DATING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
The New Testament’s four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only real sources of information about the alleged life of the historical Jesus. We need contemporary testimony of Jesus and there is nothing. Why do we not have it when we have it for other faith figures such as Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy. Something written after Jesus left is not as good and does not ask for the same trust as something contemporary. That is the principle and there is no way it can be wished away.
The gospels are also the only accounts of this life that
Christians consider divinely inspired. The other gospels that were excluded from
the New Testament were written too late to be of any value. Considering the
fanaticism that marks most forms of Christianity, it is remarkable that their
precious gospels show no indication of having existed in their present form at
least until more than a century after Jesus died.
The gospels could have been written a year after Jesus
died and Jesus might still not have existed. Selective choice of the readership
by the engineers of the Church could have ensured that Jesus would be believed
in. But the longer the gospels can be proved to have existed after Jesus died
the more likely it is that Christianity is a fake. Had the gospel writers not
been ashamed of how late they wrote they would have given us dates for then as
now people did not like late accounts or accounts that could be late.
Evidence of reasonable publication matters more than the date something was written. It will matter if you want to argue that society could contradict a pile of historical lies when it gets a read at them. If the date is late and the publication is late then we are entitled to refuse to take the gospels as gospel truth.
The Gospel of John is probably the last gospel. Cranks say that it could have
been written anytime from soon after Jesus’ death and the non-cranks say it was
nearly until the end of the first century. The latest date is the safest bet as
we shall soon see and that date takes us into the second century.
The way it is so different, in the sense of being
mystical and magical, from the other gospels points to it being the last and so
supersedes any evidence to the contrary. It is more hostile to Judaism than the
rest and shows the influence of Greek philosophy so it was written after the
Church broke away from Judaism which happened in a big way in 70AD. Irenaeus
said that John wrote it in the nineties of the first century (Biblical
Dictionary, John, Gospel of). He might be wrong about the author but right about
the date. What the earliest person says comes first and he was the first to say
it was a late gospel. Papias indicated that there was a gospel of John a few
decades later.
The stress on God and the supernatural telling you that
Jesus’ and his message are all for real in this gospel is an attempt to do away
with historical evidence and forbids belief in the other gospels for they have a
different attitude.
This gospeller did not have the other gospels before him
at all. There is no evidence that he consulted the synoptic gospels (page 403,
William Neil’s One Volume Bible Commentary). The similarities prove that he was
not filling in where the others were silent. John did not put in the stuff
unique to his gospel for purely theological reasons. Why would he say that the
handkerchief over Jesus’ head was rolled up by itself in the tomb unless he was
intending to be historical? If John is the last gospel then it is proof that
they were kept secret for it has no awareness of them. John uses traditions that
avoid any semblance to the traditions of Mark, Matthew and Luke. He didn't avoid
them deliberately. What we see about John's stories and the stories of Mark,
Matthew and Luke is that each side made up its own traditions.
John must be the last gospel for Luke claimed to have written all about Jesus and that we need to know so John’s tales must have been invented afterwards.
Luke would not have neglected the story of Lazarus being
raised from the dead that we have in John. It is no answer to say that Luke
thought the story of the resurrected son of the widow was enough for the Lazarus
story is more astonishing for Lazarus was smelling in the tomb. He declared that
he wanted to tell Theo everything meaning everything essential or major (Luke
1:1-4; Acts 1:1).
John’s Jesus tells the apostles that they are not slaves
but friends (15:15). The principle in the other gospels that we must love only
for God’s sake implies that we are slaves for we are not working for a reward
but for God’s benefit is denied. We are certainly slaves if we love God this way
on earth because we have no way of being sure that depression, grave sickness
and death will not come and we only believe we will have blessings after death.
Thus, John is putting itself outside the Mark, Matthew and Luke traditions and
even their very foundations. This heretical gospel is implying that any other
gospel is nonsense.
Jesus tells the crowd that the light – Jesus for he calls himself the light of the world - is among them for only a little while and told them to walk in it while they still have it for it will be dark when it is gone (John 12:35). But if the light speaks through a gospel this would not be unless that gospel will be written after they are all dead. John 14 promises that the apostles will always have the revelations of the light. So when they had light and didn’t leave any for the people we have a clear hint that the gospeller knew there were no gospels written or authorised by the apostles during their lifetimes. It also implies that
John the apostle never wrote the gospel. John might have
died in 98 AD at the latest so the gospel could be later than that. The gospel
envisions itself as a restoration of the lost light. Since the apostles claimed
to be the foundation of the faith anybody claiming to restore is a heretic and
so the John gospel is heretical and should not be in the Bible.
