The Date of John's Gospel, Revisited

Cambridge scholar, George van Kooten recently published a journal article making the case that the Gospel of John should be dated to around 65 AD. Bart Ehrman responds...well, sort of.

An artistic rendering of first-century Jerusalem. The pool of Bethesda mentioned in this article can be seen on the north side of the temple complex.

Last November, I wrote an article about a “paradigm shift” that is taking place among New Testament scholars related to the date of the Fourth Gospel. Though it has been common to date this text in the latter part of the first century (80-90 AD), several prominent scholars have recently indicated that their views have changed, and that they are now open to a pre-70 AD date. These scholars include N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Peter J. Williams, John Dickson, James Charlesworth,¹ and others.

In my article, I noted that three of the above scholars (namely, Wright, Bauckham, and Williams) specifically highlighted the work of Cambridge professor George van Kooten, who gave an important lecture last summer in Glasgow in which he made the case for dating John significantly earlier.² In his view, it was likely written in 65 AD, before the start of the Jewish War. Recently, a written version of his Glasgow address appeared in the pages of Novum Testamentum,³ and in this essay van Kooten says the following:

I have argued that the internal evidence of the Gospel of John suggests that it was written (and edited) before the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 CE). Commentators have largely ignored the Gospel’s statement in the present tense that “There is (ἔστιν) in Jerusalem near the Sheep [Gate] a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes” (5:2). Most of those who have taken note of this statement believe it to be a simple historical present, which John uses to dramatize his narrative…However, as I have shown, modern Greek grammarians agree that the “there is” formula John uses (ἔστιν δὲ ἐν + place in the dative case, followed by an architectural phenomenon in the nominative) is exclusively employed by geographers, historians, and novelists (since Herodotus) to refer to buildings that still exist at the time of writing. Thus, the present tense in John’s statement that “there is” in Jerusalem an impressive colonnaded pool complex is not a historical present, but an existential present. The likely destruction of the colonnaded pool in the Bezetha area of Jerusalem in the course of the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE) implies that the Gospel’s reference to a still-existing monumental pool complex dates its composition prior to 66–70 CE.

In the comments section of a recent blog post, Bart Ehrman responded to the following question put to him by one of his readers: “I am curious about your perspective on what your colleague George van Kooten says regarding the dating of the Gospel of John. He assumes a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.”⁴ On June 18th, 2025, Ehrman responded this way:

I don’t know what his arguments are; others have argued that but always on very slim grounds (e.g. that the author appears to have a knowledge of parts of Jerusalem before the destruction, as if a later author could not have heard an earlier story about a part of Jerusalem that no longer existed in his day…) (People today tell stories about Jerusalem in the days of Jesus but it doesn’t mean they were living in the days of Jesus).⁵

Since van Kooten’s 2024 lecture caused such a stir, it’s surprising to discover that Ehrman still doesn’t “know what his arguments are.” Granted, when Bart Erhman posted his response, van Kooten’s essay had only been out for a few weeks, but the lecture notes to his important Glasgow address have been available for the better part of a year.⁶ I’m not a New Testament scholar, and even I’ve read those!

The rest of Ehrman’s response reveals a dismissive posture that evades the key issues involved and presents a caricature of the opposition. While it’s true that John could have gained “knowledge about parts of Jerusalem before the destruction” and included those details in his work, ultimately, the question is whether that ends up being the best explanation of the evidence. Those who have used Jn 5:2 to argue for an early date, including William Whiston (1712), Johann Bengal (1742), Nathaniel Lardner (1756), John Wesley (1755), Johann David Michaelis (1795), Friedrich Blass (1907), John A.T. Robinson (1976), Daniel Wallace (1990), Jonathan Bernier (2022), and more recently, George van Kooten (2024),⁷ have primarily focused on the unique characteristics of John’s grammar, particularly when he says, “There is in Jerusalem…”

In 1953, a British scholar by the name of Hubert E. Edwards summed up the situation this way:

