I intended this next argument to be about the Synoptic Gospels as a whole. The problem is that we have covered most of these arguments already, so there is little to be gained by repeating them.

By the way, “synoptic” means “seen together.” So why is John’s Gospel not a “synoptic” gospel, why is it not compared to the other three? I think we will find that John used the other three Gospels, not to “copy” from, but to avoid telling the same stories that the others told. In other words, we are going to see some major differences in the arguments involving John.

We’ll start again with Adolf Harnack’s book, THE DATE OF ACTS AND SYNOPTIC GOSPELS from 1911. While his focus is obviously not John’s Gospel, he does make one point about John.

“It is well known that ὁ μονογενὴς υῖός [o monogenis yios; Google: “the only begotten son”; yios or huios, #G5207, means son or child; monogenis is from monogenes, #G3439, means one and only, unique] gradually became a technical term for our Lord in the primitive Church (see, for example, the Apostles’ Creed). The title is only beginning its history in St John who is the only writer of the New Testament to use it (St John i. 14,18; iii. 16,18). 

¹⁴And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth…¹⁸No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.     (John 1:14,18; NASB)

¹⁶”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life…¹⁸The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.     (John 3:16,18; NASB)

“In place of ὁ μονογενὴς [o monogenis] St Paul has in one passage (Rom. viii. 32) ὁ ἴδιος υῖός [o idios yios; Google: the same son; idios, #G2398, means one’s own, private]; and the only other passage in the New Testament where this rare designation is found is Acts xx. 28…

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?     (Romans 8:32; NASB)

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.      (Acts 20:28; NASB)

“This antique ὁ ἴδιος [o idios, one’s own], which practically coincides with ὁ ἀγαπητός  [o agapitos; Google: the beloved; #G27, dearly loved one], and like ὁ παῖς [o pais, #G3816, a personal servant or slave, “with a possible indication of a close relationship”] is of Messianic significance, soon fell out of use.”

The point of this is to show an example of language used by John that was different than what was used in the rest of the New Testament. This helps to set John apart from the other Gospels in terms of date of writing; it could suggest a later date for John.

The next source we will look at is one frequently quoted by later writers: REDATING THE NEW TESTAMENT by John Arthur Thomas Robinson, published in 1976.

Robinson starts off the chapter on John by pointing out that the Greek of the Gospel/Epistles is vastly different from the Greek of Revelation. Of course, he never once considers that all of these pieces were originally written in Hebrew and translated by different people. He says:

“…common authorship of the Apocalypse and the gospel cannot credibly be argued on the interval of time needed for John to master the Greek language.

“The Greek of the Apocalypse is not that of a beginner whose grammar and vocabulary might improve and mature into those of the evangelist. It is the pidgin Greek of someone who appears to know exactly what he is about with his strange instrument and whose cast of mind and vocabulary is conspicuously different from, and more colorful than, that of the correct, simple but rather flat style of the gospel and the epistles…”

He uses this to suggest that the authors are not the same, despite their similarities in other ways.

At least he states that “the gospel is clearly the determinative document: the evidence to be derived from the epistles has to be brought in to test any hypothesis framed for the gospel rather than vice versa.”

Robinson then reviews the Early Church Fathers stories about John, which are contradictory at best and strictly mythical at least.

He reports the discovery of a papyrus fragment in Egypt (P52) of John’s Gospel from the second century, and uses it as an upper limit in dating the Gospel. He doesn’t give any real details about this fragment, so let’s look at this in some depth.

[from uasvbible.org/2021/12/13/the-earliest-fragment-of-the-new-testament-an-exhaustive-examination-of-papyrus-p52/] P52 is also known as the Rylands Library Papyrus or St. John’s Fragment; it’s considered the earliest fragment of the New Testament. It’s quite small, measuring 3.5” by 2.5”and contains portions of John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other. It’s been dated to c.110-150 AD using paleography: the study of ancient handwriting. It was comparable to writings from 94-150 AD.

