modern and current scholars who accept the pre-70 AD dating for the Gospels and often the full New Testament

Steven Avery


John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983)
John William Wenham (1913-1996)
Edward Earle Ellis (1926-2010)
James G. Crossley (b. 1972)
Martin Mosse
Graham Jackman

The New Testament and the People of God (1992)
Nicholas Thomas Wright

Dating the New Testament writings

It is still possible to find serious works of scholarship dating the entire New Testament before AD 70. (For example: John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 1976, and John W. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, 1991.)


John William Wenham (1913-1996)

Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (1992)


James G. Crossley (b. 1972)

The Date Of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series) (2004)

Luke's Pauline Narrative (2019)
Graham Jackman
Preterist Archive
Advocates for the Early Date of Revelation
(Prior to the 20th Century)
(20th-21st Centuries )
Is this still available?

New - Dean Furlong


[XTalk] Dating of Mark - Sept, 2005
Steven Avery

Many posts, including about and by Crossley

check these and others:

Edmundson - Church in Rome (1913) - Mark 45 AD

A. N. Sherwin-White

Maurice Robinson

Richard H. Anderson (Theophilus Proposal)

Thomas L. Constable

Thomas Walter Manson

Author of Luke the Priest and related pubs

Carsten Peter Thiede

Earlier - check Michaelis et al.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

July 3, 2018
PMW 2018-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This year is the twentieth anniversary of my last edition of Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. In that work I listed eight full pages of notable advocates for the early dating of Revelation, i.e., a date prior to AD 70. Before too long I hope to update the book altogether. But for now I would like to list some additional early date advocates beyond those found in the book.

Beasley-Murray, George R., Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1993).

Boxall, Ian, The Revelation of Saint John (BNTC) (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2006).

Daly, Robert J., ed., Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2009), 90n.

Eckhardt, K. A., Der Tod des Johannes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961) (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (WBC) (Dallas: Word, 1997), lviii)

Ellis, E. Earle, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Boston: Brill, 1999).

Garrow, A. J. P., “‘That Is and What Is to Come’: The Serialized Story in the Book of Revelation” (unpublished: M. Phil. thesis: Coventry University, 1994).

Gumerlock, Francis X., Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2012).

Hadorn, D. W. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, IHKNT 18 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1928). (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997, p, lvi)

Hartenstein, Karl. Der wiederkommende Herr: eine Auslegung der Offenbarung des Johanes für die Gemeinde (Stuttgart: Evangelische, 1953).

Hughes, Philip E., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).

Kelly, Douglas, Revelation (Cornwall, Eng.: Mentor, 2012).

Marshall, John W., Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier , 2001), 88–97.

Moberly, R. B., “When Was Revelation Conceived?”, Biblica 73 (1992): 376–93.

Newman, B., “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis: Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the Contemporary-historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” NTS (1963–64), 133-138.

van Kooten, George H., “The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The ‘Pro-Neronian’ Emperors Othos and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome,” JSNT 2007 (30:2): 205–48.

Payne, J. Barton, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 592–93.

Robinson, Bernard P. “The Two Persecuted Prophet-Witnesses of Rev. 11,” Scripture Bulletin 19 (1988): 14–19.

Rojas-Flores, Gonzalo, “The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign,” Biblica (2004): 375–92.

Slater, Thomas B., “Dating the Apocalypse of John,” Biblica (2003): 252–58.

Sloan, Robert B. “Revelation, the Book of,” Holman Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman, 1991), 1183.

Smalley, Stephen S., The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005).

Smalley, Stephen S., Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community (Milton Keynes, Eng.: Word, 1994), 49.

Stolt, J. “Om dateringen af Apokalypsen,” DTT 40 (1977). (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997], lvi)

Trudinger, Paul, “The ‘Nero Redivivus’ Rumour and the Date of the Apocalypse of John,” St. Mark’s Review, 131 (1987): 43–44.

Wilson, J. C., “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation, NTS 39 (1993): 597–605. (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997], lviii)

Wilson, Mark, “Revelation”, in Clinton E. Arnold, ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 4:247.

Roland H. Worth, Jr., Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture (New York: Paulist, 1999), 90, 179, 205.

Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 358ff.

Steven Avery

Emphasis on the Gospel of John


An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel (2003)
David A. Croteau


A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John (1970)
F. Lamar Cribbs

This continuing reappraisal of John has ... caused a number of other interpreters to urge that John may have originated a number of years earlier than even the almost uniform tradition of the early church had maintained.3... E. R. Goodenough has contended that John is “a primitive gospel” on the basis of John’s apparent ignorance of the synoptic tradition, the similiarity of John's Christology to Paul’s, and the lack of any indication that John was acquainted with the nativity traditions of Matthew and Luke.5 J. A. T. Robinson has argued that the historical background of John should be
sought for in southern Palestine “between the crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem.”6 And Robert M. Grant has maintained that “the author was... a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus who wrote his gospel around the time of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 (probably not long after it) to present faith in Christ to bewildered and distressed Jewish sectarians.”7


Wait, no specific references to the "uniform tradition of the early church??