Some say all this dualism in the John gospel between
light and darkness comes from the Qumran writings of the early first century and
not from Hellenistic philosophy at the end of the first century and on that
basis date the gospel earlier than the nineties (page 70, Reasons for Hope). But
the writer could have used Qumran material any time after the material was
known.
In John 9:4, Jesus tells his disciples when he wants to
cure a blind man that he has to do miracles before night comes on. Then he says
that while he is in the world he is the light of the world. Jesus is denying
that there will be any miracles done when he physically leaves the world. The
Acts of the Apostles and the epistles which record miracles are being pronounced
to be unreliable and fraudulent. When the author thought of putting that in he
must have intended to halt the claims of the apostles or their fans that they
possessed miracle powers. He may contradict himself elsewhere but what he means
here is clear enough. The night must stand for the absence of the physical
presence of Jesus on earth for he said he was the light of the world as long as
he was in the world.
John must have been a secret gospel if it had a go at the
apostles and then it would have been loudly and scathingly denounced in the New
Testament and in early tradition.
John says that the apostles reached an astonishing level
of saintliness and belief (17:8, 10, 19). Since one sin makes all you do
hypocrisy and Jesus told the apostles that they did not belong to the world, a
figure for sin and materialism, it means that they must have been perfectly
holy. Significantly, there are no tales in John about the apostles being weak
cowards and all the rest. Only Thomas was accused of a reluctance to believe
that Jesus rose but it was not described as detracting from his character. Peter
and the beloved believed Jesus going missing from the tomb was the work of
thieves or Jesus reviving because they did not understand or believe that
scripture said he would rise from the dead (John 20:8,9). They were brave and
loyal enough to do that. This implies that the story of cowardly and unreliable
apostles was an invention. The way this story is not attacked directly shows
that it was not being said about them.
John denies that Jesus predicted the crucifixion clearly
before it happened for if he had we would be reading that they did not
understand Jesus and not the scriptures for it sees Jesus as more important than
the Old Testament. He does say that Jesus predicted his death but only in vague
terms. He denies that Jesus ever spoke clearly about his crucifixion and death
because the Old Testament scriptures are vague about it and they are. So that is
why he is able to say the apostles didn’t understand that Jesus rose or was
meant to. Matthew, Mark and Luke then lied when they said Jesus clearly
predicted that he would die on the cross and rise again and the events
surrounding these happenings.
As Robin Lane Fox says, in John 14:31, Jesus says let us
get up and go out and then he rambles on for a long time before he goes out
indicating that the rambling was an insertion (page 142, The Unauthorized
Version).
John 5 describes a pool in Jerusalem that allegedly had the power to heal the first person lucky enough to be dipped in after an angel stirred the waters. This shows us that the people were gullible and superstitious including the gospeller who believed in this legend. Also, Jesus cured this man which casts doubt on whether a cure happened at all for the man was gullible. Jesus should have picked headstrong rational people if he wanted his miracles to be signs. It is bad enough when the gospels give no evidence that anybody Jesus cured was like that but here it is admitted that a gullible man was chosen for the alleged miracle. The main problem with this is that it is now known that this pool was sacred to the god of healing, Asclepius. Jesus cured the man and ran off leaving the pagan god to get the credit even though he did tell the man later. Perhaps the man was cured by somebody else and Jesus heard that some people thought it was him and he took the credit. The gospeller’s gullibility is so great that he does not give any proof that this could not have happened. John hides the fact that this was a pagan shrine and says an angel was doing the miracles which suggests a late date long after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Or maybe he was not John and did not know but still he had to have been writing after these things were relatively forgotten.
