, “The Use of the Intersentence Conjunctions De, Oun, Kai, and Asyndeton in the Gospel of John,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 312-40. Gospel is not only plausible and reasonable but is the most favorable conclusion based on internal and external evidence.8 Order of Composition A third introductory issue requiring clarification is that of order. The matter of date for the Gospel of John must be properly distinguished from that of its order of composition relative to other New Testament books. Even if John could be dated very early, this would not necessarily make it the first book of the New Testament to be written. Thus, some who hold to a view of Johannine priority concede that at least one book was written before John’s Gospel, namely the Epistle of James in A.D. 34.9 However, the subject of John’s date cannot be entirely divorced from the question of order relative to the other New Testament books.