I’ve been reading George van Kooten’s recent research, particularly his 2025 papers and 2026 book Reverberations of Good News, where he challenges the conventional Gospel chronology and argues that John may have preceded the Synoptics.
I know Markan priority and a late first-century date for John remain the prevailing scholarly positions. But the more I’ve read about this, the more I’ve wondered whether the case for John being written first is stronger than it’s usually given credit for.
There are three things I’m particularly interested in.
1. John 5:2 and the case for a pre-70 date
I know the grammatical arguments surrounding ἔστιν in John 5:2 have already been discussed quite a bit here, so I don’t want to rehash the entire debate.
Personally, I find Van Kooten’s 2025 argument pretty convincing. What interests me is that he doesn’t simply argue that εἰμί cannot function as a historical present. He examines the broader Greek geographical construction and compares it with similar descriptions in ancient Greek literature.
To me, that seems stronger than the general objection that John frequently uses historical presents. Combined with his argument that the five porticoes were probably destroyed during the Jewish War, I think there’s a reasonable case that John 5:2 describes the pool as it existed when the author was writing.
Of course, this could reflect an earlier source incorporated into a later Gospel. But I’m not convinced that’s necessarily the better explanation, especially if the present-tense description belongs to the narrator’s own geographical commentary.
2. Could John have preceded the Synoptics?
Van Kooten also argues that Luke used John as a written source and that Matthew shows signs of Johannine influence.
One example I find particularly interesting is Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 and their similarity to John’s presentation of Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father.
I’m aware that Mark Goodacre and James Barker have recently argued in the opposite direction, suggesting that John knew and reworked the Synoptics.
Which proposed Johannine parallels contain identifiable Matthean or Lukan editorial features that favor the direction of dependence, rather than merely showing that the Gospels share traditions?
I’m particularly curious whether the literary evidence independently establishes the direction of dependence, or whether the conventional dating of the Gospels plays a substantial role.
I’m also interested in how Van Kooten’s reconstruction accounts for Mark. Even if John was written before 70 CE, that wouldn’t automatically establish that it preceded Mark, since Mark is often dated around 65–75 CE, with some scholars favoring an earlier date.
What are the strongest arguments specifically against John preceding Mark, apart from the conventional chronology?
3. John’s historical setting and Christology
John preserves some remarkably specific geographical details about pre-70 Jerusalem, including the Pools of Bethesda and Siloam.
Accurate geographical knowledge doesn’t necessarily establish an early composition date, since a later author could have visited Jerusalem before its destruction or inherited earlier testimony. Still, combined with John 5:2, I wonder whether this strengthens the possibility of an early written John.
John 11:48 also refers to the possibility that the Romans will destroy the holy place and nation, yet the Gospel never explicitly acknowledges Jerusalem’s destruction as an accomplished event. I know arguments from silence are limited, but could this have some cumulative significance?
Another consideration is John’s Christology. I’ve encountered arguments that its comparatively explicit presentation of Jesus’ divine identity favors a late date. But Paul’s undisputed letters already contain elevated claims about Jesus in the 50s CE, and Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 preserve ideas that seem remarkably Johannine.
It seems difficult to use theological sophistication as independent evidence for late composition when these kinds of beliefs were already circulating so early.
I know scholars such as Raymond Brown have proposed different stages of Johannine composition, and an early source incorporated into a later Gospel could explain some of these features.
But how do scholars distinguish that possibility from an early Gospel that was subsequently edited or expanded? Is there evidence that specifically favors one reconstruction?
⸻
My broader question is whether some arguments for dating John last rely on assumptions that reinforce one another, particularly concerning literary dependence, theological development, and the Gospel’s historical setting.
What is the strongest positive evidence that John was written after the Synoptics, rather than simply evidence compatible with a later date?
And for anyone familiar with Van Kooten’s recent work, has his reconstruction received much scholarly engagement? What do scholars consider the strongest objections to Johannine priority?
Sources:
George van Kooten, “The Pre-70 CE Dating of the Gospel of John,” New Testament Studies 71 (2025), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688524000213
George van Kooten, “An Archimedean Point for Dating the Gospels,” Novum Testamentum 67 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10101
George van Kooten, Reverberations of Good News: The Gospels in Context, Then and Now (2026).
Daniel B. Wallace, “John 5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 (1990), 177–205.