RCW w/xAI 2025-07-07
The writing of some New Testament texts before 50 AD
The Early Dating of John’s Writings and Their Influence on Paul
In exploring the early development of Christian theology, the dating and circulation of key texts play a crucial role. This essay presents a hypothesis that situates the writings of John—the Gospel, his 3 letters, and Revelation—in the 40s AD, significantly earlier than usually considered. This narrative proposes that Matthew was written in Hebrew shortly after Pentecost, possibly by its first anniversary, Revelation was composed in Hebrew in 41 AD, and James and 1 John emerged around 42 AD, before the death of James the disciple. It further suggests that 2 John was written to Mary, the mother of Jesus, during her lifetime, and that John, after writing Revelation on Patmos, delivered copies to the seven churches, then returned to Jerusalem to present it to the other disciples. Then he wrote his Gospel and 3 letters at Jerusalem, but there is not enough to work with to even make a guess, primarily since Mary’s location in 41 AD debated. One tradition says she died that year. Plus, there are some very good reasons for not associating Mary with 2 John. But the main point of this timeline is that it allows for Paul to have been influenced by John through direct conversation at the Council of Jerusalem around 50 AD, and by exposure to John’s written texts.
The Early Writing of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew, attributed to the Apostle Matthew, in this scenario is supposed to have been written in Hebrew shortly after Pentecost, potentially by its first anniversary. The idea that drives this untestable assumption is the perceived need for all those pilgrims who were baptized at the Pentecost in 30 AD, to have a written gospel, to take home with them, when they return for the next anniversary. I imagine it was quite a reunion and celebration. Since the disciples were not yet ready to leave Jerusalem this would seem to have been a necessity. This early composition aligns with the gospel’s strong Jewish orientation, emphasizing Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20—”Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”—offers a different rational for its early production. This command would have motivated the apostles to document Jesus’ life and teachings swiftly, making a Hebrew Matthew an invaluable resource for Jewish Christians in the 30s and 40s. Distributed by the first anniversary of Pentecost, it would have equipped the early church to evangelize Jewish communities in their native language.
Matthew was hired to handle taxes for the Roman state, so he would have been a proficient record keeper. I think it very likely that he kept notes during much of his time as a disciple of Jesus. It should not have taken him more than a few weeks to complete the text. After Pentecost, most of the 3,000 new followers of Jesus would have had nothing to follow. They would have gathered as much information as possible from the 120 disciples that knew Jesus best, but then they would have to return to the diaspora with no documentation. This situation was certain to produce exaggerated, distorted and erroneous teachings concerning Jesus. Because of all of the different regions represented by the pilgrims, it would seem that Hebrew might be the one language they would all know, being observant Jews. There might have been other reasons for Matthew to have written in Hebrew. I think Matthew knew that what he was writing was very important, and it was going to be treated like a part of the Tanakh. This would be a strong case for keeping it in Hebrew. And, since there were no gentiles in the church yet, there would be no reason not to write in Hebrew.
There is no certainty that any currently available Hebrew manuscript of Matthew is based on an original copy. There are several Hebrew Matthew Gospels, but they are all thought to be translated from Greek manuscripts. There is currently a significant effort to find and verify the existence of such an original Hebrew Matthew in 2025.
Several patristic writers confirm that an original Hebrew text of Matthew existed, and that a deliberately corrupted version was being used by the Ebionites, sometime called “the Gospel of the Hebrews”.
Many Christians today are unaware that much of what they have been taught about the date, authorship and language of Matthew are based on the assumption that Matthew was not written by Jesus’ disciple, but is a later assembly of fragments of oral tradition and a theoretical proto-gospel called “Q”, from the German word for “source”. I was taught this at a Southern Baptist Seminary. I have always considered this to be wrong, since it seems to be based on assumptions created and enforced by atheist scholastic standards. I can consider this very early date for Matthew and the evidence for the Ebionites because I am willing to believe that it was composed by an eyewitness, a disciple named Matthew.
This is important because it paints a clear picture of how the early church was developing, and suggests a narrative that makes sense. If the early Church was completely dependent on oral tradition for its first 20+ years, its survival would be even more miraculous than it was.
I am also interested in how the original manuscripts were lost, and how we ended up with only Greek texts. Since there was a later effort to force everyone to use the Latin Vulgate, I wonder if the transition from Hebrew in the New Testament to a Greek was at least partially deliberate.
Matthew, in its original Hebrew form, was the only known Gospel text available for the first 30 years of the Church. I am sure that all of the disciples were capable of writing letters and that they did write a lot, but none were multiplied, collected and preserved. Even Paul’s writings mention 3 letters he wrote that no longer exist. I imagine a great need for Jesus to have selected a disciple to convey a unifying message to prepare the scattered believers for a vary dangerous future. The Book of Revelation needed to be written at the beginning.
Revelation in 41 AD
The Book of Revelation, with its vivid apocalyptic imagery and messages to the seven churches of Asia, can be understood as having been written in Hebrew in 41 AD. This early date supposes that Christian communities addressed in Revelation 1:4—”John to the seven churches that are in Asia” were a barely developed community, with new enthusiastic leadership, but little or no tradition.