[I]f you were talking to an old man about the First World War, and he began a story with these words, “There is, in the city of Ypres a very fine building of the fourteenth century, known as the Cloth Hall,” you would think to yourself, even if you were too kind to say the words: “This old gentleman is getting very senile: he has forgotten that the Cloth Hall at Ypres was destroyed by the Germans more than thirty years ago.”⁸

This delightful passage is taken from Edwards’ book, The Disciple Who Wrote These Things, which I discovered close to a decade ago as I was teaching a series of classes through the Gospel of John. Since that time, it has remained one of my favorite resources for thinking about the historical value of the Fourth Gospel and many of the thorny issues related to the authorship question (unfortunately, this book is out of print and copies are hard to find).⁹ As I read through van Kooten’s lecture notes last year, I discovered a bibliographic reference to the above passage from Edwards—apparently, he interacted with this same quotation during his Glasgow lecture.

I often give a similar analogy to the one provided by Edwards. If a friend told you, “There is a place in New York called the World Trade Center with twin towers,” you’d probably want to interrupt him by asking, “Did you mean to say, ‘There was…’” But if you came across a statement like that in an undated letter stuffed between the pages of a book at your local library, you’d probably assume it was penned sometime before Sept. 11th, 2001.

Now, the reason you would conclude this has to do with the grammatical construction of the key statement found in that letter, which provides an important clue about the author’s situation in time. According to George van Kooten, the same can be said of the words we find in the Greek text of Jn 5:2. The unique characteristics of the original grammar of this verse, he argues, “is exclusively employed by geographers, historians, and novelists (since Herodotus) to refer to buildings that still exist at the time of writing.”

Of course, it’s also possible that John was a “novelist,” and that he wrote Jn 5:2 in order to give the impression that Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed when he wrote his Gospel. Though many have attempted to read the Fourth Gospel this way over the past few centuries, according to Princeton New Testament scholar James Charlesworth, this approach is being abandoned because it is now widely recognized among his colleagues that “the author knew Jerusalem intimately, providing many architectural details which only thirty years ago we imagined were literary inventions...”¹⁰ In other words, the hypothesis that John was a novelist simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Instead, the evidence demonstrates “that the author of the first edition of John had unique personal knowledge of Jerusalem…”¹¹ Charlesworth then concludes that John’s Gospel “makes best sense if the definitive form, the first edition, was composed before 70 CE.”¹²

One point that is often overlooked is the fact that John not only uses present-tense language to refer to the Bethesda pool, but he specifically indicates that it was situated near “the Sheep Gate” of the Jerusalem Temple.¹³ In this way, John appears to be assuming something about his readers. In case some are not aware of this specific pool or its name, he provides general coordinates, as it were, by referencing the location of this well-known temple gate. We should also note that John did not reference the location of this pool by saying it was “in the area where the Sheep Gate used to be…” This is important since, according to Josephus, in 70 AD, “Caesar ordered the whole city and the temple to be razed to the ground…as to leave future visitors no ground for believing that it had ever been inhabited.”¹⁴ Therefore, even if ruins of the Bethesda pool could be seen in the 80s or 90s, the Sheep Gate was certainly nowhere to be found (cf. Mt 24:2, Mk 13:2, Lk 19:44), which I believe is compelling evidence in favor of a pre-70 date for John.

Additional Arguments for an Earlier Date of the Fourth Gospel
After my own lengthy study of this issue, I ended up concluding that though Jn 5:2 does suggest an early date, it’s only one indication among several other considerations. Here is a list of several other features of John’s Gospel that point in this same direction:

1. References to John the Baptist
   The author frequently reminds his reader that John the Baptist “was not the Christ” (Jn 1:6-8, 15, 19-35, 3:23-30, 4:1, 5:33-36, 10:40-42). Given that the Baptist was martyred sometime around 28 AD, is the mistaken assumption that he was Israel’s Messiah likely to have been a popular view that needed correcting among Jews in the 80s or 90s, well after the destruction of Jerusalem?

