An earlier date for the Gospel of John

[Christian2]

http://www.ristosantala.com/rsla/Nt/NT07.html

Have any of you read the book: "Redating the New Testament" by Robinson

The above link explains the logic for an early date for the Gospel of John.

What do you all think?

Thank you.

[PaulSacramento]

If one believes that Revelations and the GOJ are from the same author, one must take THAT into account as well.

[Christian2]

If one believes that Revelations and the GOJ are from the same author, one must take THAT into account as well.

I don't see why.

[PaulSacramento]

Well, did John write revelations Before or after The Gospel?

Add to that the fact that the GOJ was not written BY John, but by his followers, then the question isn't just when John passed it on but also when they wrote it down.

[Christian2]

Well, did John write revelations Before or after The Gospel?

Add to that the fact that the GOJ was not written BY John, but by his followers, then the question isn't just when John passed it on but also when they wrote it down.

Bart Ehrman does not think the Apostle John wrote Revelation.

https://ehrmanblog.org/who-wrote-the-bo ... evelation/

" Whoever wrote Revelation did not also write the Gospel of John. The writings styles really are massively different; whoever wrote Revelation (unlike the author of the Gospel) did not have Greek as his first language."

"Conclusion: John did not write the book of Revelation. But, well, a different John did!"

[Philip]

Both Revelation and the Gospel of John have arguments for their dating that include arguments from silence concerning key events that would seem inconceivable to have been left out. The horrific persecutions by Nero, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The author of John identifies himself as an apostle and an eyewitness of events

John 21:24: "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." He's a disciple. Identified as "John, the son of Zebedee. My ESV speculates the writing to be between 70 and 100 AD. It references the "Sea of Tiberias," which is the Sea of Galilee, but is the name used for it only near the end of the 1st century.

As for Revelation, early church fathers (including Justin Martyr, writing in 135-150 AD identifies John the Son of Zebedee as the one that also wrote the 4th Gospel.) It's pretty hard to believe that only 35 years later, Justin would have identified John incorrectly. Some think the warnings to the churches are prototypes that connect the Nero atrocities to a latter days persecution to come.

As for Ehrman - be suspicious of anything he says, as he has an anti-Christian agenda!

[DBowling]

For me, early church historical evidence is pretty compelling that John the apostle wrote both the Gospel of John and Revelation.

I am also convinced that both John and Revelation were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
My opinion is based upon internal evidence from the biblical texts themselves, where John (John 5:2) and Revelation (Rev 17:9-11) refer to people or places as existing in the present that were either destroyed in 70 AD (John 5:2) or took place prior to 70 AD (Rev 17:10).

[Philip]

DBowling: For me, early church historical evidence is pretty compelling that John the apostle wrote both the Gospel of John and Revelation.

I am also convinced that both John and Revelation were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
My opinion is based upon internal evidence from the biblical texts themselves, where John (John 5:2) and Revelation (Rev 17:9-11) refer to people or places as existing in the present that were either destroyed in 70 AD (John 5:2) or took place prior to 70 AD (Rev 17:10).

Except if John was referencing parallel warnings for our future, otherwise, what difference does it make to us, today, when John wrote either? Now, if there were TWO Johns - as in also "John the Elder," that would tell us someone tampered with the text - least, with the Gospel of John.

[PaulSacramento]

Ehrman is not the only one that questions the authorship of John.
That said, we must never forget that John did NOT write the GOJ, the writer(s) are anonymous and the gospel says so at the very end.
The GOJ was written by those that John passed on his testimony to.
The issue with dating revelations ( and even GOJ) is one of "belief". Do you believe that the prophetic views in Revelations are BEFORE the events, during or after?
And if the writer of Revelations, John in Patmos, was the beloved disciple in GOJ, did the writers of the GOJ write it before or after John was exiled?
We don't know.

I think that revelations was written before the GOJ and that the GOJ was written by the Apostles disciples after his death ( which tends to be how, historically, these things happen).