The fragment was bought “on the Egyptian antiquities market in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell, a renowned archaeologist and papyrologist.” It wasn’t identified as a portion of John’s Gospel until it was examined in 1934. It’s currently housed in Manchester, England at the John Rylands University Library.

The fragment is from a “codex,” what we would call a book, and not a scroll (more common at the time). It was written in Greek by someone trying to make it look like it was written by a scribe, but who really wasn’t one, though the writing is clear and legible.

On one side it says:

The Jews, “For us it is not permitted to kill anyone,” so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to die. Entered therefore again into the Praetorium Pilate and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Thou art king of the Jews?”    
(John 18:31-33)

And on the other side:

A King I am. For this I have been born and (for this) I have come into the world so that I would testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears of me my voice.” Said to him Pilate, “What is truth?” and this having said, again he went out unto the Jews and said to them, “I find not one fault in him.”     (John 18:37-38)

Here’s how we read these passages today:

³¹So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” ³²This happened so that the word of Jesus which He said, indicating what kind of death He was going to die, would be fulfilled. ³³Therefore Pilate entered the Praetorium again, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “You are the King of the Jews?”     (John 18:31-33; NASB)

³⁷Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.” ³⁸Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And after saying this, he came out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no grounds at all for charges in His case.     (John 18:37,38; NASB)

This fragment is very interesting, but it tells us little about the dating of the Gospel of John. If we accept that the Apostle John, himself, wrote this Gospel, then the “upper limit” is the death of John, not the fragment date. If we don’t accept that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel, then what are we doing but denying the point of the Bible?

Our next source is THE ORIGINS OF JOHN’S GOSPEL, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 2016; more specifically we are looking at Chapter 2: THE DATE OF JOHN’S GOSPEL AND ITS ORIGINS, written by Stanley E. Porter.

Porter begins by pointing out that the proposed dates for John’s Gospel range from the late 50s to ~170 AD, probably the largest span for any New Testament book. He then lays out the problem:

“…the dates proposed for John’s Gospel—indeed, very similarly to those proposed for virtually every other book in the New Testament—arrange themselves into three rough groupings: early, middle, and late dates. This might at first glance appear as if each of these dates has had an equal and viable history regarding the date of John’s Gospel. This is certainly not the case. Instead, as John A.T. Robinson states, “The story of the dating of the fourth gospel in modern scholarship is an extraordinarily simple one,” in which one date, the middle one of roughly AD 90, has been predominant. However, having said that, the history of the development of the three different views regarding the date of composition is far from straightforward.”

Porter first looks at the “middle” date of ~90 AD. He identifies this as the “patristic view,” as this is the date most of the Church Fathers seemed to prefer. I’m going to avoid the arguments at this time though, we will be looking at their arguments separately. Porter goes on to  describe the middle date as the “traditional view,” even after more modern ideas began to prevail. This view continued until the early nineteenth century, per Porter, until “radical critics” decided that the book was written well into the second century, based on the Christology of the book. Of course, moving it out to 160-170 AD means that it had little to do with John the Apostle or any eyewitness. It also means that the Gospel has no historical significance. As this point of view developed, the date range extended to 100-170 AD, but the sometimes earlier dates didn’t change the idea that someone later in time wrote the Gospel, or that the Gospel was not historically significant.

Apparently the middle (from the patristic) and late (from the nineteenth century) dates were the more popular choices. However, Johann David Michaelis (who we’ve seen in our Revelation studies) came up with an early date, ~70 AD, in the 18th century. John A. T. Robinson, and others, developed this into a pre-70 AD theory. While not a wildly popular view, it has some interesting points.  One is that in John 5:2, the present tense-form of the verb ‘to be’ “indicates that the pool of Bethesda is still in existence.”

Now in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Gate, there is a pool which in Hebrew is called Bethesda, having five porticoes.     (John 5:2; NASB)

This pool was apparently destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, meaning that it was lost until rediscovered through archaeology in the 1960’s. It was actually two pools, one feeding the other, very close to the Temple.