2. The Renaming of Cities in Galilee

   A town by the name of “Bethsaida” is mentioned in Jn 1:44 and 12:21. However, this town was completely renovated and renamed “Julias” by Philip the Tetrarch sometime before he died in 34 AD. Writing between 73-95 AD, Josephus calls this town “Julias” some 16 times, and only mentions the older name, “Bethsaida,” in his account of the name change.¹⁵ Unlike Josephus, however, John and the other Gospel writers (cf. Mt 11:21, Mk 6:45, Lk 9:10) refer to Bethsaida exclusively by its older name, without ever mentioning that it had changed. Something similar happened to the city of “Paneas.”¹⁶ After it was renovated in 14 AD by Philip the tetrarch, its name was changed to “Caesarea Philippi” (cf. Mt 16:13, Mk 8:27) in honor of himself and Caesar. Some years later, in 62 AD, this town was given another makeover and renamed “Neronias” in honor of guess who?¹⁷ Thus, when Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels, they used the updated name that was appropriate for 28-30 AD.¹⁸ In contrast, however, none of the Gospels mention the updated name for Bethsaida.¹⁹ Therefore, since Josephus regularly called this town “Julias” in the 70s and 90s, it seems plausible to suggest that the Gospels were written sometime earlier, when the older town name could still be used without explanation.

3. The Destruction of the Temple
   Daniel prophesied the destruction of the city and sanctuary after the Messiah was to be “cut off” (cf. Dan 9:25-27), but strangely, prophecies of this kind are never presented as having been fulfilled anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, the destruction of Jerusalem is nowhere mentioned as a completed event. Though this is an argument from silence, according to John A.T. Robinson, “the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.”²⁰ Robinson was a liberal theologian who ended up coming to conservative conclusions on the dating of Gospels and other New Testament books based on his detailed examination of this issue. Thankfully, his classic book on this subject, Redating the New Testament, is still in print!

4. The Failed Prophecy of Caiaphas
   In John 11, Caiaphas is presented as uttering a true prophecy when he said during a meeting of the Sanhedrin, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is advantageous for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (49-50). But according to John A.T. Robinson, the prophecy was that “Jesus should die for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed.”

   Now, if this had been written after 70 AD, it would require further explanation, since the statement appears to be a failed prophecy. In Robinson’s words, “They did not leave him alone, and still the Romans came.”²¹

5. Protective Anonymity
   Why does the author continually refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” without providing his name? I’m convinced that it has something to do with the fact that he was “known to the high priest” (Jn 18:15-16) and had been entrusted with the care of Jesus’ mother (Jn 19:26-27).²² Though he certainly would have been known in the earliest Christian community, for purposes of protection, he kept his name out of his narrative since it was intended for wide circulation. After a detailed examination of this subject (which you can find here), I concluded that John the Elder (not John the son of Zebedee) was the author of the Fourth Gospel, and that the employment of protective anonymity points to an early date.

6. The Narrator’s View of Peter’s Death

   After Jesus hinted at Peter’s eventual martyrdom (cf. Jn 21:19), the narrator adds, “This he said to show by what kind of death he will glorify (δοξάζω) God.” Though it’s not easy to see this in most English translations, the Greek verb is in the future tense, and the statement is written from the narrator’s perspective in time. It’s also important to note that Jn 21:19 parallels two other similar statements (cf. Jn 12:33 and 18:32) in which the narrator refers to the kind of death that Jesus was “about to die” (ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν). When this repeating phrase was applied to Peter, however, a verb in the future tense was required. Thus, at the time this text was written, it appears that Peter’s death was still yet future. Since most scholars agree that Peter was martyred sometime between 64-67 AD, this is another reason to date the Fourth Gospel before the beginning of the Jewish War. I discussed this with New Testament scholar (and Greek Grammar expert) Daniel Wallace here, and he agreed with this conclusion.

