Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 1 John 0:1 - 0:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
ON
THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES
BY
REV. CANON A. E. BROOKE, D. D.
Fellow, Dean and Divinity Lecturer, King’s College
EDINBURGH
T & T. CLARK LIMITED, 59 GEORGE STREET
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T. & T. Clark Ltd.
PREFACE
————
The following Commentary is an attempt to apply to the Johannine Epistles the method of historical interpretation, the only method of exegesis which can claim to be scientific. I do not mean by historical interpretation a series of ingenious attempts to fit the Epistles into the scheme of known facts, dates, and places of early Christian history, and to assign them, or their constituent parts, to definite persons, places, and decades. A more modest, but equally difficult task has been attempted, that of determining, in the light of our knowledge of Christian life and thought at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Century, what the writer seems to have intended his readers to understand by the words which he addressed to them. When that has been done we may permit ourselves to draw conclusions, or hazard conjectures, about the author’s theology, or the value of his words for later generations. The process is possible, even, if we do not know the writer’s name, or the exact place and date of his activity. The question of authorship has been deliberately avoided. It cannot be profitably discussed apart from the wider question of the date and authorship of the Fourth Gospel. But we can, I believe, determine what it was that the writer wanted to say to definite groups of men and women whom he knew, as a spiritual father to his own children in the Faith, and whose circumstances he enables us to depict, at least in outline. The method attempted carries with it one necessary result, a prominence given to matters connected with exhortation and edification which may seem out of proportion in a Critical Commentary. But is any other method of interpreting the Johannine Epistles scientific, or even possible? The writer may or may not have been a Theologian. Undoubtedly he was the Pastor of his Flock. His chief interest is the cure of souls. He teaches and discusses only in order that his readers “may believe, and believing have life.” The meaning of his words can only be determined by the sympathetic recollection of this obvious fact. Rothe’s Commentary on the First Epistle is by far the most illuminating book which has been written on the subject, even though in points of detail his explanations of particular phrases and passages are often unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Jü’s patronising appreciation of its value is somewhat amusing, “Der wertvollste, trotz seiner erbaulichen Tendenz.” The supreme merit of Rothe’s really remarkable work is that his “tendency to edify” has given him sympathetic insight into the meaning and aims of a writer at least as guilty as himself of the crime of ‘erbaulichen Tendenz.’ He has seen, as Jü has not, that the writer knows to whom he is writing, and knows them well.
The preparation of this Commentary has been the πρρο of several years in such intervals as could be spared from Septuagint and College Work. Spasmodic efforts, frequently interrupted, lead to uneven results. This is the only excuse I have to offer for want of completeness and consistency in interpretation, as well as for the late date at which the book appears.
My sincerest thanks are due to Dr. Plummer for the kind liberality with which he has interpreted the duties of Editor, and the invaluable help which I have in consequence received from him, during the period of writing as well as that of passing the sheets through the Press.
July 1912.
INTRODUCTION
————
§1. The Epistles and the Gospel
(a) Identity of Authorship
The discussion of the question whether the First Epistle and the Gospel are by the same author may seem to many to be almost a waste of time. The view which at first sight must seem obvious has always heen maintained by the majority of scholars who have investigated the subject. The list includes men of widely divergent views, among whom Eichhorn, Credner, De Wette, Lü Ewald, Keim, and Huther may be mentioned. And the patent similarity of style, language, and ways of thinking between the two writings might reasonably be regarded as leaving no room for doubt. But the views of a minority of competent scholars cannot be ignored, especially as the number of those who reject the traditional view has been largely increased in modern times. Baur’s view, that the explanation of the obvious connection between the two writings is to be found in imitation rather than in identity of authorship, meets with an increasing number of supporters who have a right to be heard.
The most careful and exhaustive discussion of the question is contained in H. Holtzmann’s article in the Jahrbuch fü Protestantische Theologie, 1882, p. 128, which forms the second of his series of articles on the “Problem of the First Epistle of S. John in its relation to the Gospel.” He has collected, and stated with absolute fairness, all the evidence on the subject which can be derived from the vocabulary, style, and content of the Epistle, as compared with the Gospel. In the present section the freest use has been made of his article, and most of the lists are practically taken from his.
The list of phrases common to the two writings is very striking. An attempt has been made to bring out its true significance by a fuller quotation of the Greek in the passages which Holtzmann has collected.
Epistle Gospel
5:20. ἵαγνσωε τνἀηιό. 17:3. ἵαγνσωί σ τνμννἀηιὸ θό.
4:9. τνυὸ ατῦτνμνγν ἀέτλε. 1:14. ὡ μνγνῦ πρ πτό.
1:18. μνγνςθό (v.l. ὁμνγνςυό).
3:16. τνυὸ τνμνγν ἔωε.
3:18. τῦμνγνῦ υο τῦθο.
4:6. τ πεμ τςἀηεα. 14:16 f. ἄλνπρκηο …τ πεμ τςἀηεα (cf. 15:26).
16:13. ἐενς τ πεμ τςἀηεα.
1:6. ο πιῦε τνἀήεα. 3:21. ὁδ πιντνἀήεα.
1:8. ἡἀήεαοκἔτνἐ ἡῖ. 8:44. οκἔτνἀήεαἐ ατ.
2:4 ἐ τύῳἡἀήεαοκἔτν
2:21. ἐ τςἀηεα οκἔτν 18:37. πςὁὢ ἐ τςἀηεα.
