The Date of John's Gospel: Are We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift?
Many New Testament scholars are beginning to reassess the date of the Fourth Gospel, including Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, John Dickson, George van Kooten, James Charlesworth and Peter J. Williams.
Less than a century ago, it wasn’t uncommon to find NT scholars dating John’s Gospel in the mid to late second century. But things took a dramatic turn in 1935 with the discovery of the famous John Rylands fragment,1 which forced even the likes of Rudolph Bultman to concede that the Fourth Gospel must have been written in the latter part of the first century.2
Until recently, most New Testament scholars around the world agreed with the late first-century date. However, at present, things appear to be in flux. For example, in his 2019 book Jesus Mirrored in John, Princeton Scholar James Charlesworth wrote:
John is not a late composition…I am convinced that the earliest edition of John—the first edition—may antedate 70 CE. Why? It is because the author knew Jerusalem intimately, providing many architectural details which only thirty years ago we imagined were literary inventions…All the reasons that require a late date for the Gospel of John (sometime after 90 CE) have vanished. There is no longer a consensus regarding the date of John. Is it possible, then, to observe a paradigm shift…? Yes.3
John Dickson, the Australian historian and host of the Undeceptions podcast, has indicated that he’s reconsidering the date of the Fourth Gospel, saying that “Most scholars date John to the 90s AD. That’s what I taught for years at Sydney University and elsewhere. But the work of a few outlier scholars leaves me nowadays thinking it could well be as early as Mark—60s AD.”4 And N.T. Wright recently said this:
The current Lady Margaret professor of New Testament in Cambridge, George van Kooten, is arguing in his new book on John for a much earlier date, a date I think maybe even in the 40s, or certainly the 50s. And I would say, actually, you don’t have to wait a long time to get deep theological reflection. The highest Christology in the New Testament is probably Philippians 2:6-11, which may well be a poem that’s already written before Philippians, in other words, in the late 40s or early 50s. So theological development doesn’t take place on a slow chronological line, it takes place in leaps and bounds and it’s quite possible that the traditional dating of the Gospels in scholarship, which has a late John, may well be wrong.5
Richard Bauckham is currently reconsidering the date of all four Gospels. “In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” he writes, “I accepted the most common dating of the Gospels…Nowadays I am toying with a date for Mark in the 40s and Luke and Matthew (in that order) before 66.” Concerning the Fourth Gospel, he notes that the work of Cambridge professor George van Kooten has “disturbed” his view: “Everyone in the patristic period who said anything about it agreed that John was the last of the four Gospels, written very late in the first century…I saw no reason not to accept the late date until George produced his argument about John 5:2…”6
John 5:2 is the famous passage in which the narrator uses present tense language to describe Jerusalem saying “There is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.” In my opinion, this is like someone today saying “There is a place in New York called the World Trade Center with twin towers.” The present tense language seems a little odd after 2001 and would make more sense if the statement was made before the 9/11 attacks. Similarly, since the Sheep Gate of the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, along with the Bethesda pool and its five colonnades, the language we find in John 5:2 seems to imply that it was written before the destruction took place. I discussed the implications of this verse with New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace on episode 51, and I’ve also written an article that cites the views of dozens of commentators on this important passage from the 1600s to down to the present day.
On the most recent episode of this podcast, Peter J. Williams discusses the way John 5:2 has impacted his thinking about the date of John, while also citing the work of Cambridge New Testament scholar, George van Kooten: “The professor in Cambridge, George van Kooten is arguing for a pre-70 date for the Gospel of John.7 Also, on those same grounds, I think there’s no reason why it has to be later…Because it says in John chapter 5, ‘There is in Jerusalem’ this gate, that makes more sense before the year 70.” Williams however was quick to add that this exegetical inference “doesn’t absolutely force my hand…For me, the question is not so much about the date of the Gospel as who’s it from…whenever the Gospels date from, they are all from people who are either eyewitnesses, in the case of Matthew and John, or are close to eyewitnesses…” In his 2018 book, Can We Trust the Gospels, Williams similarly argued that “the four Gospels are so influenced by Judaism in their outlook, subject matter, and detail that it would be reasonable to date them considerably before the Jewish War.”8
Finally, in his 2022 book, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier notes the following:
[John A.T.] Robinson addresses this passage but does not give it the full weight that it deserves. John 5:2 informs the reader that “in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha [Bethesda], which has five porticoes. The present tense is not simply an artifact of translation into English but is native to the Greek text. The relevant verbs are estin, the third-person present active indicative of the verb eimi(to be); and echousa, a present active participle of echo (to have). The most natural reading of the present tense in this passage is that this pool existed when the author was writing. Since the pool was destroyed in 70, we should prefer pre-70 composition for Jn 5:2.
