# Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2017, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524 "2017-08-13T08:53:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 37
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524/37 "2017-08-14T02:22:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, I think so to. Sure, did John personally set pen to parchment? Doubtful. (Few did in those days, Cesar was considered kinda weird for doing so.) But he lived to a ripe old age and had his own disciples in Ephesus. > > 1. John was alive in AD 90. > 2. Yes, it did, after 60 or so years. > 3. Oddly most sources say he did. > 4. Well, you can get a lot of education and polish in 60 years and of course he had help. > > Most modern scholars think that John was dictated by that disciple (at least to some degree) but possibly edited by his followers. Again, have a secretary or scribe was very common. I would actually disagree with your argument here. For different reasons both traditional and historico-critical scholars tend to date John in the 90s AD. (Traditionalists because that’s when Irenaeus seems to date it). I take the minority position of Carsten Theide, Robinson, Daniel Wallace and a few others that it was written sometime in the 60s AD (after the death of Peter and before the fall of Jerusalem). Regarding the expulsion of Christians from synagogues I’d just say that a quick look at history shows us that religious bodies issue repeated anathemas against the same things _all the time_, that the anathema banning Christians from synagogues might have been a local rather than universal one, and that there’s no reason to think the anathema described in John is the same one as the anathema issued at Jamnia. The reasons why I think it was dated early are because 1) it fails to mention the fall of Jerusalem as an example of fulfilled prophecy, even though John loves to point out other examples of fulfilled prophecy (including the death of Peter, betrayal of Judas, etc.), 2) it talks about the city in the present tense, and 3) goes to some length to point out that John the Baptist wasn’t the messiah, which seems to argue for an mid- rather than late-first century date. As for the high Christology in John this is only really a problem if you beg the question and assume that Jesus was a purely human figure who later became divinized (which is something that not just orthodox Christians but also neo-gnostics and mythicists, for different reasons, would all dispute). --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historicity-of-jesus-resurrection/793524)._