Those who argue for the earlier date, “enter into discussion regarding the relationship of John’s Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels, as they would be contemporary documents according to most forms of this view.” These writers also argue “for apostolic eyewitness authorship.” Porter is clear here, though, that those who argue for an early date are in the minority. 

Porter next looks at the implications of a second-century date for John’s Gospel:

“…It is not just that the view of the date of John’s Gospel is radically altered by this changed dating scenario. The entire reconstruction of the origins of John’s Gospel is also affected, as is its relationship to the other Gospels (and perhaps even the overall origins of early Christianity). According to the late date, John’s Gospel is the product of later thought about the events and developments of earliest Christianity. This means that it was assuredly not written by John the son of Zebedee, or probably any other eyewitness for that matter. At best, it was the product of second-generation reflection upon the Gospel events—if not a later rendition by those only contingently linked to the events, if at all. In some instances…John’s Gospel originates after virtually all of the major important developments of early Christianity (historical, theological, ethnic, etc.). This includes being written after the entire Pauline movement, beginning with the original (four) letters of Paul and the developments of later Paulinism. This would mean that John’s Gospel would be written after the developments of catholic Christianity (i.e., institutionalization), the formulation of high Pauline theology, the rise of Gnosticism, and the reconciliation of Hellenistic and Jewish Christianity in the composition of the book of Acts, among other things. In other words, it is no wonder that Clement calls John’s Gospel a ‘spiritual Gospel,’ according to this viewpoint, as it certainly cannot be called a historical one or one even on the same level of reportage as the Synoptic Gospels. Instead, John’s Gospel would reflect a situation in which the church has already long departed from the synagogue…has previously engaged in clear opposition to Judaism (as seen perhaps in reference to ‘the Jews’), has come instead under the influence of what is now a thriving Gnosticism (seen in a variety of ways, including Johannine dualism), has a robust Christology…and has been fully institutionalized and pacified with respect to the Hellenistic and Jewish elements (seen perhaps in its ‘realized eschatology’), among many other implications. Even if not all of those who adopt a late date argue for all of the implications of origins as outlined above, the seeds are planted for such a conclusion, and in fact we see just this sort of result in much thought regarding John’s Gospel in later interpreters influenced by the late date.”

Porter goes on to look at how the removing of the possibility of a second-century date affects the views of those who were its proponents. Interestingly, he sees them not changing their views at all, but just moving all their ideas up into the first century. 

“…for many Johannine scholars who follow the late date tradition, even if they are compelled to accept an earlier date, one closer to the middle date, this does not mean that they revise their estimation of a number of these issues. For example, many of them retain their view of the second- or subsequent-generation composition of John’s Gospel by someone other than an eyewitness. There is also the tendency to discover that the influence of various groups once thought to be second-century heretical groups, such as Gnosticism, is already present within the late first century—now on the basis of the evidence of John’s Gospel. There is also the tendency to find institutionalized Christianity within an earlier context, such as the realized eschatology of John’s Gospel. The external evidence, however, has not changed, but only the range of dates available, and hence one’s view of John’s Gospel.”

The next few paragraphs are spent in trying to make sense (unsuccessfully) of how the “late-daters” could continue to read the Gospel of John in such a radical way. Put simply: they dated John’s Gospel in the second century based on their radical reading of it, but now that the second-century date is no longer possible, they are rearranging everything else historically to match their radical reading. Occam’s razor would tell you to give up the radical reading of John’s Gospel.

Porter then looks at the idea that John’s Gospel could have been written first, and how that turns everything else on its head. There are scholars who insist that some, or all, of the Synoptic Gospels were written in the second century (~130-140 AD), which would put them quite a bit later than the 80-100 AD dating of John. He concludes with: 

“What I am trying to point out here is that the date of John’s Gospel has implications both for the origin of John’s Gospel and for the origin of the Gospels as a whole, and along with it the entire reconstruction of earliest Christianity. The result is that with the fall of the late date for the composition of John’s Gospel, there is probably a consequent effect of eliminating the late date for the composition of the Synoptic Gospels as well—even if this juxtaposition is often not talked about in New Testament studies.”

