been written in the mid second century. In fact, the first commentary, at least partly, was written by a gnostic in 125 CE, and by 173 CE it came to be well established and highly regarded by, for example, Tatian, as found in his fourfold Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron.18 The presence of a part of the passion narrative of John in the second-century CE papyri manuscripts (P52, P90, P66)19 speaks in favor of the Gospel as in circulation in the early or mid second century CE. However, the Gospel must have existed some time before it came to be written in papyrus scrolls after being circulated in Asia Minor and then in Palestine and other Christian centers before it came to be known in Egypt. So Barrett argues that a date around 110 CE may be placed as the extreme limit for the composition of the Gospel, while 140 CE may be considered as the extreme limit for its publication.20 P52, dated about 130 CE, makes us hesitant to conclude that John was written after 110 CE.21
Dodd detected the earliest tradition (the Synoptic tradition) in John’s Gospel,22 while Robinson argued for the procedural priority of John’s Gospel.23 The Fourth Gospel contains precise topography, precise chronology, selectivity of narratives, discourses, and dialogues, narrative asides, and the firsthand testimony of the eyewitnesses—all being distinctive features of Greco-Roman historiography.24 Dunn detects in John the Jesus tradition (or the “earlier oral tradition”) remembered and retold in a different way from the Jesus tradition used by the Synoptic writers.25 These studies point to a date in reasonable proximity to the eyewitnesses and the Jesus tradition from which the composition of John derives.
The references to Christians being excommunicated from the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) bring us close to 85 CE, when the chart of “Eighteen Benedictions” was prepared to curse Christians as heretics in the synagogue services. It is justifiable, then, to suggest that John was written ca. 85–90 CE26 and published ca. 100 CE.
What Is the Historical Setting in Which John’s Gospel Emerged?
(i) If our contention for John as the late-first-century document is correct, then the persecution and threat of death faced by Christians from “the Jews” at that time is the milieu in which John might have been written (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). The Jewish authorities could not accept Jesus as the Christ because Jesus, for them, made himself equal to God (5:18; 10:33, 36) but was eventually crucified as a criminal. This religio-historical situation explains why John emphasizes the present availability of the life of the age to come for those who believe in the crucified Jesus as the Christ.
(ii) After the fall of Jerusalem with its temple in 70 CE, the rabbis attempted intensively to revive Judaism. Rabbis like Yohanan ben Zakkai (1–84 CE) and other religious Jews meditated on the Law with the aim of bringing the presence of God down to earth in the absence of the temple. Belief in angels as mediators between the transcendent God and human beings became common. At this point, interest on “Merkabah mysticism,” an experience of ascending to heaven in a trance by means of meditation on the Scripture (e.g., Ezekiel 1, Isaiah 6, and Daniel 7) to see God’s glory as seated on the throne in human form, was developing. John addresses this trend by emphasizing that God’s kingly glory is to be seen in Jesus here on earth itself (1:14, 18, 50b–51; 3:13; 12:41; 14:9–11).
(iii) “The Jews” perceived the Christians’ worship of Jesus as a threat to Jewish monotheistic faith because of the Christian claim of divine revelation in Jesus Christ. Christians were accused of believing in two divine powers in heaven. In this context, one should understand the monotheistic faith of Christians reflected in John’s Gospel (e.g., 5:18; 8:28, 29; 10:15, 30; 12:44–45; 14:8–11).
(iv) The Johannine community at this time faced several problems:
1 At the end of the first century, the apostolic eyewitnesses, particularly the Beloved Disciple, had died. This situation possibly could have led the Johannine community into confusion, insecurity, and a sharp leadership crisis. John 10:1–18 and 13:1–20 seem to address the problem of leadership.
2 Because of the delay in Jesus’ second coming, the community was losing hope, for some were expecting the return of Jesus within the lifetime of the Beloved Disciple himself (cf. 21:23). This situation may explain why John focuses more on the present experience of eternal life and on the indwelling of Jesus and the Father within the believers (e.g., 5:24; 6:40; 20:31; 15:4; 17:21–23) without diminishing the hope of future possession of eternal life.
3 The heretical groups, which questioned either the divinity of Jesus or his humanity, were influencing Christians, particularly the members of Johannine community. A group in Ephesus seems to have claimed John the Baptist as the Light from heaven and as the Messiah himself (cf. Acts 19:1–7).
Some believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph while Christ was a celestial aeon who descended on Jesus at the time of his baptism and left him before he was crucified. They did not accept the divinity of Jesus. This belief resembles that of Cerinthus, who possibly lived in the late first century (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.3.4; 3.11.1).
The Docetists, on the other hand, claimed that Jesus Christ did not truly come in the flesh, and that his flesh was only an appearance. For them Christ only seemed to be a man. Thus the Docetists refused to accept the humanity of Jesus.
In the late first century there seems to have been followers of Gnosticism in its embryonic stage. Gnosticism claimed that people became ignorant by the influence of evil forces and that God sent his messenger to cast away their ignorance and give them salvation in terms of the knowledge (gnōsis) that they belong to the other world. Their dualistic thought led the Gnostics to reject Christ who came in flesh, presuming that a holy God cannot take up human flesh, which is evil. John argues against such teachings, saying that eternal life is possible in “knowing” the only true God who was manifested in Jesus (17:3).
1 The influence of these heresies began to threaten the love and unity that existed in the Johannine church and led the members into perplexity about the person Jesus and his teachings, particularly his teaching on end-time events. While John’s Gospel foresees a threat to the unity in the church (cf. 17:21–23), 1 John indicates that the split has already taken place (cf. 1 John 2:19).
(v) In the late first century there was an intermingling of religious and philosophical ideas; cults and philosophies influenced one another. It does not seem that John was “influenced” by Hellenistic and Gnostic ideas as such, but he uses language and ideas familiar in the religious and philosophical environment.27 John thus seems to have been written in a pluralistic context quite similar to our own time.
Why Was the Gospel of John Written?
We may now pose the question as to why John was written when the other three canonical Gospels were already in circulation.
Some suggest that John was written to supplement the Synoptic Gospels in content, chronology, and interpretation and to produce what Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE) called “a spiritual Gospel,” as it was believed that the other three Gospels contain only the earthly aspects of Jesus’ story.28 If so, then it is difficult to explain some of the outward differences found between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel.
Another view is that John’s primary purpose was to replace the Synoptic Gospels by producing a Gospel par excellence that would render the others superfluous and would eventually drive them out of circulation. This idea appears dimly in the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200 CE).29