First John-Introduction-First John: Date of First John
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Tuesday February 14, 2017
First John: Date of First John
Lesson # 8
Since the epistles have been closely associated with the Fourth Gospel, those who would place the Gospel in the late first century locate the epistles anywhere from A.D. 90–110. However, arguments for such a late date now must bear the weight of serious criticisms, and increasingly the Gospel has been given an earlier time frame closer to A.D. 70 or A.D. 80. Allowing time for the development of the heresy described in the epistles, a date between A.D. 70 and A.D. 90 would not be unreasonable.
The date of 1–3 John cannot be rigidly determined. The evidence from Qumran allows the possibility of an earlier development of the kind of theology found in the Johannine literature than was formerly believed possible. The chief clue, however, is the nature of the heresy attacked and the church situation, both of which suggest a date between the 60s and 90s of the 1st century; our knowledge of the church in this period is so meagre that a closer dating is impossible.
James Sweeney writes “Dating, like authorship, is related to the perceived relationship 1 John bears to the Gospel of John—whether it was earlier or later than the Fourth Gospel. A broad consensus of scholarship holds that the finished form of the Fourth Gospel originated in the last quarter of the first century, from ca. AD 80–85 (Carson, John, 86) to the end of the first century (Moloney, John, 2). Strecker’s view that the Gospel of John should be placed ‘in the first half of the second century’ (Letters, xlii) is unnecessarily late. Some scholars propose only general date parameters for 1–3 John. Burge offers a date between AD 70 and AD 90 (“Letters,” 595). Kümmel suggests AD 90–110 (Introduction, 452). Ellis prefers a date of ca. AD 85–95 (Making, 319). Thompson suggests a date between AD 90 and 100 (1–3 John, 20). Yarbrough suggests the closing decades of the first century (1–3 John, 17). Other scholars provide more specific dating. Robinson dates 1–3 John in the early to mid-60s (Redating, 352: c. 60–65), though most scholars prefer the later first century. Witherington suggests the 80s (Letters and Homilies, 427; Invitation, 346). Smalley favors the 90s (1, 2, 3 John, xxxxii). Udo Schnelle, who dates 1 John after 2 and 3 John, proposes a date of ca. 95 (History, 459). Brown maintains a date ca. AD 100 for 1 and 2 John (Introduction, 384, 386).”
Dan Wallace writes “On the assumption of common authorship for the three epistles and the Gospel of John, if any one of these can be dated with relative certainty, the others would naturally fit in closely, since the style, themes, and outlook are so similar. ‘Most scholars agree that no great interval could have separated the Gospel from the epistles.’ Although a good case could be made that all four were written in the last decade of the first century CE (a view held by the majority), a growing number of scholars are voicing the opinion that the Gospel was published before 70 CE. As that is our conviction, and since we have gone over that ground in reference to the Gospel of John, we will simply assume it here. The question for us is: Which came first, the Gospel or the epistle? It is our view that if the Gospel was penned c. 65 CE, then the epistle was written in the late 60s (c. 68-69). The reasons for this view are as follows. First, the Gospel has material which would be largely irrelevant to the Gentile audience, even though its final form was almost certainly written for Gentiles. As we suggested earlier, this argues that John had amassed material for his Gospel, without having a specific audience in mind until the last stage of composition. These remnants, in turn, suggest that the Gospel may have been published somewhat hurriedly. Our quite tentative contention is that either the whole Gospel was produced at Peter’s request (with the appendix [chapter 21] added after Peter died) or at least the appendix was added at Peter’s request, for the sake of Paul’s churches which otherwise did not have an apostolic voice. John brought the Gospel with him to Ephesus in 65 CE and added the appendix (with the approbation of the Ephesian elders in 21.24). Hence, he really was not fully aware of his new audience, even though he knew that he wanted to minister to them. Second, the epistle shows signs of having come later. (1) Its eschatology is much more futuristic than the eschatology of the Gospel. Rather than arguing for a more primitive eschatology (a view held by Dodd) in the epistle, if the same man wrote both books and if the first was written before war broke out, this suggests that the epistle was written after 66 CE. Not only does the language reflect concepts and even verbiage found in the Olivet Discourse, but there is a tone of urgency found in this letter which is lacking in the Gospel. The best external cause for this shift in eschatological perspective would have been the Jewish War. Further, the war would not yet have culminated, otherwise there would almost certainly have been a let-down in eschatological expectation. (2) There is an obvious familiarity with the audience which seems to be lacking in the Gospel. Indeed, if tradition is correct that John 21.24 is a commendation by the Ephesian elders of the veracity of the Gospel (or at least of the truth of chapter 21), this implies that John was largely unknown to his audience. Such could not be said of the epistle, for the author refers to his audience as ‘my little children.’ (3) 1 John 2.19 also seems to imply that some time had elapsed from the time John had come to know his audience, for the opponents had left the church. This statement (“they went out from us”) suggests that John had been acquainted with the audience long enough to have not only established a relationship with them, but even to have established a relationship with those who defected. This text, in fact, suggests that 1 John was written after 2 John, for the heretics in 2 John were itinerant preachers who were still considered part of the Church. Although this is subtle and capable of other interpretations, it seems likely that 1 John was written some short time after 2 John. In sum, we would date 1 John after the Jewish War broke out, but before it was concluded. John must be given some amount of time to know his audience and for the heretics to have left the congregation. Hence, the epistle should probably be dated after 2 John. A date of c. 68-69 CE seems to be the best guess.”
So it appears that any determination for the date of these three letters is difficult and problematic.
In solving the problem of the date of First John, scholars usually, discuss the close relationship of 1 John and the Fourth Gospel to come to their conclusions.
However, it is not unreasonable to come to a decision regarding the date of First John by considering the evidence provided by textual clues, as well as historical developments, and early church tradition.
The latter is very strong in stating that John spent his latter years in the city of Ephesus ministering to the churches of Asia Minor.
Therefore, it is very possible that all three of John’s epistles were written at Ephesus during his latter years.
We have already presented internal evidence from these three epistles that would indicate that John was an old man when he wrote the epistles.
Church tradition says that John was at Ephesus “remaining among them permanently until the time of Trajan’ who reigned as Roman emperor a.d. 98–117.
All of this would strong suggest that John died toward the end of the first century, which sets a date for his writings which would be somewhere between A.D. 85 and 100.