Daniel Wallace argues for pre-70 from John 5:2, which is evangelically clear and obvious.
Also he notes:

John 5:2 and the Date of John’s Gospel: A Response to Dan Wallace
Andreas J. Köstenberger

....subscriptions in Gospel manuscripts of John. There is apparently an old tradition that I discovered recently as I was looking at a manuscript in Greece ... in which this note is added to the end of manuscripts of the Gospel of John: “This was written 32 years after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Holding John the son of Zebedee to be the author of Revelation are the second century church fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, along with third century fathers Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, and Hippolytus of Rome. Ignatius (35-107), Papius, Iraneus and Origin (185-254) assigned John the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel of John. However, Papius identifies a separate John as the writer of the letters of John and Revelation, so there is some variance in early tradition as to authorship of the Johannine letters.


So if John was written before 70, when was it written after? John 11:49 and 11:51 indicate that at the time of writing, Caiaphas was no longer High Priest. Caiaphas was High Priest from 18-37 A.D. Few indeed would date John prior to 37, but at least this is a definte initial marker. More can perhaps be learned by comparing John to the synoptic gospels. In some cases, John fills in material left out by the previous gospels, actually addressing some questions that might have been raised by the previous gospels. Examples include:


We see therefore that there exists multiple reasons for dating John early, and certainly prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. On the other hand, John shows evidence of being written after the synoptic gospels. Given the developmental history of the synoptic gospels described on this web site, that could still be quite early. The best clue that pushes the date later is that John was probably written after the death of Peter in 64. A date of about 65 A.D. would seem reasonable.
. This will be followed by an assessment of the extremely early 30s-45 view. A reexamination of the evidence demonstrates that a reasonable range of dates may be maintained anywhere from the 60s-90s, with the weight of the evidence tipping slightly in favor of a pre-70 date. But there are many insurmountable obstacles accompanying a date of composition as early as the 30s-45 A.D. or as late as the early second century
1 Robert N. Wilkin states, “I take the view that John’s Gospel was written in 45, before 1 Corinthians, and I think the first book was James in 34 and then I think John was 45” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007). Elsewhere, Wilkin writes that “the Gospel of John was written at least ten years after Jesus rose from the dead and it says that the way Jesus evangelized is still effective today” (Bob Wilkin, “Scavenger Hunt Salvation without a List,” Grace in Focus 23 [May/June 2008]: 4). John Niemelä, on the other hand, views A.D. 45 as possibly too late for the completion of John’s Gospel, seeing “no reason why it couldn’t have been written in the 30s” (“The Bible Answer Men,” Grace Evangelical Society Seattle Regional Conference, September 29, 2007).


I recognize that John’s Gospel has not always stood fourth throughout the manuscript history, since Codex Washingtonianus, for example, has the order of Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992] 56). But this is atypical; John is normally fourth.


Order of Composition
A third introductory issue requiring clarification is that of order. The matter of date for the Gospel of John must be properly distinguished from that of its order of composition relative to other New Testament books. Even if John could be dated very early, this would not necessarily make it the first book of the New Testament to be written. Thus, some who hold to a view of Johannine priority concede that at least one book was written before John’s Gospel, namely the Epistle of James in A.D. 34.9 However, the subject of John’s date cannot be entirely divorced from the question of order relative to the other New Testament books. The claim that John came very early, in the 30s-45, carries with it the implied assertion that John preceded the remainder of the New Testament since other New Testament books could not have been written contemporaneously with John if indeed John was composed in the 30s-45. To maintain, for instance, that the Book of Acts and the Epistles were written in the 30s would present glaring historical anachronisms since these books could not have been written earlier than the events they describe.

(to be continued)
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Final Decade
Edward Stevens

So, it seems to me that John's gospel was probably written about the time of Paul's journey to Rome, or shortly afterwards during Paul's first year of imprisonment. Since I think John was sent to Patmos in the Spring of AD 62, I place the writing of his gospel in that two year period between Paul's voyage to Rome (Fall 60) and John's exile to Patmos (April 62). That means it was written before his exile to Patmos. He would have written it at a time when the gospel was still being fervently preached, while there was still a need for such gospel writings, and while it was still safe to send such documents out to the churches (i.e., definitely before the Neronic persecution in AD 64). Eusebius places its writing not long after the other three gospels, because John had seen them and noticed that they did not cover some of the earlier history of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry before John was imprisoned, plus some other details about his role as an eyewitness at the tomb of Jesus on resurrection morning, which the other gospel accounts did not mention.There does not seem to be any indication that Luke had seen John's gospel, but John appears to have been aware of Luke's account of Peter running to the tomb. But that does not mean that Luke's account was already finished. When Luke was doing his research in Jerusalem, he evidently did not consult with John, but only Peter. When John realized that Luke did not have the whole story about that incident of Peter (and John) running to the tomb, he may have decided to produce his own gospel account and include that story. In that case, it did not require Luke's gospel to already be written, but merely that John was aware of Luke's lack of full information about it. When John realized that Luke did not have the full story and had already gone to Rome, John may have decided to write the rest of the story in his own account of the gospel. This is why I suggest that John's gospel was probably not written until Paul's journey to Rome, or shortly afterwards during Paul's first year of imprisonment (AD 60-61). Since I think John was exiled to Patmos in the Spring of AD 62, that would give us a range of a year and a half between Paul's voyage to Rome (Fall 60) and John's exile to Patmos (April 62).

Last edited: