The Date and Authorship of the Gospel of John

The Bible contains four biographies of the life of Jesus called Gospels. Since the truth of the Christian faith rests upon the reliability of these documents, it is not surprising that critics of the faith have attacked them. Of the four Gospels, none have faced more severe criticism than the Gospel of John. John’s Gospel contains the highest Christology of all the Gospels. It presents Jesus as the eternal Son of God. It is easy to see why critics attack its historicity. For if what the Gospel of John records really happened, then Christianity is true. Therefore, it is important to study the reasons for trusting this key book of the Bible.

There are two main arguments given for believing the Gospel of John records late legends as opposed to reliable history. The first is that the Gospel of John is too late to be considered reliable. These critics urge that the Gospel dates to the late second century AD. Since the events of Jesus’ life occurred around 30-33 AD, sources from the late second century are too late to contain historically valuable information. The second major contention is that the Gospel of John is not written by (or based on the testimony of) an eyewitness. It was certainly not written by John the apostle, and it contains later Christian legends and myths. In order to vindicate John’s Gospel as reliable history, the Christian apologist must show both that it is close to the events it records as well as that the author was in a position to be recording accurate history.

There are two key ways to answer the charge that the Gospel of John was written in late second century. The first is to appeal to external, historical, sources. Writing in the late first century or early second century AD, the church leader Papias wrote about John’s Gospel. This is certainly significant because it is not possible to reference a document that does not exist. Therefore, John’s Gospel must have been written prior to Papias’ reference to it. This would put John’s Gospel in the late first century. The second way to demonstrate that John’s Gospel is early enough to be considered historically valuable is by means of textual criticism. It is widely acknowledged that the New Testament is superior to all other ancient documents in terms of how much textual evidence exists for it. The New Testament has better and earlier evidence than anything else from ancient history. Nothing else even comes close. There are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and fragments, many dating to the second or third centuries. The very earliest fragment of all is the John Rylands fragment. It contains five verses, and it is from the Gospel of John. This incredible piece of evidence is dated to 150 AD at the very latest, and most scholars date it to 120-125 AD. Many scholars believe it should be dated to 95-100 AD. Furthermore, the fragment is Egyptian. It would take some time for a Greek document to travel to Egypt. Therefore, the original Gospel of John must be earlier than this fragment. For these reasons, it is now widely acknowledged that the Gospel of John was written around 90 AD. Thus, John’s Gospel is early enough to have been written by an eyewitness.

While only the very fringe of scholarship would challenge the idea that John’s Gospel was written after the first century, the authorship of the Gospel is highly controversial. Early composition does not necessarily mean a document is reliable. Does John’s Gospel, in fact, contain the very testimony of John the apostle? There is considerable evidence that it does. The most powerful evidence comes from external sources. Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch identify John the apostle as the author of this Gospel. Critics complain that the author does not identify himself in the text. This was, however, quite normal for ancient biographies. Tacitus never once identified himself, but is known from external sources. Likewise, Plutarch authored over fifty biographies and never put his name to any of them. Historians do not doubt the authorship of either Tacitus or Plutarch’s writings. Why should the standard be different for John’s Gospel?

Another consideration is that contrary to the claims of skeptics, the author of this Gospel actually does identify himself. John 21:20,24 says, “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following…. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” Since it is written in the third person, this has led some to conclude that there may have been an editor that wrote the ending of the Gospel. This is acceptable and even normal for that time period. Others might object that the author is identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” - not John. This is a fair point. However, both Polycarp and Irenaeus identify John as the apostle whom Jesus loved. Therefore, we can be reasonably certain that John was who was understood to be the disciple whom Jesus loved. A third argument may be used from internal evidence. From the synoptic Gospels it may be gleaned that Jesus’ inner circle consisted of Peter, James, and John. Peter is mentioned by name in this Gospel (See John 6:68). James was dead by 90 AD (Acts 12:2). Oddly enough John is not even mentioned in the Gospel even though he is so prominent in the others. Instead there is a mysterious disciple who Jesus loves. Given that the perspective of John’s Gospel is that of an insider (John 1:14), it seems most reasonable to conclude that the author was the third one in Jesus’ inner circle. If that is compared to the synoptic Gospels, then the only option is that the author was John. Given the similarities between the two, it is reasonable to say that the same man who wrote John’s Gospel also wrote the epistle of first John. In 1 John 1:1 the author of this epistle also explicitly claims to be an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.

Finally, consider a detail only recorded in John’s Gospel. At Jesus’ crucifixion, we are told that a soldier threw a spear in Jesus’ side and that blood and water came out. This is significant because the author of this Gospel does not appear to be familiar with medicine. Additionally, there is no theological significance attached to the water coming out. It is merely mentioned as an incidental side note. This is, of course, evidence that Jesus’ heart had ruptured. It also suggests that it was observed by an eyewitness since there is no theological reason to include this detail. This indicates that the author of John’s Gospel was indeed an eyewitness to the crucifixion.

Works Cited

Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace. Dethroning Jesus. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.

Robert J. Hutcherson. Searching for Jesus. Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2015.

Craig Blomberg. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

Craig Blomberg. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

James Patrick Holding. Trusting the New Testament. Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2009.

James Warner Wallace. Cold-Case Christianity. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013.

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, editors. Come Let us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2012.