PDA

View Full Version : Probable Dates Of These Books



ClayInHisHands
Feb 14th 2010, 02:05 PM
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96

I know it's been contested and said that Revelation was written earlier, but what about the other books written by John and what basis do you come to the conclusion the date they were written if they differ from the dates above.

Thanks


In Christ's Love

markedward
Feb 14th 2010, 07:49 PM
Basically, you're making a thread to discuss when the five books of John were written, but you're forbidding people to actually disagree that the Revelation was written in the late date because God forbid it's true that it was written at an earlier date and it forces you to change your way of thinking.

ClayInHisHands
Feb 14th 2010, 10:37 PM
No, if you think the Date of Revelation has bearing on when The Gospel of John; 1, 2, and 3 John were written go ahead. I just meant that I know it's been discussed that Revelation was written earlier. So there was no point in explaining that because I have heard the argument for that, and I can see some valid points to it. But if Revelation has to be talked about to argue the other 4 books, then that would be fine. I'll go back and take that part out of the original post just in case people have read it and share your same sentiments. Maybe that's why no one else has replied. So by all means, you can.

In Christ's Love

ClayInHisHands
Feb 17th 2010, 02:21 AM
I'm assuming then, with the exception of Revelation, that everyone agrees that the dates are basically correct in regards to JOHN, 1 JOHN, 2 JOHN, and 3 JOHN?

Radagast
Feb 17th 2010, 09:11 AM
I'm assuming then, with the exception of Revelation, that everyone agrees that the dates are basically correct in regards to JOHN, 1 JOHN, 2 JOHN, and 3 JOHN?

Not really. J. A. T. Robinson suggested that John could have been written between 40 and 70. Others suggest 80-95. It depends on whether you think the last chapter was a later addition.

hisvessel1
Feb 18th 2010, 01:17 AM
John was written in A.D. 90 while in the city of Ephesus[sp].
1 John A.D. 90
2 John A.D. 90
3 John A.D. 90
Revelation A.D. 95 while at Patmos
This is my opinion.

Beckrl
Feb 18th 2010, 02:08 AM
I believe John left Jerusalem for Ephesus around 66 a.d. and in patmos in 67 a.d. therefore i believe these books would have a earlier date.

Here's a link to show a time line. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hFwPzmn_baIJ:www.therevelation.com/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26i d%3D50+john+left+jerusalem+for+Ephesus+in+67+ad&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRsxBJ8wMOCptFam3Mq7emabBMbFw

markedward
Feb 18th 2010, 05:14 AM
I believe that all of the books of the New Testament were written before 70 AD. The most immediate reason is that, while many of the books contain prophecies concerning an imminent pouring out of God's wrath, not a single one of them refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD as a past event... If mentioned explicitly it is always within a predictive context, and if mentioned vaguely it is always a generalized anticipation.

Regarding the writings of John, their post-90 AD authorships can only be attributed to late (and contradictory) tradition, but not any real, credible evidence... especially not internal evidence. Working backwards:

The case for the Revelation's pre-70 AD authorship is incredibly strong, especially in consideration of the internal evidence. Since, however, this has been discussed in several other threads, I'll merely summarize that the book is believed to have been written roughly 64-68 AD because of John's claim that he was "suffering in the tribulation", being the Neronian persecution he refers to later in the book.

Regarding the epistles of John: None of them indicate knowledge, or even a subtle hint, of Jerusalem's destruction and the dispersement of the Jewish population in 70 AD, so this would point to a pre-70 AD authorship. Many of the arguments given for John's letters to have been written in the 90s AD rest upon his apparent references to the Gnostic-style beliefs that had seeped into the Church. The claim is that Gnostic-style beliefs only began spreading in the 90s AD, and no earlier. However, 2 Peter and Jude (both, obviously, writing before 70 AD) argue against proto-Gnostic beliefs [2 Peter 2.1; Jude 4], and what John says is merely a more elaborate argument against this same set of pre-70 AD proto-Gnostics. Hence, it is entirely possible that John wrote his letters before 70 AD. (Indeed, it seems that all three letters were written within a very short span of time: 1 John to a generalized Christian community, 2 John to a particular group of Christians in that community, and 3 John to a specific individual within that particular group.) However, like Jude and 2 Peter, none of John's letters describe a previous or present widespread persecution of Christians (aside from the generalized "the world will hate us"), which would seem to indicate an authorship before 64 AD (when the Neronian persecution of the Church began).

