We start today with the website bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/ which says: 

“As for the date of John’s Gospel, other than a minority within the conservative camp who espouse a pre-70 CE date, virtually no one denies that John was likely composed around 95 – 105 CE. To this point Irenaeus asserts that John through his gospel wrote to ‘remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans.’ (Against Heresies iii.2).  Cerinthus was prominent around 100 CE. So, if Irenaeus is asserting that John’s Gospel was written to correct Cerinthus, then that implies John’s Gospel was composed during or after the activity of Cerinthus. Finally, the famous P52 fragment of John’s Gospel dates to around the middle of the 2nd century. Though this fragment establishes a firm terminus ante quem of ca. 150 CE for the Gospel of John, factoring in time for composition, copying, and circulation of the text suggests that John was likely written a tad earlier.”

Hmmm. An interesting point about Cerinthus…yet Wikipedia has Cerinthus active starting around 50 AD. If Cerinthus was such a bother to John, why would he wait 45 years to address it? Human nature being what it is, people would be asking “is this ok?” or saying “watch out for this!”, and/or just sharing outrage at the heresy. They wouldn’t be waiting around 40 years before sharing this information!

I’m not sure that Irenaeus is actually claiming that John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus. Here is more of the quote:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that ‘knowledge’ falsely so called, that he might confound them…” (from newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm)

I think he is claiming that John wished to refute a particular heresy, and that the Nicolaitans started it. Cerinthus was perpetuating it rather than originating it.  While I’ll admit that John may have heard what the Nicolaitans (or even the followers of Cerinthus) were saying, I’m not convinced he was actually trying to refute anything. To me, the Gospel of John shows such a deep understanding of what Jesus was teaching that it implies a spiritual welling up within John and a need to share this knowledge, rather than a need to move against someone or something. Irenaeus was the one writing “against” heresy, not John. John was shaping and defining; Irenaeus was defending, and in defending he used the ammunition that John provided to succeeding generations.

The next source https://aclayjar.net/2021/06/about-gospels/agrees with Porter. The author uses John 5:2 regarding the present tense reference to Bethesda pool to decide that John was written at least pre-70 AD.  

The most interesting quote of this source is: “The author of John is not identified by name. But John 21:24 seems to indicate that it is written by one of Jesus’ disciples, likely John who is the traditional author.” 

Here is John 21:24 with the lead up:

²⁰Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them — the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who is betraying You?” ²¹So Peter, upon seeing him, say to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” ²²Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” ²³Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” ²⁴This is the disciple who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.     (John 21:20-24; NASB)

Personally, I’m surprised and pleased that this author didn’t claim that John 21:24 was added by later scribes. I could agree that perhaps John was dictating to a scribe rather than writing, and that scribe may have added this line; but I can also see John writing this.

We will now dive into Jonathan Bernier’s book RETHINKING THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT from 2022. His first piece of evidence takes us right back to John 21:

¹⁸Truly, truly I tell you, when you were younger, you used to put on your belt and walk wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will put your belt on you, an bring you where you do not want to go.” ¹⁹Now He said this, indicating by what kind of death he would glorify God. An when He had said this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”     (John 21:18,19; NASB)

“…the chronologist must reckon with the reality that the most likely exegetical and historical scenario regarding John 21:18-19 can quite plausibly either predate or postdate Peter’s passing. Insofar as it is generally easier to know how someone died after they pass than before, there is some reason to think that John 21 was written after Peter’s death. Nevertheless, the possibility that the author(s) of John 21 could have correctly anticipated that Peter would suffer a violent death is sufficiently greater than zero that we should be wary of using Peter’s death to establish the date of John’s Gospel.”

While this is an interesting take on John 21, I agree with Bernier that it is not even close to definitive. These are the words of the risen Christ, if anyone could speak prophecy it would be Him.

Bernier’s next argument involves the Birkat Haminim, the banishment from the synagogue, that we discussed in the last post with Stanley E. Porter. As a reminder, Porter made the case that the Birkat Haminim doesn’t single out the Christians; that the banishment is against those who failed to observe the required behaviors.