Although Robinson recognizes that this passage is most fully intelligible prior to 70, he does not fully appreciate the extent to which this is true. In fairness to Robinson, he did not have access to Daniel Wallace’s now-classic study on the matter, which appeared more than a decade after Redating the New Testament…[in which he challenged the view that] in John 5:2 eimi constitutes a historic present, such as we find when Josephus refers to the temple while using the present tense decades after the temple’s destruction. Wallace argues, however, that linguistically speaking, the historical present typically is associated with action verbs, not with verbs of being….Moreover, Wallace observes that he could not find a single instance of eimi being used as a historical present within the New Testament. In response to Wallace, Craig Blomberg writes, “It is difficult to know how much significance to attach to this observation. After all, most historical presents occur in narrative where a specific verb of speech or action is highlighted.” Blomberg’s observation, however, seems to strengthen rather than weaken Wallace’s argument that historical presents are not typical of verbs of being, but rather of verbs of action. Considering the above, a historical present is unlikely. As such, it is probable that John 5:2 means to reference conditions as they stood at the time of composition.9
Apart from considerations related to Jn 5:2, I’m convinced that there are many additional reasons to prefer an early date for John.10 In fact, another exegetical argument can be made from the Greek text of Jn 21:19. After Jesus gives Peter a hint of his martyrdom in his old age, the narrator adds, “This he said to show by what kind of death he will (δοξάζω) glorify God.” Though it’s not easy to see in most English translations, the verb is a straight future tense, and the statement is written from the narrator’s perspective in time. Since most scholars agree that Peter was martyred sometime between 64-67 AD, this verse could be taken as an indication that the final chapter was written before then. It’s worth noting that Jn 21:19 parallels two other statements by the narrator (cf. Jn 12:33 and 18:32) which refer to the kind of death Jesus himself was “about to die” (ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν). In other words, in Jn 21:19, the tense had to be changed when the narrator referred to Peter’s death. In my opinion, the best explanation is that Peter, unlike Jesus, was still alive when John’s Gospel was written. When I discussed this with Daniel Wallace on episode 51, he agreed with this conclusion.11
Whatever is responsible for this new trend among New Testament scholars, it’s certainly worth talking about. While truth is never determined by counting heads, hopefully, this new paradigm shift toward an earlier dating of the Fourth Gospel (or, at the very least, a new openness in that regard) will inspire curiosity, and encourage Christians and non-Christians alike to read this ancient text more carefully, and with a healthy dose of humility.
RELATED RESOURCES
John 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…” by Shane Rosenthal
Is John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel Wallace
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. Williams
Simply Genius, Humble Skeptic #62 with Peter J. Williams
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, by Shane Rosenthal
The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Humble Skeptic #48 with Richard Bauckham
Questioning The Fourth Gospel, Humble Skeptic #49 with Richard Bauckham
Which John Wrote John? Humble Skeptic #50
Faith Founded on Facts (1), Humble Skeptic #15
Faith Founded on Facts (2), Humble Skeptic #16
"Your work is extremely valuable, and necessary for Christians in our day and age. I appreciate, not only the interviews, but also all of the show notes and resources you provide. I am excited to be a part of this in subscribing. Thank you for everything you do, and keep up the great work! " — Michael W.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
If memory serves, Bultman concluded that John was written by 82, which is earlier than many conservative NT scholars today who continue to argue that it was likely penned in the 90s.
You can find Bauckham’s statements in the comments section of an article by Ian Paul Titled “Is John the Earliest Gospel?” These appear to have been written in August and September of 2024.
Ian Paul summarizes van Kooten’s arguments here, and even provides a link to download lecture notes from the event.
Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust The Gospels (Wheaton, Crossway, 2018), 81.
For the specific references, again, see my article: John 5:2 There is in Jerusalem….
See John A.T. Robinson’s books, Redating the New Testament and The Priority of John. Also, Lutheran commentator William Weinrich lists several reasons for preferring an early date in the introduction to his 2015 book, John 1:1-7:1.
You can hear the discussion of Jn 21:19 beginning around 39:44.
Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary also sees strong evidence for an early date for John’s gospel. https://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline
I interviewed him about this here: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/is-johns-gospel-late-and-unreliable. I didn't include him in this post since he's been arguing along these lines for a couple of decades—in other words, he's not part of the recent trend.