As for the gospel of John: As before, not a single reference to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem as happening in the past is found in the gospel... one must know that following 70 AD, Christian literature abounded with references to the Jerusalem's destruction, so it seems remarkable that John's gospel doesn't contain even the slightest allusion to the historical event other than by prophetic prediction. In John 5.2, where John uses the present tense to describe the location of the Pool of Bethesda. He says "there is a place with five colonnades"... not "there was", but "there is". The "place with five colonnades" was still existent within Jerusalem at the time John was writing the gospel; this place would have been nothing more than a pile of rubble after 70 AD, and could only be described as "was", and not "is". The end of the gospel, however, clearly indicates that Peter had already died, so this would place its authorship at roughly 65-67 AD, after the letters. (There even seem to be some arguments that some portions of the gospel were specifically worded in certain ways by John because of particular arguments he made in his three letters.)

So, to put it briefly:

Letters: 60-64 AD
Gospel: 65-67 AD
Revelation: 64-68 AD

RabbiKnife
Feb 18th 2013, 07:41 PM
I agree with markedwards dates.

raoul
Feb 18th 2013, 10:29 PM
Post edited.

Mod Note: Only Christians are allowed to post in the bible chat section of our forum. Please acquaint yourself with the rules here and restrict your posting to the allowed areas. BrianW.

Liquid Tension
Feb 18th 2013, 11:04 PM
Post edited by BrianW

Can you prove your assertions?? I personally haven't studied this topic, but RabbiKnife and especially markedward have quite extensively.

TrustGzus
Feb 18th 2013, 11:46 PM
Markedward responded in another thread to raoul's dates and what Markedward said in the other thread is correct. Even most critical scholars accept several of Paul's writings to be early and most of the NT to be before 70 A.D. Sure some don't, but that's not the majority nor the average scholarly critic. Also, as Markedward pointed out there are generally only a few that talked about as being very late and they some of the smaller epistles such as 2 Peter.

Here's a short bit from Wikipedia giving a little of the reasoning why late dates are largely abandoned now. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Dates_of_composition)

divaD
Feb 18th 2013, 11:50 PM
As for the gospel of John: As before, not a single reference to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem as happening in the past is found in the gospel... one must know that following 70 AD, Christian literature abounded with references to the Jerusalem's destruction, so it seems remarkable that John's gospel doesn't contain even the slightest allusion to the historical event other than by prophetic prediction. In John 5.2, where John uses the present tense to describe the location of the Pool of Bethesda. He says "there is a place with five colonnades"... not "there was", but "there is". The "place with five colonnades" was still existent within Jerusalem at the time John was writing the gospel; this place would have been nothing more than a pile of rubble after 70 AD, and could only be described as "was", and not "is". The end of the gospel, however, clearly indicates that Peter had already died, so this would place its authorship at roughly 65-67 AD, after the letters. (There even seem to be some arguments that some portions of the gospel were specifically worded in certain ways by John because of particular arguments he made in his three letters.)





John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

I'm not following your logic here. Why would it matter when John wrote this? It seems to me, the fact Jesus would have still been walking the earth at the time, at that time then, these porches would have been there. What does when he wrote this have anything to do with anything? It would be true no matter when he wrote this, that at the time, "When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?" in verse 6, those 5 porches would have indeed been there. Maybe not after 70 AD tho, but why would that matter anyway, the fact John was writing about the times Jesus lived in, historically speaking?

I have no clue if you are right or wrong about when this gospel was written. That's not even my point. I'm just trying to understand why you would argue it like that, that this somehow proves John had to have been written prior to 70 AD.


For the sake of argument, let's say John indeed wrote this after 70 AD. Would you then think he should have said the following perhaps?

John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there WAS at ONE TIME IN Jerusalem by the sheep market, WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE, a pool, which WAS called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

If so, doesn't that seem odd, the fact this would no longer be an accurate historic account? At that time, it would have been untrue to write that in the past tense, because John was speaking in the present tense, the fact this is an historic account of what had taken place at that time. That would be my conclusion. Even if he wrote that after 70 AD, he still would have written it exactly the same way he did.

With that said, I personally would conclude he likely wrote this gospel prior to 70 AD. But not based on John 5:2. So like I indicated then, I'm basically trying to understand your logic here. Maybe I'm just missing your point big time? It wouldn't be the first time I've done that with anyone.

