late dating even Gospel
Horne - 1877
https://books.google.com/books?id=vS4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA462#v=onepage&q&f=false
III. The precise time when this Gospel was written has not been ascertained, though it is generally agreed that John composed it at Ephesus.
Basnage and Lampe suppose it to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and, in conformity with their opinion
, Dr. Lardner fixes its date in the year 68; Dr. Owen in 69; Michaelis in 70. But
Chrysostom and Epiphanius, among the ancient Fathers, and Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, and Bishop Tomline, among the moderns, refer its date, with greater probability, to the year 97, Mr. Jones to the year 98, and Bertholdt to the last decad of the first century. The principal argument for its early date is derived from John v. 2., where the apostle says, "Now there IS at Jerusalem, by the sheep-market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches." From these words it is urged, that Jerusalem was standing when they were written; and that, if they had been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Evangelist would have used the past tense instead of the present, and would have said, There WAS at Jerusalem a pool, &c. But this argument is more specious than forcible; for though Jerusalem was demolished, it does not necessarily follow that the pool of Bethesda was dried up. On the contrary, there are much stronger reasons for supposing that it escaped the general devastation; for, when Vespasian ordered the city to be demolished, he permitted some things to remain for the use of the garrison which was to be stationed there3; and he would naturally leave this bathing-place, fitted up with recesses or porticoes for shade and shelter, that he might not deprive the soldiers of a grateful refreshment. Now, since the Evangelist's proposition may simply regard Bethesda, we cannot be certain that it looks further, or has any view to the state of Jerusalem. The argument, therefore, which is deduced from the above passage in favour of an early date, is inconclusive.
See particularly Acts iii. iv. 1-22. and viii. 5-26.
? Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 156-170.; 4to. vol iii. pp. 212-220. Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 272-274. Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. Evangel. pp. 31-102. Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. pp. 101-110.
See Josephus de Bell. Jud. lib. iii. c. i. § i.
Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 224. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that Vespasian soon after erected magnificent public baths at Rome. Suetonius in Vespasiano, c. vii.
But besides this argument, we have strong evidence from the contents and design of the Gospel itself, that it was not written until a late period. It is evident, as
Bishop Tomline has forcibly remarked, that the Evangelist considers those to whom he addresses his Gospel as but little acquainted with Jewish customs and names; for he gives various explanations which would be unnecessary, if the persons for whom he wrote were conversant with the usages of the Jews.1 Similar explanations occur in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; but in this of John they are more marked, and occur more frequently. The reason of which may be, that, when John wrote, many more Gentiles, and of more distant countries, had been converted to Christianity; and it was now become necessary to explain to the Christian church, thus extended, many circumstances which needed. no explanation while its members belonged only to the neighbourhood of Judæa, and while the Jewish polity was still in existence. It is reasonable to suppose that the feasts and other peculiarities of the Jews would be but little understood by the Gentiles of Asia Minor, thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem."
IV. The
Gospel by John has been very generally and universally received as genuine, no discussions on the subject having been raised till of late years. The circumstantiality of its details indicates that the book was written by a hearer and eye-witness of the discourses and transactions it records; and, consequently, could not be written long afterwards by a Platonic Christian, as it has been recently asserted, contrary to all evidence. But, besides this incontestable internal evidence, we have the
external and uninterrupted testimony of the ancient Fathers of the Christian church. His Gospel was also received by Justin Martyr3, Tatian, the churches of Vienne and Lyons, Irenæus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch", Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ammonius 10, Origen ", Eusebius", Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrysostom, and, in short, by all subsequent writers of the ancient Christian church.13 The Alogi or Alogians, a sect which is said to have existed in the second century, are reported to have rejected this Gospel, as well as the rest of John's writings; but we have no information concerning these Alogi, on which any dependance can be placed: for, in strictness, we have no account of them except the later and uncertain accounts of Philaster and Epiphanius; Irenæus, Eusebius, and other ancient writers before them,
========================================
Last decades of the first century
Where Mill Got the Date… 97