7. The Logos Doctrine
   Many have argued that John’s use of the Greek word “λόγος” implies a much later date, i.e., at a time in which the followers of Jesus had officially broken from Judaism and had shifted to making Greek philosophical arguments. I’m convinced, however, that John’s use of the logos doctrine is best interpreted, not as an apologetic to Greeks, but rather as a translation of the Aramaic word Memra, which was frequently used as a replacement for the divine name in various Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible.²³ The first-century Jewish writer Philo used the word in precisely this same way. In fact, he came very close to the language of John’s prologue when he wrote that, “it was impossible that anything mortal should be made in the likeness of the most high God the Father of the universe; but it could only be made in the likeness of the second God, who is the Word of the other…”²⁴

---

COMING SOON: A New Series on the Gospel of Luke
Who was Luke? Was he a Jew or a Gentile? How about Theophilus—what can we know about him? When did Luke write his Gospel, and what was its ultimate aim or purpose? I’ve been recording a variety of interviews with scholars from around the world, and I’ll start airing those conversations soon!

---

RELATED RESOURCES

Articles
John’s Gospel: Are We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift? Shane Rosenthal
John 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…” Shane Rosenthal
John’s Gospel: Are We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift? Shane Rosenthal
John 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…” Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for Revelation? Shane Rosenthal
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Know About Jesus? Shane Rosenthal
Water Into Wine?, Shane Rosenthal

Books
Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson
Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke, John Wenham
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier
The Date of Acts & The Synoptic Gospels, Adolph von Harnack
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal

Episodes
Is John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel Wallace
In the Beginning Was the Word… Humble Skeptic #75 with John Ronning
Questioning The Fourth Gospel, Humble Skeptic #49 with Richard Bauckham
Which John Wrote John? Humble Skeptic #50
The Jesus of History, Humble Skeptic #12
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Humble Skeptic #52 with John Dickson
Faith Founded on Facts, Humble Skeptic #15

1. In fact, in his 2019 book, Jesus Mirrored in John, James Charlesworth repeatedly speaks of a “paradigm shift” that is taking place among his colleagues with respect to their views on the historicity, authenticity, and earlier dating of the Fourth Gospel (see in particular his first chapter, “Paradigm Shifts in Johannine Studies.”

2. You can find the lecture notes for van Kooten’s address here.

3. George van Kooten, “An Archimedean Point for Dating the Gospels,” Novum Testamentum, 67(3), 310-331. This article was first published on May 29th, 2025, and is available here.

4. You can find this question, along with Ehrman’s response, in the comments section here.

5. Ibid.

6. You can find these lecture notes here.

7. For an exhaustive list of scholars who interpret Jn 5:2 as an indication that the Fourth Gospel was written before 70 AD (along with others who reject this approach), see my article, John 5:2 “There Is in Jerusalem…”

8. Hubert Edwin Edwards, The Disciple Who Wrote These Things: A new inquiry into the origins and historical value of the Gospel according to St. John (London: James Clarke & Co, 1953), 126-127.

9. Check for used copies of Hubert Edwards’ book here.

10. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus as Mirrored in John (London: T&T Clarke, 2019), 2.

11. Ibid., 199.

12. Ibid., 47.

13. This gate is specifically mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1, 32, 12:39.

14. Josephus, War 7.1.1.

15. Josephus, Ant. 18.2.1.

16. Ibid.

17. Josephus, Ant. 20.9.4.

18. It’s also worth noting that both Matthew and Mark failed to mention the updated name, “Neronias” (62 AD), which one might expect if those texts were written in the 80s or later.

19. If the town’s name was changed somewhere between 30-34 AD, and the Gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD, one would expect to find a comment by the narrator, such as we find in Judg 1:23, “Now the name of [Bethel] was formerly Luz” (see also the variety of names given to the Sea of Galilee (Mt 4:18, 14:34, Mk 1:16, 6:53, Lk 5:1, Jn 6:1).

20. John A.T. Robinson, Redating The New Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 13.

21. Ibid., 276-277.

22. In my opinion, this scene explains why this disciple became known in the early Christian community as the beloved disciple.

23. For more on this, listen to my interviews with Daniel Boyarin (episode 38), and John Ronning (episode 75).

24. Philo, On Providence 1:1. See also On Dreams 1:238 in which he says, “[God] on occasion took the place of an angel, as far as appearance went, without changing his own real nature, for the advantage of him who was not, as yet, able to bear the sight of the true God…those who are unable to bear the sight of God, look upon his image, his Angel-Word, as himself.”