Comments on: Was John’s Gospel Written Prior to AD 70?

By: Fundamentos Biblicos » Juan 5:2 y la fecha del evangelio según Juan: Una respuesta a Dan Wallace

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:46 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Debbie Ryker

Debbie Ryker — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 05:15:45 +0000

He argues adamantly for a pre-70 dating because he is a full preterist trying to make his heresy “fit” what the already believes.

By: Christopher Taylor

Christopher Taylor — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:54:38 +0000

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.

By: Parchment and Pen » Odds ‘n Ends 6/18/07

Parchment and Pen » Odds ‘n Ends 6/18/07 — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:13:54 +0000

[...] Andreas Köstenberger thinks Dan Wallace’s view that John’s gospel was written before AD 70 is far-fetched. Dan responded. [...]

By: Ben Bag-Bag

Ben Bag-Bag — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:17:44 +0000

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?

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:53:58 +0000

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.

By: Andreas Köstenberger

Andreas Köstenberger — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:01:55 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:31 +0000

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.