Next, Porter looks at the 80-100 AD dating more closely, and who believes in it. He points out that it is a compromise date for those who really want to date the Gospel as being from the second century, but now can’t do that thanks to archaeology. He further states that it’s a compromise date as well for those who say that tradition has John’s Gospel written after the Synoptics, which are “thought to date to anywhere from around AD 60-80 or so.” 

Porter states flat out that “there is no necessary reason for this date, according to their examination of the issues, apart from the fact that the discovery of p52 and P.Egerton 2 makes the second-century date unviable, and so they are compelled to accept it as the latest date that appears to be available…There is nothing necessarily about John’s Gospel itself—apart possibly from the so-called exclusion from the synagogue…that would require this date.” We’ll get to that issue shortly.

There are “a number of related factors” used to back up the 80-100 AD date range. Porter presents a few of these factors:

1. The “developmental hypothesis.” This is the idea that John’s Gospel seems to have a “more developed Christology, a more ‘spiritual’ or theological sense to it.” It’s thought that some of the ideas presented “could only be accounted for on the basis of later developments.”

Porter notes that “the developmental hypothesis results in characterization of John’s Gospel as less firmly related to the precipitating events in the life of Jesus and more attuned to later developments within early Christianity.” This pulls the Gospel to a post-70, or later, date.

Porter also states: “There is arguably little in John’s Gospel—not even the prologue may be excepted—that is not commensurate with what is indicated elsewhere of the nature of Jesus.” I heartily agree with this. I think that the Gospel of John is so loved because it is obvious that John saw Jesus so much more clearly than did the other Gospel writers. Perhaps this was the reason that he was known as the “beloved Apostle.”

2. The “supposed issue of the banishment from the synagogue.” There were, apparently, disputes in the synagogue of the late first century that led to the banishments of “heretics.” These heretics are thought by some to be Christians. There are references in John that appear to show this development:

His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already reached the decision that if anyone confessed Him to be the Christ, he was to be excommunicated from the synagogue.     (John 9:22; NASB)

Nevertheless many, even of the rulers, believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, so that they would not be excommunicated from the synagogue     (John 12:42; NASB)

They will ban you from the synagogue, yet an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering a service to God.  
  (John 16:2; NASB)

Porter makes the case that the writing that bans the heretics from the synagogue (the birkat ha-minim) does not single out the Christians. The banishment is against those who failed to observe the required behaviors. He suggests that there “appears to be a convenient juxtaposition of a convenient date with a possible convenient pretext.” 

We’ll be seeing this argument again.

3. The “supposed anti-Judaism of John’s Gospel.” This is based mainly on the use of the term “the Jews” when describing those of the Jewish faith who opposed Jesus. This view tends to distance Jesus from His Jewishness, as well as that of the Apostles.

By highlighting the tensions between the Jews and the followers of Christ, in both #2 and #3, Porter points out that the scholars are trying to bring the issues of the second century down into the first. I have to agree with this. First of all, the above quotes are all from the time of Jesus’ ministry, not later. To agree with the mid-date scholars is to say that John’s Gospel was basically faked. Secondly, who in their right mind would think that the problems of the second century appeared out of nowhere? The roots of the issues would necessarily be in the first century, and even in Jesus’ ministry itself.

Porter speaks of other writers who point out that “the Jews” most likely referred to “the Jewish leaders” rather than to all the Jews; that the Gospel is “anti-Jewish establishment” rather than “anti-Jewish.” He also makes a point of John’s Gospel not being “pro-Gentile,” and thus not “anti-Jewish.”

Porter examines the patristic evidence, stating that “the only clear result is that John wrote with knowledge of the Synoptics and after they were written,” in Ephesus. He notes that the patristic evidence has John writing “at an advanced age,” but it’s not specifically stated that John was writing his Gospel in his “advanced age.”