Vakeros
Feb 19th 2013, 12:02 AM
Markedward makes good points re the destruction of Jerusalem not being mentioned and I would agree that the Gospel of John would be written before 70 AD.
I don't have any problem though with it being written much earlier than the 67 AD. John is recording Jesus' words and there is but a hint that it was written after to tie in with Peter. Also at the suggested time of writing the Christians left Jerusalem so it would still have been mentioned as a prophecy or sign, yet John makes no mention of this, unlike the synoptic gospels. If the first copy was just prior to the destruction of the temple then as John was still alive, he could even have revised it or added to it as suggested was done for Peter. This wouldn't have been possible after it is already widely disseminated, so I go for an earlier authorship of the Gospel.
There is though circular reasoning around when Revelation was written. If it was about Neronian persecution then it would have been written before Nero died. However as I don't see that it is about Nero, then I also don't see a requirement for the earlier date. Remove the enforced view about the persecution being from Nero and evidence then shows a later date of 95 AD approximately.
The letters of John should be possible to tie in better. For me 2 John seems to be to one lady and her children who everyone should love who love the truth, from the children of her sister chosen by God. When I read this without any idea of time of authorship I immediately thought John was writing to Mary the mother of Jesus. This suggested to me that John was away from her but hoped to visit her soon. I believe she was in Ephesus and so he may have been in Patmos at the time of writing. However this is speculation and nothing concrete.
3 John suggests a time whilst he is still active enough to get about so possibly not long after 2 John.

TrustGzus
Feb 19th 2013, 02:34 AM
There is though circular reasoning around when Revelation was written. If it was about Neronian persecution then it would have been written before Nero died. However as I don't see that it is about Nero, then I also don't see a requirement for the earlier date. Remove the enforced view about the persecution being from Nero and evidence then shows a later date of 95 AD approximately.

Markedwards' paragraph taken by itself could be considered circular. However, Markedward doesn't go into detail stating that it's been discussed in detail in other threads.

In your paragraph, you state if we removed presupposition of it being Nero's persecution (a presupposition in this thread anyway), then the evidence shows a late date. However, you didn't provide any evidence. So in this thread, the 95 date is presupposed too, isn't it?

markedward
Feb 19th 2013, 05:38 AM
I'm not following your logic here.
In New York City, there are two skyscrapers of the World Trade Center complex, called the Twin Towers.

Vakeros
Feb 19th 2013, 11:39 AM
Markedwards' paragraph taken by itself could be considered circular. However, Markedward doesn't go into detail stating that it's been discussed in detail in other threads.
In your paragraph, you state if we removed presupposition of it being Nero's persecution (a presupposition in this thread anyway), then the evidence shows a late date. However, you didn't provide any evidence. So in this thread, the 95 date is presupposed too, isn't it?
Fair point. It was Polycarp, quoted by Irenaues and quoted by Eusebius who put it as during the reign of Domitian. This is the external evidence. It isn't very strong, but it is there.

Vakeros
Feb 19th 2013, 11:43 AM
In New York City, there are two skyscrapers of the World Trade Center complex, called the Twin Towers.

This would be a true statement if I was describing walking around New York in 2000 using the present tense. For example "As I stroll through Central Park I can see in the distance two skyscrapers which are standing tall and known as the Twin Towers." The fact that now they aren't there doesn't change the fact that at that time they were. We have this occurring in the Old Testament too. However, I am inclined to accept that the way it is worded, I would naturally assume it was written whilst it was still true.

markedward
Feb 19th 2013, 06:23 PM
This would be a true statement if I was describing walking around New York in 2000 using the present tense.
It would be extremely out of place and anachronistic if your literary 'voice' was otherwise consistently set in the past tense during a long narration of events.

markedward
Feb 19th 2013, 06:30 PM
Fair point. It was Polycarp, quoted by Irenaues
Irenaeus wasn't quoting Polycarp, he simply uses Polycarp as a frame of reference for his own opinion that the Apostle John wrote the Revelation. But yes, all other external evidence eventually traces back to Irenaeus. But this is all discussed in those 'other threads'. We could rehash it all here, if you'd rather not go searching for them.

Sheth
Feb 23rd 2013, 01:03 AM
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96


If these books were written at such late dates, why are there no historical references within them to show those late dates?

Sheth
Feb 23rd 2013, 01:26 AM
I believe that all of the books of the New Testament were written before 70 AD.

