principal arguments used to date John post AD 70
I am trying to determine what arguments are used to date the Gospel of John post 70 AD. I have used bard to ask this question. It said, "I do not have enough information about that person to help with your request. I am a large language model, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions, but my knowledge about this person is limited. Is there anything else I can do to help you with this request?"
My research has led me to these conclusions.
The Gospels' pericopeal sequence only makes sense if Mark was composed in the third possible section.
It is quite puzzling that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, was also the most widely read in the Gentile church unless Matthew served as the main source.
The early historians prioritized Matthew because they had access to a wealth of now-deleted sources.
If Matthew arrived first, that would explain the tiny accords between Matthew and Luke the best.
It seems that Mark uses a lot more of Matthew's preferred terms and expressions than the reverse
There is a lot of "preaching" content shared by Matthew and Luke; Matthew's tends to be organized into longer sermons, while Luke's is more dispersed throughout other content.
Scholars of the New Testament almost unanimously agree that the writing of the Gospels began after the year 70 CE. Conservative evangelicals are the main exceptions, and they frequently start dating them sooner.
Scholars usually hold that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by Jesus' disciples, and it seems improbable that they would still be alive at the end of the first century (particularly considering the life expectancies in ancient times).
It is generally accepted among critical scholars that Mark was the first Gospel, written in the year 70 CE; Matthew and Luke followed a few years later, in the years 80–85 CE; and John was the last Gospel, published in the years 90–95 CE. I have read articles about the Synoptic Problem before.However, how do researchers arrive at those dates?
This version of the topic within Johannine Studies is beyond my depth and comprehension. What are some good sources on this deep topic within Biblical Studies?
Comments
-
This version of the topic within Johannine Studies is beyond my depth and comprehension. What are some good sources on this deep topic within Biblical Studies?
Are you saying you've reading the supporting arguments in papers and books proposing particular dates but don't understand them? If so, I have no way of knowing additional sources that you would understand. But I can suggest that you learn to map arguments so that you do understand them. Rationale - online argument mapping (rationaleonline.com) is a free tool used in education over a broad range of knowledge with tutorials. There are others but you only need one. Google argument mapping for other options.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Scholars of the New Testament almost unanimously agree that the writing of the Gospels began after the year 70 CE. Conservative evangelicals are the main exceptions, and they frequently start dating them sooner.
The dividing line is that "scholars" ignore the implications of a date after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (for Mt, Mk, Lk) whilst conservative bible-believing scholars are well aware of the prophetic implications.This does not hold for the gospel of John so it could have been written earlier (Irenaeus) or much later! I got his from MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (for each gospel).
There is a long, involved discussion in Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Vols. 1–2) if you are up to it.
.A concise summary is ."Beyond that limitation, none of the arguments is entirely convincing, and almost any date between about AD 55 and AD 95 is possible. Even so, 21:23 ‘suggests it was probably nearer the end of that period than the beginning’ (Michaels, p. xxix). More by way of default than anything else, I tentatively hold to a date about AD 80." D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
The dividing line is that "scholars" ignore the implications of a date after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (for Mt, Mk, Lk) whilst conservative bible-believing scholars are well aware of the prophetic implications.
Hmmm ... I find Bible-believing scholars on both sides of the discussion.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hmmm ... I find Bible-believing scholars on both sides of the discussion.
I rephrased a comment without quoting. EDIT: but why would bible-believing scholars favor >70 AD for the Synoptics?
For John's gospel, they tend to go for a date well beyond 70 AD (e.g. 85 AD) where the event is supposed to be a distant memory.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
You will find my response elsewhere.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Where can I find your (MJ) response? How is dating done of New Testament texts in an archaeological and anthropological sense?
0 -
Where can I find your (MJ) response?
The response was directly to Dave. If you click on "replied" in the forum post heading it will take you to the post being responded to. Sorry, I forgot to use Dave's name.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