The next topic is the early date; the pre-70 date; possibly the late 50’s date. Porter says that “surprisingly few scholarly writings” argue for this date, though some popular writings do. He claims that John A. T. Robinson put forth the idea that “the early patristic evidence is not decisive for the dating of John’s Gospel, that the supposed high Christology is no higher and not significantly different from that found within other early writings of the New Testament such as Paul’s letters, that the Gospel is neither pro-Gentile nor anti-Jewish, but only anti-Jewish establishment similar to the evidence found at Qumran in its opposition to the temple establishment, and that it is not the Christians who are being excluded from the synagogue in the birkat ha-minim.” 

Robinson’s main argument for an early date is John 5:2 that we looked at earlier: the present tense used for the pool of Bethsaida (or Bethesda). But, Porter points out that this is not a strong enough argument by itself. Robinson goes on to look for “common ground” between John’s Gospel and Paul’s letters, to show that the “high Christology” of John’s Gospel is within normal limits for the 50s. According to Porter, Robinson concludes that the chronology is: the body of John’s Gospel was written first (John 1:18-20:31); then Paul’s epistles, and then the prologue and chapter 21 of John’s Gospel as they are the most problematic in terms of “high Christology.” Robinson sees the “second edition” of John’s Gospel as written ~65-70 AD, “separated from the first edition by only ten years.”

Porter continues:

“Nevertheless, there are implications for the origins of the Gospels for this position. The implications are surprisingly many and not inconsiderable. They include a complete rewriting of the development of early Christianity, so as to accept that all that is presented in John’s Gospel is plausible within the context of early Christianity up to AD 70. In other words, one must accept—even if one brackets out the prologue, as Robinson does (though he does not delay its writing by a huge temporal gap)—that John’s Gospel depicts a Jesus who had a highly sophisticated and developed theology, and who had developed such a theology in explicit ways. This is seen in his depiction of Jesus’ use of a variety of apparently self-conscious metaphors of personal identity (“I am the …”), a sense of theological awareness regarding his ambient Jewish theology (e.g. statements regarding his relationship to Abraham; John 8:58), 

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”      (John 8:58; NASB)

“and a sense of his own larger destiny (e.g. in his words to his disciples in John 14–17 and to Pilate in John 18–19), among others. 

¹”Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. ²In My Father’s house are many rooms; if that were not so, I would have told you, because I am going there to prepare a place for you…⁶Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me…¹⁴If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it…¹⁶I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, so that He may be with you forever…¹⁹After a little while, the world no longer is going to see Me; because I live, you also will live…²⁹And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.    
(John 14:1,2,6,14,16,19,29; NASB)

³⁶Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” ³⁷Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.”     (John 18:36,37; NASB)

“Even if one questions Jesus’ own identity, the early date mandates that the author of the Gospel—and at such an early date one can easily posit a close associate, probably an eyewitness—envisioned Jesus in this way (including the prologue, with its high Christology). This is despite the fact that Jesus has a much more muted presence in the contemporary (or later?) Synoptic Gospels. Differences between John’s and the Synoptic Gospels have no doubt been overdrawn, but at the least the Synoptics are more restrained about such things. There is the further implication that, insofar as estimations of developments of gnostic thought, etc. are to be found as present in John’s Gospel, the early date requires that they all be phenomena found within the world of early Christianity before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.”

Porter’s conclusion is basically that, while the middle and late dates have too many problems, the early date needs more thought and study.

For myself, I never believed the late dates, and had leaned towards the middle dates. Porter has convinced me, however, that the early dates are more realistic. To me, the early dates for John go along with my proposition that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and now John, were independently writing their own remembrances and understandings, mostly in the 40’s-50’s. I still think John had some idea what the others were writing about (and that could have been access to just Matthew’s Gospel) so that he decided to bring in some different memories. It could also have been that John listened to the teachings of the other Apostles before he wrote his Gospel.

As for needing to change our ideas of how early Christianity was, I say: bring it on. When you see John as an early Gospel, you start to see that Jesus was explaining so much about Himself to the Apostles that they were just not understanding…except for John. This would be why John was the “beloved disciple.” It becomes clearer why a few of the Pharisees actually believed Jesus, and probably saw Him like John did. John’s Gospel becomes HUGE when you think of it this way.

We’ll continue on with John’s Gospel next time.