Let’s look at Bernier’s take on the topic:

“The work of J. Louis Martyn [James Louis Martyn (1926-2015), Professor of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary] inaugurated a tradition within Johannine scholarship wherein it was taken as given that the Johannine expulsion passages (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) refer allegorically to the implementation of the rabbinic prayer known as the Birkat Haminim c. 85. Unfortunately for this tradition, Martyn’s empirical arguments are demonstrably false. These difficulties are crucial for our purposes because it is precisely the putative reference to the Birkat Haminim that allows Martyn to argue for dating the expulsion passages to the last decade or so of the first century.”

Bernier provides the relevant passages from John:

The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind?  How then does he now see?” His parents answered, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue (aposynagogos). Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” (John 9:18-23) [New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)]

Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue (aposynagogos). (John 12:42) [NRSV]

They will put you out of the synagogues (aposynagogos). Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. (John 16:2) [NRSV]

Bernier looks at the word aposynagogos, which he says means “something like ‘out of the synagogue.’” He is of the opinion that John coined this word because it doesn’t appear to have been used before John uses it. Because of that, comparisons can’t be made with how other authors seemed to use the word. 

“One should be slow to ground an entire theory of Johannine origins upon such relatively opaque passages. That, however, is what Martyn did, doing so by appeal to a putative [supposed] parallel in the form of the rabbinic prayer known as the Birkat Haminim, the ‘Benediction against Heretics.’”

Bernier points out that Martyn is not only basing his theory on the Birkat Haminim, but on a particular variant of it “found in the Cairo Genizah in 1898.”  The difference in this variant that appears to be of greatest interest is the use of the Hebrew word notserim. This word is connectedto the Hebrew root natsar, meaning to watch, to guard, to keep. Nazarenes (Natsarim) is a related word and seems to evoke the sense of devotion and protectiveness to core teachings(biblehub.com/who_are_the_natsarim.htm)]. Martyn takes the word notserim to actually refer to Nazarenes, which he then interprets as “Christians.” 

Bernier then quotes the Birkat Haminim variant as Martyn translates it:

“1. For the apostates, let there be no hope

2. And let the arrogant government

3. be speedily uprooted in our days

4. Let the Nazarenes (Christians) and the Minim (heretics) be destroyed in a moment

5. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous.

6. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the proud.”

Apparently, the Christians should be “destroyed” by God and “blotted out of the Book of Life” in this version, but not kicked out of the synagogue. Bernier points out that this omission means that there is little connection of John’s passages about expulsion with this Birkat Haminim.

“To connect the expulsion passages with the Birkat Haminim, Martyn relies upon a report  from the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 28b-29a) that this prayer was among the eighteen benedictions formulated by the seminal rabbinic academy, which is said to have gathered at Yavneh in the last quarter of the first century.” 

Bernier quotes again from Martyn’s text of the Birkat Haminim:

“Rabban Gamaliel said to the Sages: ‘Is there one among you who can word a benediction related to the Minim (heretics)?’ Samuel the Small arose and composed it. The next year he forgot it and tried for two or three hours to recall, and they did not remove him (from his post as Delegate of the Congregation). Why did they not remove him, seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: If a reader made a mistake in any of the other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if in the benediction of the Minim, he is removed, because we suspect him of being Min? — Samuel the Lesser is different, because he composed it. But is there fear that he might have recanted? Abaye said: We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad.”

Bernier tells us that “a quick reading of this passage suffices to demonstrate that the supposed parallels between the Johannine expulsion passages and the Birkat Haminim simply do not exist.” I agree. As Bernier says, this passage is about being removed “from the position of leading prayer on the suspicion of heresy,” not about being kicked out of the synagogue for being a Christian. As Bernier proclaims: “The absence of parallels is injurious if not fatal to a hypothesis predicated upon such parallels.” 

Another problem is that “the Birkat Haminem plausibly postdates the Gospel of John.” Bernier’s conclusion:

“Dating to perhaps the last quarter of the second century, b. Ber. 28b-29a represents the earliest unambiguous reference to the Birkat Haminim. More recent proponents of the Martynian approach often cite with approbation Joel Marcus [a recently-retired professor of the New Testament at  Duke Divinity School], who argues that the Birkat Haminim not only existed in the late first century but also had antecedents in the Second Temple period [516 BCE to 70 CE]. For present purposes, however, Marcus opens the possibility that while the expulsion passages do indeed betray knowledge of the Birkat Haminim or an antecedent thereto, this in principle could have already existed as early as Jesus’ lifetime. Thus, even if the author of John’s Gospel could have known the Birkat Haminim or its antecedents, we could not exclude a date for the Gospel as early as even 30. Given the above considerations…the supposed connection between the Birkat Haminim and the expulsion passages must be considered non probative when it comes to establishing when the Gospel of John was written.”