The temple imagery in Revelation 11:1-2 is often cited as support for a pre-70 AD context, when the Jerusalem temple still stood. Composed in Hebrew, the original text was soon superseded by a Greek text among the Gentile converts, perhaps as early as 100 AD. The 41 AD date is based on the obvious meaning of 2 Cor. 12:2-6 with its description of John and the Vision of Revelation. A thorough argument for this is elsewhere in this website.
James and 1 John in 42 AD
The letters of James and 1 John, both emphasizing practical faith, are placed around 42 AD, before the death of James the disciple in 44 AD. Their shared themes underscore an early Christian context focused on authentic faith based activity. James 2:17 declares, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself,” while 1 John 3:18 urges, “Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.” These exhortations suggest a common concern among early believers, circulating among the Jewish Nazarene communities before the church’s broader expansion. James’ reference to the “Crown of Life” is dependent on Revelation 2:10, evidence that he had read and absorbed the message of Revelation. No one would contest that 1 John was written by John after he wrote the Revelation. 1 John 1:18 “you have heard that the antichrist is coming” is a reference to the recipients of this letter having also received the earlier text of Revelation. The late 90’s date for all of John’s writings is due to an error by Irenaeus that has not yet been widely recognized.
The martyrdom of James in 44AD, noted in Acts 12:2, sets an end date for his letter, and 1 John’s similar timing positions both texts as foundational writings from the early 40s, addressing the immediate needs of the original emerging Church.
John’s Return to Jerusalem
After composing Revelation on Patmos in 41 AD, John needed to produce seven copies of the Revelation for the seven churches and deliver them. Then he would have needed to return to Jerusalem, to present his vision to the other disciples. While there, he wrote his Gospel and his 3 short letters. The Gospel of John’s emphasis is on Jerusalem, evident in John 2:13-22, where Jesus cleanses the temple and foreshadows its destruction. The detailed depiction of the city’s layout and customs suggests John’s lifelong familiarity with it, before the Revolt in 66 AD and its destruction in 70 AD. His bond with Mary, affirmed in John 19:27—”Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household”—may have drawn him back to Jerusalem, to maintain his care and provision for her. From Jerusalem, John crafted his Gospel and letters, tailoring them to the spiritual needs of the Asian churches he had previously served, and eventually returned to after 70 AD.
2 John and Mary
The second letter of John, addressed “to the chosen lady and her children” (2 John 1:1), is interpreted here as a message to Mary, the mother of Jesus, written during her lifetime, likely in the 40s AD. Mary’s role in the early church, as seen in Acts 1:14—where she joins the disciples in prayer—makes her a plausible recipient. This letter, penned when John was not near her, reflects a cautious approach to her safety, limiting its circulation to protect her whereabouts. Its focus on truth and love, alongside warnings against deceivers (2 John 1:7), carries deep significance if directed to such a pivotal figure. Whether Mary was in Ephesus or Jerusalem, this correspondence underscores John’s pastoral care for her and aligns with the early dating of his writings. I am aware of several reasons to see this letter differently, but I am not yet convinced that any interpretation is better. If this is not to Mary, then we will never know who or what this letter is about.
3 John
John does not tell us were Gaius is. It sounds like John is in Jerusalem, and is intending to return to one of the churches that he was familiar with, ie. one of the Seven Churches of Revelation. This could have happened any time in the 40’s. I think John went back and forth between Ephesus and Jerusalem in the 30’s and 40’s until Mary returned to Jerusalem and died there in 49 AD. That is an alternate scenario based on a different tradition.
Paul’s Interaction with John
The Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, marks a key gathering around 50 AD where Paul met John and other apostles. Beyond the recorded discussion on Gentile inclusion, this encounter likely included theological exchanges. John’s focus on love, as in 1 John 4:7-12—”Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God”—echoes Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 13. Similarly, the Logos concept in John 1:1—”In the beginning was the Word”—may have shaped Paul’s Christology, as seen in Colossians 1:15-17. While Paul does not cite John’s texts, their thematic overlap suggests that direct conversation at this meeting possibly influenced Paul’s theology more profoundly than written documents, fostering a dynamic exchange that enriched his ministry. Paul’s writings are dependent on 1 John 3:2, concerning our future glorified Christ-likeness. John is the source of this concept, a consequence of his vision, and it had a strong influence on Paul.
Conclusion
This hypothesis offers the beginning of a framework for the early dating of John’s writings in the 40s AD, proposing that Paul drew from John through personal interaction as well as his writings. The early composition of Matthew in Hebrew, Revelation in 41 AD, and James and 1 John around 42 AD highlight the rapid emergence of Christian literature. The interpretation of 2 John as a letter to Mary fits loosely in this timeline, while John’s return to Jerusalem may be seen as an opportunity which encouraged him to write his Gospel. The rarity of manuscripts for John’s letters reflects their local audience in Asia Minor, with 3rd John’s private nature—unlike Paul’s broader-reaching Philemon—explaining its limited circulation. At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul’s discussions with John likely influenced his theological insights, illustrating how early writings and personal encounters molded the foundation of faith being cultivated by Paul and the other apostles. Shalom