Many scholars believe the Gospel of John wasn’t written until late in the first century AD (cir. 90 AD) or early in the second century. Often, if one rejects this scholarship, one is accused of being arrogant or worse, delusional. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves, when was the Gospel of John written, and who gets to say, and why. Because, if modern scholarship is correct, how are we able to trust this Gospel narrative as an eye witness account of the things that occurred as that pertains to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth? How many witnesses would be alive in 90 AD who were adults in 30 AD? Therefore, we need to consider if a late dating is correct, and, if so, who wrote this Gospel narrative, and what purpose did he (or they) have in mind?
The main argument for a post 90 AD composition is usually centered around John’s theology, namely, that not only does Jesus claim he is God (John 8:58; 10:30), but the author of the narrative begins by saying Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14). Nevertheless, the Synoptics do present Jesus as God (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70),[1] despite the argument of the critics who claim John is different in this respect. Each Gospel narrative was written with a purpose in mind, for example, Matthew’s content is gathered together for the purpose of study and memorization; like content is assembled together without regard to strict chronology. Mark was Peter’s evangelistic outreach/witness. It wasn’t assembled with either strict chronology or theological content in mind. It was Peter’s Gospel, preached in the churches he visited. Mark wrote it down at the request of the church at Rome after they heard Peter’s witness. Luke tells us why his Gospel was written in the first four verses of the first chapter. It was written as an apologetic effort to the high priest, Theophilus, hoping to end the then current persecution against the Hellenistic believers in Christ.
To demand that John’s narrative be like the Synoptics is not only ridiculous, it presumes they are alike and copied from one another, which can be logically shown they were not. Naturally, all four will have similar content in some respects, but John, admittedly, chose to deal in matters usually not covered by the other three. The reason being, John’s content centers around seven miracles of Jesus, which were chosen out of the many in an effort to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus is truly the Messiah. Both Matthew and Mark tell what Jesus taught, and Luke sought to show Theophilus that he was fighting against God by persecuting believers. Much of the content of the first three narratives are very similar. John’s content, on the other hand, has only about 10 % similar content. Thus, scholars contend that it must have been written later than the Synoptics because he didn’t repeat the similar data, because he knew it was written earlier. This argument, however, is false, and its reasoning is circular. The Synoptic data is different from John, and, therefore, they predate his writing. John, on the other hand, must have been written later than the Synoptics, because he avoids repeating what they wrote—a circular argument and, therefore, without any authority.
A strong argument against modern criticism is the fact that, if John did write late in the first century AD, why didn’t he record Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple? The Synoptics clearly indicate that Jesus predicted the Temple’s destruction (Matthew 23:38-39; 24:15-16; Luke 13:35; 21:20). If John’s Gospel narrative was written later than 70 AD, why didn’t he point to Jesus’ prediction that this earthshaking event had indeed occurred? Such testimony would show that his prophecy was correct. Of course, the critics have no real convincing argument that would explain this omission, if, indeed, John wrote late in the first century AD.[2]
Clement of Alexandria, one of the Church fathers who wrote in the late second and early third centuries AD, wrote that all of the writings of the New Covenant text were written between the reigns of the Roman Emperors, Tiberius and Nero.[3] There is absolutely no objective evidence extant that would disprove Clement’s testimony. Clearly, he would have had much more evidence available to him during his lifetime, than we have today to support whatever theory we may have concerning the writings of the New Covenant. The argument of the critics is based upon subjective reasoning of the text, not anything they could hold in their hands and declare “Here’s the evidence!” It seems to me, therefore, that to base one’s conclusion upon modern criticism over ancient testimony is largely based upon bigotry, if not arrogance.
_______________________________________________
[1] See my previous study containing links to Jesus’ four clear claims to be God in the flesh: Did Jesus Ever Claim to Be God?
[2] Besides the fact that not showing the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple supports an earlier dating than 70 AD, there are other matters within the text that support a composition dating earlier than the Roman/Jewish conflict. I referred to this internal evidence in my earlier study of John’s epistles, the data surrounding the idea of John being recognized as “The Elder” in his second and third epistles. I will also be reiterating some of this evidence in my final study of John 21, when I mention the disciple whom Jesus loved.
[3] Clement of Alexandria: Stromata, book 7, chapter 17.
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “When Was the Gospel of John Written?”
I’m not sure that bigotry and arrogance are the primary reasons folks misdate John (and of course Revelation) It may be the reason behind poor scholarship, but when you speak with parishioners, they simply accept what they are told with no attempt to verify its veracity.
When I had my Sunday School class I would always encourage attendees to question what they heard, even from me; and verify that what they believe lines up with scripture. Preachers teach what they are ‘taught’ and spread it without pursuit of critical analysis. In Charismatic circles, I have found that most rely on the Spirit confirming truths. Of course we understand that such thoughts may not be the Spirit but rather our emotions and thoughts based on what we have previously been taught.
Your insights into the non-chronological or non-linear nature of much of the Gospel has been instrumental in my understanding.
As you have inferred in past writings, we must view all scripture as written ‘for us’ but not ‘to us’.
God Bless
Greetings Dave, and thank you for reading and for your comment, Lord bless you.
“bigotry” / “arrogance” — Perhaps you are correct. Certainly your understanding or opinion shows more grace. However, I have witnessed “arrogance” and “bigotry” in debates with folks who adamantly adhered to what heir scholarly hero had said. Again, no objective evidence was shown, simply the unwavering belief in the subjective reasoning of the scholar. I’ve also learned of folks not being able to graduate college, simply because they had changed their understanding of a theological point. Intimidation is a useful tool in the hands of an oppressor, and knowing our history (i.e. Christian history), which is ridden with violence, it is not difficult to believe, from where I sit, that there are many authorities in religious circles who are not as graceful as you are, my friend. Lord bless you. :-)