JOHN, EPISTLES OF

past and recording them in a form suited to strengtlien tlie belief of tils own and succeeding times, or to a developed doctrinal manifesto of the early 2nd cent., in which are included a few reminiscences derived from the lips of an aged Apostle before he passed away from earth. The difference thus indicated can with difficulty be removed, because it depends upon a still deeper difference in the mode of viewing Christian origins. The point really at issue between two classes of scholars and critics is this — Did the facts and events, a selected record of which is contained in the Fourth Gospel, take place substantially as described, or has a reconstruction of the original tradition been effected, in all good faith, for dogmatic purposes? Is the picture of the unique Person here described a faithful reflexion of a Divine Reality, or has the comparatively distant remembrance of a true prophet been sublimated into the portrayal of such a Being as never actually lived and spoke on earth?

A spiritual Gospel must be spiritually discerned. External evidence is most important in its place, and in this instance the testimony which assigns the Gospel to the Apostle John is early, wide-spread, explicit, and practically unchallenged in the early Church. Internal evidences, again, are most valuable, and the claims directly and indirectly made by the writer have been briefly described in this article, and the lines along which a vindication of those claims may be established have been indicated. Also, in determining a disputed question of authorship, alternative theories should be compared and their relative probabiUty estimated. Accordingly, it has here been contended that the balance of probabiUty is decidedly in favour of Johannine authorship, though some difficulties involved in that hypothesis have not been denied, and the possibility of co-operation on the part of John's disciples in Ephesus has not been excluded. But 'evidences' cannot prove spiritual truth, and the ultimate criterion between different views of this Gospel is practically furnished by the writer's own words, ' These are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.' Those who hold such views of God, of Jesus Christ, of history, and of the Christian religion, as to be able to accept the view that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God, the Word of God Incarnate, who wrought works that never man wrought and spoke words such as mere man never spake, who died for our sins and rose again from the dead and lives now to impart the gift of that Spirit whom He promised — will find little difficulty in accepting the statement that John the Apostle who saw the things recorded in the Gospel 'hath borne witness, and his witness is true.' Those to whom such statements are on other grounds quite incredible, and who ascribe them not to the religion of Jesus and His first disciples, but to the dogma of a period which had advanced beyond the teaching of Paul to a point which is char-acteristic of the 2nd cent., will naturally adopt any theory of authorship that the case allows rather than admit that the Fourth Gospel was written by the son of Zebedee. Absolute demonstration is from the nature of the case impossible, but it may fairly be said that the external and internal evidences combined are such as would in any ordinary case, and apart from all doctrinal prepossessions, be considered strong, if not conclusive, in favour of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel. It may be said in closing that the conditions of current opinion have made it necessary to devote this article almost entirely to the discussion of the question of authorship. But the contents and nature of the Gospel have incidentally been brought somewhat fuUy into view, and an outline of its theological teaching will be found in a subsequent article. — John [Theology of].

W. T. Davison.

JOHN, EPISTLES OP.— The three Epistles known by

this name have from the beginning been attributed

to the Apostle John, and were admitted as canonical

in the 3rd century. Some points of obvious similarity

JOHN, EPISTLES OF

in style and diction indicate a connexion between them, but their internal character and the external evidence in their favour are so different that it will be convenient to deal with them separately.

I. First Epistle.— 1. Authorship, Genuineness, etc.— The Epistle ranked from the first among the Homolo-goumena, and the testimony in favour of its authen-ticity is early, varied, and explicit. Its great similarity to the Fourth Gospel in phraseology and general charac-teristics made it natural to attribute the two documents to the same author; and few questions, or none, were raised upon the subject till comparatively recent years. A very small number of eminent critics at present dis-pute the identity of authorship.

(1) So far as external evidence is concerned, Polycarp, writing about a.d. 115 to the PhiUppians, quotes the words, 'For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist,' with evident allusion to 1 Jn 4', though the author is not named. Polycarp was a disciple of John, as his ovm disciple Irenaeus informs us. Eusebius several times refers to this Epistle, sajdng (.HE v. 20) that Papias used it and (v. 8) that Irensus made free use of it. The passages 1 Jn 21' and 5' are expressly attributed by Irenjeus to the Apostle. According to the Muratorian Canon, Epistle and Gospel were closely associated: 'What wonder that John makes so many references to the Fourth Gospel in his Epistle, saying of himself' — and then follows a quotation of 1 Jn 1'. Clement of Alex- andria at the close of the 2nd cent, quotes 5" as the words of ' John in his larger Epistle.' 'Tertullian quotes the language of 1' as that of the Apostle John, and Origen definitely refers the words of 3* to 'John in his catholic Epistle.' All the ancient versions include the Epistle among those canonically recognized, including the Peshitta and the Old Latin. The only exceptions to this practically universal recognition of its genuine-ness and authenticity are the unbelievers vaguely called Alogi, because they rejected the doctrine of the Logos, and Marcion, who accepted no books of NT except St. Luke's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles. So far as external testimony is concerned, the early recognition of the Epistle as written by St. John is conclusively established.

(2) The similarity of diction between Gospel and Epistle is so close that it cannot be accidental, and it cannot escape the notice of the most superficial reader. The repeated use, in a characteristic way, of such cardinal words as Life, Love, Truth, Light, and Darkness; the recurrence of phrases which in both documents figure as watchwords,— ' to be of the truth,' 'of the devil,' 'of the world'; 'the only begotten Son,' 'the Word,' 'knowing God,' 'walking in the light,' 'overcoming the world,' and the special use of the word 'believe,' speak for themselves. The use of Uterary parallels always requires care; but in this case the similarity is so close as incontestably to establish a connexion between the two documents, whilst the handling of the same vocabulary is so free as irresistibly to suggest, not that the writer of the Gospel borrowed from the Epistle, or vice versa, but that the two writings proceed from the same hand. If this is so, the genuineness of each is doubly attested.

Jos. ScaUger in the 16th cent, was practically the first to challenge the genuineness of all three Epistles, but not until the time of Baur and the Tubingen school of critics in the last century was a sustained attack made upon them. Since that time there have never been wanting critics who have denied the Johannine authorship of the First Epistle. Some contend that Gospel and Epistle proceed from the same author, who, however, was not the Apostle John, but John the Presbyter or some later writer. The view taken by Holtzmann, Schmiedel, and some others is that the two documents come from different writers who belong to the same general school of thought.

484