[DBowling]

DBowling: For me, early church historical evidence is pretty compelling that John the apostle wrote both the Gospel of John and Revelation.

I am also convinced that both John and Revelation were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
My opinion is based upon internal evidence from the biblical texts themselves, where John (John 5:2) and Revelation (Rev 17:9-11) refer to people or places as existing in the present that were either destroyed in 70 AD (John 5:2) or took place prior to 70 AD (Rev 17:10).

Except if John was referencing parallel warnings for our future, otherwise, what difference does it make to us, today, when John wrote either?

I think the internal evidence in both John and Revelation of a pre-70 AD date speaks to the apostolic authority and the historical reliability of both documents.
An eyewitness account from one of Jesus' inner circle that can be traced to within 40 years of the ministry of Jesus is very significant when evaluating the historical reliability of the books in question.

Now, if there were TWO Johns - as in also "John the Elder," that would tell us someone tampered with the text - least, with the Gospel of John.

I believe there is a discussion between Paul and myself on this topic somewhere on this board. (Maybe someone can provide a link)
But based on my research, the historical evidence indicates (at least to me) that John the Apostle and John the Elder were one and the same person.

John 21:24 tells us a couple of significant things regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John.
1. The disciple who leaned back on Jesus at the Last Supper testified to and wrote down the events documented in the Gospel.
2. There was a "we" involved in some manner in the document that we have today.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that John testified and wrote the "core" of the GOJ and I think that the version we have is the final draft passed on by his disciples.

[Christian2]

Both Revelation and the Gospel of John have arguments for their dating that include arguments from silence concerning key events that would seem inconceivable to have been left out. The horrific persecutions by Nero, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The author of John identifies himself as an apostle and an eyewitness of events

John 21:24: "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." He's a disciple. Identified as "John, the son of Zebedee. My ESV speculates the writing to be between 70 and 100 AD. It references the "Sea of Tiberias," which is the Sea of Galilee, but is the name used for it only near the end of the 1st century.

As for Revelation, early church fathers (including Justin Martyr, writing in 135-150 AD identifies John the Son of Zebedee as the one that also wrote the 4th Gospel.) It's pretty hard to believe that only 35 years later, Justin would have identified John incorrectly. Some think the warnings to the churches are prototypes that connect the Nero atrocities to a latter days persecution to come.

As for Ehrman - be suspicious of anything he says, as he has an anti-Christian agenda!

It seems incredible that the deaths of James the brother of Jesus, the deaths of Peter and Paul and the fall of the temple should not have been included in the New Testament if they had been written after 70 AD.

[Christian2]

Analysis of the date of the Gospel of John by Daniel B. Wallace.

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2014/10/3 ... r-gospels/

Click on Gospel of John:

https://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-joh ... nt-outline

Wallace is convinced that the Gospel of John was written before 70AD; however he believes that John knew of the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Wallace presents the argument for a late date and and early date -- 65 or 66AD.

[DBowling]

Analysis of the date of the Gospel of John by Daniel B. Wallace.

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2014/10/3 ... r-gospels/

Click on Gospel of John:

https://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-joh ... nt-outline

Wallace is convinced that the Gospel of John was written before 70AD; however he believes that John knew of the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Wallace presents the argument for a late date and and early date -- 65 or 66AD.

Wallace is one of my key sources for New Testament textual issues, so I lean heavily on Wallace's expertise on this issue.

[PaulSacramento]

I would agree with a Pre-70's writing for the orginal
That the earliest copy we have is dated to about 100 BC means that we have ot give SOME time between original writing and copies being made AND copies being distributed. In the ANE, that would probably take a few decades under the circumstances.
Also, as Wallace mentions, there are internal evidence to suggest the destruction of the temple had not yet happened, at least at the writing of the original Gospel.
Now, the Gospel we have is what was passed down and edited by his disciples. When THEY compiled it and wrote it may be a different matter.