The Epistles of John pt.4-9 in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE
IV. Canonicity and Authorship. 1. Traditional View: As to
the reception of the Epistle in the church, it is needless
to cite any later witness than Eusebius (circa 325), who
classes it among the books (homologoumena) whose canonical
rank was undisputed. It is quoted by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria (247-265), by the Muratorian Canon, Cyprian,
Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus.
Papias (who is described by Irenaeus as a "hearer of John
and a companion of Polycarp") is stated by Eusebius to have
"used some testimonies from John's former epistle"; and
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (circa 115) contains
an almost verbal reproduction of 1 Jn 4:3. Reminiscences of
it are traced in Athenagoras (circa 180), the Epistle to
Diognetus, the Epistle of Barnabas, more distinctly in
Justin (Dial. 123) and in the Didache; but it is possible
that the earliest of these indicate the currency of
Johannine expressions in certain Christian circles rather
than acquaintance with the Epistle itself. The evidence,
however, is indisputable that this Epistle, one of the
latest of the New Testament books, took immediately and
permanently an unchallenged position as a writing of
inspired authority. It is no material qualification of this
statement to add that, in common with the other Johannine
writings, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by Marcion
and the so-called Alogi; and that, like all the catholic
epistles, it was unknown to the Canon of the ancient Syrian
church, and is stated to have been "abrogated" by Theodore
(Bishop of Mopsuestia, 393-428 AD). 2. Critical Views: The
verdict of tradition is equally unanimous that the Fourth
Gospel and the First Epistle are both the legacy of the
apostle John in his old age to the church. All the Fathers
already mentioned as quoting the Epistle (excepting
Polycarp, but including Irenaeus) quote it as the work of
John; and, until the end of the 16th century, this opinion
was held as unquestionable. The first of modern scholars to
challenge it was Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), who rejected
the entire trio of Johannine Epistles as unapostolic; and in
later times a dual authorship of the Gospel and the First
Epistle has been maintained by Baur, H.J. Holtzmann,
Pfleiderer, von Soden, and others; although on this
particular point other adherents of the critical school like
Julicher, Wrede and Wernle, accept the traditional view. 3.
Internal Evidence: Thus two questions are raised: first,
what light does the Epistle shed upon the personality of its
own author? And second, whether or not, the Gospel and the
Epistle are from the same hand. Now, while the Epistle
furnishes no clue by which we can identify the writer, it
enables us very distinctly to class him. His relation to his
readers, as we have seen, is intimate. The absence of
explicit reference to either writer or readers only shows
how intimate it was. For the writer to declare his identity
was superfluous. Thought, language, tone--all were too
familiar to be mistaken. The Epistle bore its author's
signature in every line. His position toward his readers
was, moreover, authoritative. As has already been said, the
natural interpretation of 1 Jn 1:2,3 is that the relation
between them was that of teacher and taught. (By this fact
we may account for the enigmatic brevity of such a passage
as that on the "three witnesses." The writer intended
only...
Read More