SRWelch

Wondering if any of the Biblical crit. scholars here might be able to comment on J. A. T. Robinson's Redating The New Testament. Haven't read it -- but came across a footnote while reading Desmond Stewart's The Foreigner.

Robinson concludes that the 1st edition of John was written in Asia Minor in AD 50-55. Also claims that the author was a John of Ephesus.

Any comments or analysis from anyone regarding this theory, or others regarding the Gospel of John?

Thanks,

SRW

Kosh

I think he just stole that material from
Nomad....

boneyard bill

Posted by SWWelch:

Ephesus would certainly be no surprise for the location since Eusebius claimed that John lived at Ephesus and was buried there. In fact, he claimed that there were two Johns both buried at Ephesus. I assume the claim related to John the Evangelist and John the Divine. I have no idea how Robinson would arrive at such an early date for its composition, however.

On the other hand, the only reason I know of for the late dating of John is it's "logos" theology. This seems to be a much later elaboration of Christian thought than the synoptics. But since John is in a different tradition from the synoptics, we cannot automatically conclude that it built on synoptic thought. It would be interesting to see Robinson's arguments for the early date.

SirMonkey

I personally find no reason good enough to date John past 70, especially considering the 5.2 reference to the pool of Siloam in the present tense. (True, some see the 9.22 reference to expulsion from the synagogue as evidence for a date past 85, when a general decree went out affirming Christian expulsion. But Acts records that many local synagogues expelled Christians, so this evidence is hardly convincing.) See the following outline surveying the evidence, whose author (Daniel Wallace) leans toward an early date (i.e. the 60s AD):

<a href="http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/jnotl.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/jnotl.htm</a>

A less extensive though representative argument for a later date (90-120) can be found at Peter Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com," target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com,</a> which unfortunately is down right now for some reason. Does anyone else know of another good online intro to the more skeptical viewpoint on John's date/authorship?

Thanx!

cloudyphiz

hey! kirby's site's back up!

you just had a comma in your url

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">early christian writings</a>

CX

Are you sure he isn't talking about John son of Zebedee (the apostle) and the Presbyter John Papias refers to? According to Papias Presbyter John was a disciple of the other john. Neither is the John from Patmos.

CX

It depends on what you mean by "skeptical". Certainly the mainstream academic view is that John was written around 100-110 C.E. This is NOT the "skeptical" view, but the mainstream view accepted by biblical scholars. That you can find "no reason" to date GJn past 70 implies to me a lack of careful study on your part.

Udo Schnelle says the following:

The teminus a quo for dating the Fourth Gospel is provided by John 11.48, where the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is presupposed. It cannot be proven that Christian writers of the first half of the second century...knew the Gospel of John, though possibly Justin Martyr was acquainted with it. A possible terminus ad quem for the dating of the Gospel of John is provided by the manuscript evidence, for P52...is generally dated around 125 CE. To be sure this dating is no longer established beyond all doubt, but nonetheless both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the Gospel of John suggest it originated between 100 and 110 CE. (Schnelle, HTNTW p. 477)

I refer the reader to the text cited for additional information and footnotes.

As to your argument that the reference to KOLUMBHQRA H EPILEGOMENH EBRAISTI BHQZAQA in the present active indicative tense (ESTIN), I find this uncompelling. It seems clear that GJn was written outside Palestine. So even if AJn knows that the temple has been destroyed and presupposes that destruction elsewhere there is no reason to suppose he knows the particular current geography. As far as he knows the pool could still be there.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Just because a reference is in the present tense doesn't mean it's current. No original copy of the gospels exists, that passage (and several others) could have been added, or edited. I doubt John was written before 70 ad myself.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: askeptic ]</p>