 As early as 30 AD? Very interesting. Many think that Matthew was taking notes throughout Jesus’ ministry; this suggests that perhaps John was as well. I have heard it said that John was well-known to the high priest; that he had been a student in the Temple. If we look at John 18 we can see that this is entirely possible:

¹⁵Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, ¹⁶but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in…¹⁹The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching.    
(John 18:15,16,19; NASB)

John always spoke of himself in the third person in his Gospel, so it’s easy to think that he was the other disciple described here. This disciple seems to be so well known by the high priest that he can get Peter into the courtyard on his word alone. Yet, the high priest does not seem to know that this young man is a follower, indeed a disciple, of Jesus.

I still think that Matthew wrote first; but John could certainly have written second. It’s possible that John’s Gospel was not disseminated as rapidly as the others were; that he even held it back for a period of time, so that it appeared to the Church Fathers that his Gospel was written later. But that is, of course, mere speculation on my part.

Bernier does a brief synopsis of a John A. T. Robinson argument regarding the lack of mention of the destruction of the Temple. It is, of course, an argument from silence, but Robinson thought that John 2:19-22 was where the mention should be if it was written after the destruction of the Temple. There are people who actually think that this passage referred to 70 AD.

¹⁹Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹But he was speaking of the temple of his body. ²²After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.     (John 2:19-22; NASB)

Personally, I think that anyone who thinks this passage refers to 70 AD isn’t a Christian. As for Robinson’s idea, this is one of a number of places where the Temple destruction could have been mentioned by John. I agree with Bernier, “John 2:19-22 should be reckoned as non probative for purposes of establishing the date of John’s Gospel.”

Bernier reports that Robinson “addresses John 4:21 only in passing.” In this passage, Jesus is speaking to the woman at the well:

Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem.  
  (John 4:21; NASB)

Bernier points out that this could hardly be referring to the destruction of the Temple without becoming a failed prophecy. Worship at Mount Gerizem by the Samaritans did not stop, nor was their place of worship destroyed.  Beyond Bernier’s argument, when read in context, this passage is clearly about Jesus introducing the idea of our bodies being the temples from which we worship: “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth…God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Bernier next addresses the use of present tense when John describes the pool at Bethesda. He notes that the present tense isn’t “an artifact of translation into English but is native to the Greek text.” He agrees that the simplest reading of this is that the pool still existed (pre-70) when John wrote. He reviews the arguments about the pool for a post-70 date, as put forth by Daniel B. Wallace [b. 1952, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary] in his paper JOHN 5:2 AND THE DATE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL:

1. “The error view.” The “author” made a mistake, perhaps not knowing if the pool was still there or not. Assuming it was still there after 70 AD would be a big assumption.
2. “The redactional view.” The Gospel was written in stages, so 5:2 was written early and not up-dated. (It’s noted that there is no real evidence that the Gospel was written in stages.)
3. “The anomalous present view.” This argues “that John uses the present tense in some unusual way.” John 5:2 is compared to Hebrews use of the present tense “when describing the sacrificial system.” First of all, comparing two different authors use of “the anomalous present” is pointless. Secondly, the chances of Hebrews having been written after 70 AD is slim to none. Thirdly, why would John use an “anomalous present” anyway?
4. “The historical present view.” This view “supposes that the author uses the present tense to refer to a place which is now just a memory [Wallace questions whether John is using an historic present, like Josephus does when referring to the temple in the present tense well after 70; he admits, however, that historical present is usually associated with action verbs and John 5:1-8 does not have action verbs in the Greek, so this interpretation is unlikely]” I’m thinking that we should question Josephus’ date of writing rather than assuming there is such a thing as an “historical present” being used. But, apparently “historical present” is a thing. Typically it’s “associated with action verbs, not with verbs of being…most historical presents occur in narrative where a specific verb of speech or action is highlighted.” This explanation makes “a historical present…unlikely.”
5. “The intact view.” This is the argument that the pool survived the destruction of the nearby Temple complex. The strongest argument for this is that Origen reports 4 of the 5 porticos still intact in his day (~230). Eusebius and Jerome, in the 300’s, knew of the pool, but that it was in ruins. It seems to me that this would be the perfect place for John to mention the destruction of the Temple, and that the pool survived. But, that’s an argument from absence, so we can just say that the most straight-forward explanation is that the Temple and pool were still intact when John wrote.

