In several previous publications Daniel B. Wallace, professor at Dallas Seminary, has argued for a pre-AD 70 date of composition for John’s Gospel on what may appear to be a fairly inconspicuous feature: the use of the present tense form of the verb “to be” (eimi) in John 5:2: “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” According to Wallace, the present tense indicates that the structure here described was still standing at the time of writing. Since archaeological evidence suggests that the structure was destroyed in AD 70, John’s Gospel must have been written prior to AD 70.
In my commentary on John’s Gospel in the BECNT series (p. 178) I have adduced possible instances of present tense forms of eimi that may be past-referring, which would invalidate Wallace’s theory. Specifically, I mentioned John 10:8 (“All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers” NIV) and John 19:40 (“This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs”). Wallace has now responded. He claims that neither passage is a genuine parallel and continues to argue that there are no instances of the past-referring present tense forms of eimi in the New Testament. He also continues to argue for a pre-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel. With regard to John 10:8, Wallace contends this is an instance of “extending from past present” (with reference to Fanning), not a historical present. He does not give any reason why John 19:40 is inadmissible other than asserting that it is not a genuine parallel and citing certain English translations.
I am not going to engage in detailed interchange on minor or ultimately immaterial points here nor respond to arguments or information that I consider less than completely accurate, because my purpose here is more broadly to reassess the likelihood of Wallace’s reading of John 5:2 and the possible light it sheds on the date of John’s Gospel.
First of all, regarding the date of composition for John’s Gospel (on which I have blogged previously), only a very tiny minority of scholars argues for a pre-AD 70 date. I continue to be puzzled by Wallace’s strong interest in arguing for such a date. In my view (and also that of Craig Blomberg, Don Carson, and others; cited on p. 178 of my BECNT commentary), the tense form of a single Greek verb in John’s Gospel is hardly able to bear the heavy weight Wallace puts on it in proving the date of composition of the entire Gospel. Not that the majority is necessarily always right in biblical studies, but it must be said that there are good reasons why the virtual consensus of Johannine scholars holds to a post-AD 70 date.
Second, I continue to believe that we must be careful not to dismiss too quickly the possibility that a present tense form of eimi may be used in biblical narrative within a temporal scope that includes the past. In fact, by calling the use in John 10:8 “extending from past present” [sic], Wallace acknowledges that the past may be part of the temporal scope of eimi in a present tense form, even though differences may obtain with regard to the use of eimi in John 10:8 and in John 5:2.
The use in John 19:40 seems to be closer to John 5:2, and Wallace does not advance any actual argument that would disqualify understanding the use of the present tense form of eimi in this passage as past-referring, other than possibly hinting at the fact that burial customs at the time of Jesus may still have obtained at the time of writing John’s Gospel. This, of course, is a point that cannot be established on the basis of New Testament Greek. Suffice it to say that there is evidence that Jewish burial customs did in fact change in the second half of the first century AD (see my BECNT commentary, p. 555; Keener, in commenting on John 19:39–40, speaks of “Jewish burials in this period,” p. 1163 [emphasis added]), so that it cannot be assumed that no change occurred. Moreover, note that in other cases, too, John mentions Jewish customs prevailing at the time of Jesus (John 2:6; 11:5; 18:28) that should be taken as referring to the level of the original time frame of the narrative (past time) rather than as necessarily still in place at the time of writing (present time).
For these reasons I disagree that John 19:40 is irrelevant for our understanding of John 5:2. I also contend that on a narrative level it is far more natural to read the references in John 5:2, 10:8, and 19:40 as past-referring rather than as John moving from past reference to present reference (which would be considerably more intrusive) and back to past reference. A case in point is the NIV’s and TNIV’s rendering of John 19:40 as “This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.”
In any case, I do not expect that many students of John’s Gospel will believe that the date of John’s Gospel can be established by a disputed use of one single verb tense in the Gospel (of course, Wallace may dispute that this point is disputed, but I dispute this!). In the end, we must turn to a variety of other, more significant and more weighty, factors that suggest a post-AD 70 date for John’s Gospel, factors I and many other commentators have set forth for quite some time (see in this regard David Croteau’s helpful summary article on the date of John’s Gospel in Faith & Mission 20 [2003]: 47–80). For these reasons I think it is unwise for anyone to champion the view that John was written prior to AD 70, whether on the basis of the present tense form of eimi in John 5:2 or otherwise.
I am with you on this one Dr. K. I thought it was inappropriate to build an argument on one verse – uless Dr Wallace has other issues he ties in with that one verset to support a pre-70 date. Are not other arguments for a post-70 ones like the fact that the sadducees are not mentioned in John (whose powerbase was in the temple)? Once the Temple was gone, so were the sadducees. What say you?
ps. my wife and I really enjoyed your commentary on John when we used it to prepare for our sermons on John in one of our preaching classes.
You’re exactly right, Brian. In my BECNT commentary on John, p. 8, n. 20, I list a series of factors, all of which point to a post-AD 70 date. Thank you very much for your comment.
I’m inclined toward a post-AD 70 date as well. Dating the Fourth Gospel is inevitably based on a preponderance of evidence, and so often, the evaluation of the evidence is made to fit the presuppositions the scholar brings to his/her study. To me, the narrative and theological similarities (and even polemical purpose if Irenaeus is to be believed) between the Fourth Gospel and 1 John are rather compelling on the question of dating, even if one allows for the possibility of later editorial work on the Prologue. There are enough indicators of a later 1st C date that in order for conventional wisdom to be overthrown, there needs to be a more comprehensive case made than Wallace’s singular reliance on a debatable use of a single verb tense. I respect Wallace, but I part company with him here.
Plenty of strictly pre-70 Jerusalem institutions, architectural features and customs are described in detail as functioning in the present tense in other early Jewish literature, prominently including in the Mishnah; and similar (if admittedly less self-evident) points might be made about 1 Clement and Hebrews too. Incidentally, there “is” to this day in Jerusalem a gate called the Sheep Gate. It’s impossible to deny that the toponymy of Bethesda couldn’t have been in some sense “sticky” post-70, as is and was frequently the case in the Middle East?
[...] Andreas Köstenberger thinks Dan Wallace’s view that John’s gospel was written before AD 70 is far-fetched. Dan responded. [...]
So it’s been shown that eimi can be past-referring, how does that “invalidate” Dr. Wallace’s position? I can see how all the archeological and historical evidence, placed together with the past-referent option, can validate your position, but how does simply showing that eimi can be used like an aorist “invalidate” his view that the text was written prior to 70 AD? Also, if Dr. Wallace had stated that the present tense of eimi could not be used past-referringly, I could see how your evidence would “invalidate” his grammatical claim, but not his pre-70 AD claim.
Archaeological evidence should be secondary in most cases. First, it’s very difficult to date these things right. Also, John could be writing post-70 AD, and yet refer to the pool in the present, even though it was in a very sorry state. So the water has been drained and stones have been removed, maybe the colonnades are even collapsing, but it’s still there. You could still go see where it was in relationship to the Sheep Gate. You could still see that the five colonnades surrounded the pool.
I think both positions are valid. But something more than grammatical or archeological evidence would need to be used to invalidate the false reconstruction. I’d vote for something like this: grammatical first, biblical-theological second, and archeological third. Each should inform the other, but archeological should rarely, if ever trump the first two.
He argues adamantly for a pre-70 dating because he is a full preterist trying to make his heresy “fit” what the already believes.
[...] entonces, por tomarse el tiempo para responder en inglés a mi reciente columna en inglés acerca de Juan 5:2 y la fecha del evangelio según Juan, ¡y de Patmos hasta entonces! No [...]