Jesus told the apostles that he gave them a new
commandment to love one another as he loved them (John 13:34-36). This is
different then from the Old Testament commandment, “Love your neighbour as
yourself” for it was an old commandment. Jesus accepted the Old Testament
command so it seems that he meant we have to love one another enough to die for
one another like he died for others. The preceding sentence has Jesus saying he
will only be around a little while so that was probably what he had in mind. The
line after also says that Jesus will sacrifice himself to death and Peter says
he will sacrifice himself too. The Law of Moses commanded people to die for
others say in war. So why does Jesus say it’s a new commandment? Could it be
that the gospel is obliquely saying that Jesus wants people to die UNNECESSARILY
for others? That is the only explanation. If the apostles committed suicide by
getting themselves martyred then we cannot rely on them at all. Jesus said that
the whole world would know they are his disciples by their love and obedience to
the new commandment. But the apostles lived obscure lives and died deaths that
are masked in legend. This prophecy proved false. It was only in the second
century that stories of this remarkable suicidal fanatical love of the apostles
appeared which tell us plenty about when this ludicrous gospel was written.
The Book of Revelation which is attributed to John and
which was entered into the canon of the Bible because it was thought to be
genuinely from him is no help in working out how old John is or who wrote it for
it is full of abrupt Greek and has copious grammatical errors (page 319, The
Truth of Christianity) and so it is not John’s work. The Revelation cannot be
the word of God when it strictly forbids anybody making any changes in it when
it needs changing. Sometimes the book is in good grammar and other times it is
appalling (page 319, ibid) which has led some to say that the bad grammar was
just a put-on to imitate the hurried style of the Old Testament prophets. So, no
matter what anybody throws up against the Christian scriptures they have an
answer. The most plausible answer is that somebody rewrote a well-written book
and made a hash of it. It is more plausible than saying somebody would
deliberately write in bad grammar to make a symbolical point that nobody cares
about.
The Ryland’s Papyrus, the oldest fragment of the New Testament in the world, is a tiny piece of scroll with part of John 18:31-33, 37. It is taken to date from 130 AD, at the oldest and could be from 160 AD (Challenging the Verdict, Earl Doherty), through the science of palaeography or the analysis of the writing. It was found in Egypt which is far from Ephesus where the gospel was apparently written. But tradition says that the author departed from Ephesus in 98 AD so he could have left it for Egypt. There is no evidence for the view that the gospel was so well circulated that the fragment became available. The gospeller would have sent his gospel to Egypt because it was receptive to new religious ideas. The piece might have come from just the second copy or even a talisman. Superstitious people carried portions of holy books with them. And these tended to stick to the handwriting on the original for magic is based on the idea that like produces like. Many people prefer to use old-fashioned styles so the writing is not conclusive proof about anything. The fragment was alone when found suggesting that it was a talisman. Thus it poses no threat to those who would date John to 142 AD.
The John Rylands Payprus is not easily dated from the handwriting for there are so few samples from the end of the first century that the Papyrus may actually be from 150 AD. And we need more samples from its place of origin. Its early date is pure guesswork.
The fragment does not prove that John existed in its complete and present form between 130 and 150 AD. Luke wrote that some of his gospel material came from the already existing books and undoubtedly some of it would have come from them word for word. John could have been produced the same way. This was about or over a hundred years after Jesus’ death so by that time it was possible to invent anything at all about him. Judaism was in chaos and not a threat.
The first quote from this gospel comes from the Gnostic
heretic Basilides around 130 AD. Basilides however must have been sure that the
gospel was corrupted for he claimed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead
of Jesus and repudiated John’s Jesus’ acceptance of the Jewish Law by
implication when he accused the God of the Jews of being a mere angel. But the
original sources are merely fragments and the other sources disagree on what his
doctrines were and tell lies about them (page 53, The Concise Dictionary of the
Christian Church). Thus we dare not be sure that Basilides did quote John when
nearly all his teaching was reported by hostile Christians who were liberal with
accuracy. John never says that Jesus’ return from the dead was supernatural or
inexplicable which shows the mark of the second century climate among Gnostics
that said that it was a natural resurrection and not a real resurrection.
But anyway, Basilides quoted John 1:9 which speaks of the true light coming into the world to enlighten every person and John 2:4 where Jesus says his hour has not come yet (page 126, The Canon of Scripture). So Hippolytus says in his Refutation of All Heresies. Now there is no problem with the quotation from John 1 because it was a hymn in common use that John put at the start of his gospel. As for the other, it was only a saying and most of the sayings of Jesus were allowed to be distributed. Basilides proves nothing about the existence of the John gospel.
John was certainly written in the second century. We
don’t know how much rewriting it got after its composition.