Bernier goes further on the last point, bringing in the views of Jodi Magness (b. 1956), an American archaeologist and professor of early Judaism, who speculates that John wrote post-70 AD while the pool was being used as an Asclepeion. She thinks that the practice of entering the pool when the water was being stirred by an angel was part of the worship of Asclepius. The problems with that, of course, are that Jews would not be participating in the worship of a Greek god; Greek gods didn’t use “angels”; and, per Bernier, the earliest reference to this cult speaks of it being located in “Aelia Capitolina,” which was the name given by Rome to Jerusalem in 135 AD. While Bernier’s sources think maybe the cult could have been in practice as early as 70 AD, there is no proof of that. However, the fact that the cult was using the pool sometime after 135 AD does suggest that it mostly survived the destruction of 70 AD. 

I can’t accept that John was describing a practice of the cult of Asclepius without identifying it as such. Also, the fact that the pool may have survived the destruction of 70 AD is not enough to assume that John was not writing when the pool was still being used by the Jews as part of the Temple complex. I admit that it slightly weakens the proof that John was writing pre-70 AD, but not entirely. As Bernier concludes: “…the narrator’s description of the pool of Bethesda as a present reality in John 5:2 is more fully intelligible before 70 than after.”

Bernier brings up an argument from “the first half of the twentieth century,” namely that Gnosticism predated Christianity and that John’s Gospel was influenced by it. Why this would mean that John’s Gospel had a late date is anyone’s guess. This argument has been made moot by the discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hammadi; as Bernier points out: “…we now know more fully the extent to which ‘Gnostic’ writers were themselves dependent upon the Gospel of John.” Thanks to these discoveries, scholars now see Christian Gnosticism “as a largely second-century development.”

Bernier now goes back to the concept of “high Christology.” John’s Gospel expresses high Christology, in other words, he describes Jesus as God incarnate. So, the question is, how early was high Christology expressed? 

There are those who argue that high Christology was expressed right at the beginning. 

“Such scholars hold that divine Christology was an almost immediate response to the ministry of Jesus and the experience of the first Easter. The primary arguments for such “early high Christology” is that Paul takes for granted that Jesus is to be accorded many of the honors and titles normally reserved for the God of Israel. Three passages in particular have become the focus of attention in these discussions:

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.     (1 Cor. 8:6)  [New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)]

“For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.     (2 Cor. 8:9)  [NRSV]

“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.     (Phil. 2:5-11)”  [NRSV]

It’s pointed out that these passages “reflect two key christological convictions.” Firstly, that Jesus came from God and that we must look to God for the meaning of His coming; making His “appearance an event of transcendent significance.” Secondly, that Jesus’ purpose “in creation” was redemption.

If we rely on Paul as the first high Christology source, then in looking to Corinthians and Philippians, we are seeing a date of late 50s to early 60s.

The scholars who advocate for a late high Christology are saying that there is “general movement from low to high Christology throughout the first and second Christian generations.” They see John’s Gospel as the highest high Christology…higher than Paul.

Bernier concludes that this evidence doesn’t rule out a pre-70 date for John’s Gospel. But, Bernier thinks that John shouldn’t be dated before Paul’s passages from Corinthians and Philippians, so not before 60 AD. I disagree with his conclusions. I don’t think that John was building on Paul’s ideas at all. As I said earlier, I think John was understanding what Jesus was saying far better than any of the other Apostles, and that is what he wrote, and that is why he was the “beloved” Apostle.

The website evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels/ tells us what time frame several well-known commentators deduced for John:  D. A. Carson — 80-85 AD is his preference, though he also stated that anything from 55 AD to 95 AD is possible; J. Ramsey Michaels — 50-100 AD; Leon Morris —  50s or 60s AD.

We’ll end our look at John’s Gospel here. I really felt like my horizons expanded with this information. Next time we’ll be looking at the order of the Gospels. We’ve seen some of the arguments already on this topic, but I suspect we have more to see.