Questions regarding the Gospels’ legitimacy, authorship and date have been debated from when they were first written to now. But does any of this really matter? Does it actually make a difference to us as we read our Bible?

In this post, I want to suggest that it does. The dating of the Gospels is not just an academic exercise. It shapes how we think about their historical reliability, their connection to eyewitness testimony, and how we handle them. If the Gospels were written early, we are reading accounts much closer to the events themselves. If they were written later, then we are dealing with a longer period of reflection and development. Either way, something significant is at stake.

Therefore, I want to briefly address the issue of the dating of the Gospels, as it seems to be accepted by many, even in evangelical circles, that the Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The rest of us just don’t comment on it or engage with the dating question at all!

Image portraying the fall of Jerusalem AD 70

For me as an historian, these approaches seem unconvincing. The historicity of Scripture matters. If the Gospels are eyewitness testimonies, then they should shape the way we read them and preach them. For that reason, these are not questions to be explored carefully and thoughtfully.

John A.T. Robinson

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png

Surprisingly, I find conservative scholars rather quiet on the subject, so I turned to a ‘liberal’ theologian John A. T. Robinson, and his works Redating the New Testament and The Priority of John. On this topic he produced arguments that sounded like quite conservative conclusions. Best known for his radical and problematic work in Honest to God, Robinson surprised many readers by claiming that the New Testament was written before AD 70, earlier than what has been commonly accepted by academics.

At the heart of his argument is a simple but provocative observation: the New Testament is strangely quiet about one of the most traumatic events in Jewish history—the Destruction of Jerusalem. This was when the Roman emperor Titus sieged and subsequently demolished Jerusalem and slaughtered many of its inhabitants. In the process, the temple was destroyed and Jewish worship has never been the same since. The Gospels record Jesus predicting the fall of the Temple, but they never clearly step back and say, “this has now happened.” For Robinson, that silence is essential. If these texts were written after AD 70, then surely we would expect at least some acknowledgement somewhere in the scripture. Instead, the tone in the Gospels is anticipatory rather than reflective, and for Robinson, it showed that they were written beforehand.

Luke

The book which highlights and demonstrates an early dating of the Gospels is Luke. We all know Luke went around collecting information for both of his books. 

As Luke was someone who never missed an historical detail, Luke had to be written before AD 70. His work which ends in Acts with Paul in prison highlights the beginning of the persecution of the church, but it is clearly evident that Jerusalem has not yet fallen.

Indeed, Acts closes with Paul alive in Rome under house arrest, no reference to the persecution under Nero, and nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem. Robinson argues that it’s hard to imagine an author omitting such events if they had already occurred. The simplest explanation, he suggests, is that Acts was written before them. And if Acts is early, then Luke’s Gospel must be earlier still. Suddenly, the whole timeline shifts back into the first generation of Christian.

Therefore, if Luke’s gospel was written before AD 70, Bernier (2022) has argued for the date of AD 59) then it must be said that Mark’s  and Matthew’s gospel were also written before. Mark was most likely the first one composed; church tradition informs us that it was the Apostle Peter who composed the contents and that Mark was only the penman. 

John

Perhaps most surprisingly, Robinson revisited the dating of the Gospel of John. Instead of treating it as a late, highly developed theological text to counter late gnosticism, he suggests it may preserve independent and quite early traditions of believers. In his mind, it may rival even the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) in age. That’s a major reversal of the usual view, and I find it quite hard to disagree with him. 

For Robinson, this Gospel is not just a theological argument but a unique historical narrative. In addition, John may be engaging with a possibly earlier stream of tradition that had not been shaped into the more structured narrative we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Furthermore, another important feature is the naming of individuals. John often includes specific names, and often the names of minor figures, which is often taken as a mark of an eyewitness and often recent testimony. These are the kinds of details later communities, and especially those in AD 90 would not have needed to have recorded as they just were not as important. Robinson sees that John was writing closer to the events than is often assumed, preserving memories that had not yet been smoothed out or generalised as memory forgets, erases or changes.

Perhaps most importantly, Robinson challenges the divide that has often been made between the historical and theological. This is so important, all the Gospels are theological! But that does not make them historically unreliable! John’s Christology is not the result of a long period of doctrinal development. It just reflects the convictions of those who encountered Jesus first-hand and were wanting to display, from the beginning, with who he truly was.

Taken together, Robinson came to a rather bold conclusion: the Gospel of John should not be placed at the end of the line. Instead, it should be considered as an early witness. This view has also been taken and argued further by Bernier (2022). Whilst many scholars are unconvinced, it does raise an important question: have we been dating John late because the evidence demands it, or because we have assumed that theology must come last?

Conclusion

Robinson’s ideas were quite radical, and he had some more interesting views. However, how he handled the Gospels was rather impressive. He did the opposite of those of his time, even those of the conservative persuasion. He challenged scholarly consensus and critiqued some unchallenged  assumptions. Even if you do still not agree with him, I hope that at the very least, he has forced you to ask: are later dates really demanded by the evidence, or have they simply become the default?

So does it really all that matter in the grand scheme of things. Unsurprisingly, whether you hold a pre-fall or post-fall view on the dating of the Gospels, it won’t affect your walk with God. However, I do feel that when we date the gospel before AD 70, there is something more fascinating about the accounts. These were strong evangelistic and equipping tools that helped prepare the church for the coming trials and tribulations. They provide us with a great insight into the early church. These were Gospels which early Christians used to teach, equip and evangelise from. They were not written as afterthoughts or in haste, but were carefully planned to help equip a new and growing church across the world. 

If we take the view that the dating is later, we do lose so much.