I completely agree. Critics of Christianity promote late dates to weaken Christianity. But, I see no internal evidence in any NT book that it was written after 70AD. None of the books show the least bit of awareness of any post 70AD events That is incredible. Was the author of Revelation pretending that the book was written earlier, by using pre-70AD content while avoiding post-70AD content? Did none of the writers of the NT have any interest in telling us the post-70AD fates of major figures? Is the destruction of God's Temple unworthy of mention?


Regarding the writings of John, their post-90 AD authorships can only be attributed to late (and contradictory) tradition, but not any real, credible evidence... especially not internal evidence. Working backwards:

One second century source puts the date of Revelation before the dates of Paul's books to various churches. If that's wrong, why would a more vague early source supporting a late date be any more reliable?

RogerW
Feb 23rd 2013, 01:28 AM
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96

I know it's been contested and said that Revelation was written earlier, but what about the other books written by John and what basis do you come to the conclusion the date they were written if they differ from the dates above.

Thanks

In Christ's Love

Your dates more accurately reflect early church documents, and a great many biblical scholars. I am always very skeptical of those pushing for earlier dating simply as a means to support the doctrine of the Preterists.

Bible Truth
Mar 14th 2013, 03:46 PM
The probable dates are as follows:

Revelation: 62-66
John: 96
1 John: 85-95
2 John: 85-95
3 John: 70-95

SirToady
Mar 17th 2013, 04:57 PM
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96

I know it's been contested and said that Revelation was written earlier, but what about the other books written by John and what basis do you come to the conclusion the date they were written if they differ from the dates above.

Thanks


In Christ's Love

The following works for the Summary of the Books are cited from:
George J. Spurrell, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford; late examiner in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, University of London and;

Reverend Charles H.H. Wright, D.D., PhD., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, University of Oxford, and examiner in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, University of London.

Note: These summary works are from a pre-1942 Bible.


John:How late John wrote his Gospel cannot be determined, but probably between 80 and 95 A.D. Tradition says that he wrote at the request of his fellow disciples and elders of Ephesus. That it was written in Ephesus we may regard as certain. There he lived during the last portion of his life, teaching what he afterward wrote.

I John: It is admitted on all sides that I John is by the author of the fourth Gospel, and that testimony to either book may be accepted as testimony to the other. The epistle of no doubt written in Ephesus, where St. John spent most of last thirty years of his life; and it was probably written 85-95 A.D.

II John: This letter was no doubt written from Ephesus during about the same period of St. John’s life as the First Epistle.

III John: The Third Epistle was written probably about the same time as the other two, and from the same place. It is addressed to Gaius, who seems to be a well-to-do layman.

Revelation – Excepting I Corinthians, no book in the New Testament is quoted with the author’s name earlier than Revelation. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (c. 140 A.D.) says, “There was with us a man named John, one of the apostles of Christ, who in the revelation made to him”- and then he gives the substance of Revelation 20:3-6, very much abbreviated (Try., 81). The book itself nowhere expressly claims to be written by the apostle. There are some very striking similarities to John’s Gospel, as well as great differences, but the similarities are mainly in details, while the differences lie in the general character of the books. There are many scholars who hold that only in one way is it credible that the same person wrote both books, viz., if the Revelation was written first, and a good many years elapsed before the Gospel was written. In fifteen or twenty years the rugged Greek of the Apocalypse might have been improved into the smooth Greek of the Gospel and Epistles, and other very considerable changes of style might have taken place. At Ephesus St. John would be constantly speaking Greek and rarely speaking Aramic, and he would be in contact with persons who would influence his style. But Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, tells us that the vision of the Revelation “was seen at the end of Domitian” (95 - 96 A.D.). As St. John died early in the reign of Trajan (98 – 100 A.D.)at the age of about one hundred, there is no possibility of finding the necessary interval between the Revelation and the Gospel, if Irenaeus is correct; and it is unlikely that St. John wrote anything when he was nearly a hundred years of age. But Irenaeus may have been mistaken. The apostle may have been exiled when Domitian was city praetor after the downfall of Vitellius (69 A.D.); and Iranaeus, knowing that Domitian was connected with the exile may have assumed that it took place when Domitian was emperor. When this early date (68 – 70 A.D.) for the Apocalypse is admitted, the apostolic authorship follows almost as a necessity. The place where the vision was written down was probably Patmos; but what was seen on the island may have been recorded after it was left. The point is unimportant, for it throws no light on the difficulties.