Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness from the early second century, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. John -25 contains information that could be construed as autobiographical.
Conservative scholars generally assume that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple in verse 20 are the same person; Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss.
Usually Mark is placed first at [around] 70 and Matthew and Luke somewhat later.
This book will argue that all three are probably to be dated before 55" (p. As Wenham says, all this "constitutes a radical departure from the commonly held view" of both the dating of and the relationships among the "synoptics." The fulcrum of Wenham’s argument is his conclusion that the book of Acts was completed around 62. is that when Luke wrote these closing lines it had still not taken place" (p.
That is, we know 'latest dates', earlier dates have to be substantiated." I reproduce it here, because I feel it summarises my view on this better than I have otherwise been able to achieve.
This is very much the thrust of late 19th-early 20th century scholarship; that the new testament documents must not be dated any earlier than can be conclusively shown from other documents (themselves not subjected to this approach, fortunately).
Hill goes on to propose that Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias’ elders, and Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all quote from the Gospel of John.
Epiphanius, however, takes note of an Early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic..
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. I rather think the logical fallacy with this has been mentioned; but it's really rather theoretical these days.As you know, this methodology produced a date for John's Gospel of 160 . 125 by Roberts &c, demonstrated that this could not be so.He states that "the only satisfying explanation of the writer’s silence concerning the trial [of Paul] . xxii, 225-29); the end of Acts provides us with its date: two years after Paul’s arrival at Rome in 59/60 (Acts -31).Moreover, Luke’s positive portrait of Roman authorities makes it likely that Acts was written prior to the Neronian persecution of 64.