3:19. ἐ τςἀηεα ἐμν
3:18 ἐ τῦδαόο ἐτν 8:44. ἐ τῦπτὸ τῦδαόο ἐτ.
3:10. οκἔτνἐ τῦθο (cf. 4:1-4, 6, 5:19). 8:47. ὁὤ ἐ τῦθο.
4:7. ἡἀάηἐ τῦθο ἐτν 7:17. πρ τςδδχς πτρνἐ τῦθο ἐτν
2:16. ἐ τῦκσο ἐτν(cf. 4:5). 8:23. ὑεςἐ τύο τῦκσο ἐτ (cf. 18:36).
15:19. ε ἐ τῦκσο ἦε(cf. 17:14, 16).
2:29. ἐ ατῦγγνηα. 1:13. ο …ἐ θο ἐενθσν(v.l. qui, …natus est).
3:9. ἐ τῦθο γγνηα (cf. 4:7, 5:1). Cf. 3:8. ὁγγνηέο ἐ τῦπεμτς
5:4. πντ γγνηέο ἐ τῦθο.
5:18. ὁγγνηέο ἐ τῦθο ὁγνηεςἐ τῦθο.
3:1. ἵατκαθο κηῶε. 1:12. ἕωε ατῖ ἐοσα τκαθο γνσα.
3:2. νντκαθο ἐμν(cf. 3:10, 5:2). 11:52. τ τκατῦθο τ οισοπσέα
2:11. ἐ τ σοί πρπτῖ 8:12. ο μ πρπτσ ἐ τ σοί.
1:6. ἐ τ σόε πρπτμν 12:35. ὁπρπτνἐ τ σοί (cf. 11:9, 10).
4:20. τνθὸ ὃ οχἑρκν 6:46. οχὅιτνπτρ ἑρκντς
4:12. θὸ οδὶ ππτ τθαα. 1:18. θὸ οδὶ ἑρκνππτ.
14:9. ὁἑρκςἐὲἑρκντνπτρ.
3:16. ἐενςὑὲ ἡῶ τνψχνατῦἔηε. 10:11. τνψχνατῦτθσνὑὲ τνποάω (cf. ver. 15).
10:17. τθμ τνψχνμυ ἵαπλνλβ ατν
10:18. ἐοσα ἔωθῖα ατν
13:37. τνψχνμυὑὲ σῦθσ (cf. ver. 38, 15:13).
1:8. ἁατα οκἔοε. 9:41. οκἂ εχτ ἁατα (cf. 15:22, 24, 19:11).
5:13. ἵαεδτ ὅιζὴ ἔεεαώιν 3:15. ἵαπςὁπσεω ἐ ατ ἔῃζὴ αώιν(cf. vv. 16, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 54).
5:39. δκῖεἐ ατῖ ζὴ αώινἔεν
3:14. μτββκμνἐ τῦθντυεςτνζή. 5:24. μτββκνἐ τῦθντυεςτνζή.
Cf. 13:1. μτβ ἐ τῦκσο τύο πὸ τνπτρ.
5:4. νκ τνκσο (cf. 2:13). ἡνκ ἡνκσσ τνκσο. 16:33. ἐὼννκκ τνκσο.
5:5. τςἐτνὁνκντνκσο;
5:9. ε τνμρυίντνἀθώω λμάοε. 3:33. ὁλβνατῦτνμρυίν(cf. 3:11).
5:34. ἐὼδ ο πρ ἀθώο τνμρυίνλμάω
3:5. ἐενςἐαεώηἵατςἁατα ἄῃ 1:29. ὁαρντνἁατα τῦκσο.
5:6. ὁἐθνδʼὕαο κὶαμτς(cf. 5:8). 19:34. ἐῆθνεθςαμ αὶὕω.
3:9. ο δντιἁατνι. 8:43. ο δνσεἀοεν
4:20. ο (v.l. πς δντιἀαᾶ. 5:44. πςδνσε…πσεσι
14:17. ὁκσο ο δντιλβῖ.
3:20. μίω ἐτνὁθὸ τςκρίς 10:29. ὁπτρμυὃδδκνμιπνω μῖό ἐτν(v.l ὃ …μίω).
4:4. μίω ἐτνὁἐ ὑῖ.
5:9. ἡμρυί τῦθο μίω ἐτν 14:28. ὁπτρμίω μύἐτν
8:53. μ σ μίω ε τῦπτὸ ἠῶ Ἀρά;
5:36. ἔωτνμρυίνμίωτῦἸάο.
2:6. ὁλγνἐ ατ μνι (cf. 2:27, 3:6, 24, 4:12, 13, 15, 16). 15:4. ἐνμ ἐ ἐο μντ.
2:24. ἐνἐ ὑῖ μίῃὃἀʼἀχςἠοστ. 15:7. κὶτ ῥμτ μυἐ ὑῖ μίῃ
2:28. μντ ἐ ατ. 6:56. ἐ ἐο μνικγ ἐ ατ (cf. 14:10).
4:12. ὁθὸ ἐ ἡῖ μνι(cf. vv. 13, 15, 16).
3:4. πςὁπιντνἁατα (cf. 3:8, 9). 8:34. πςὁπιντνἁατα.
4:16. κὶἡεςἐνκμνκὶππσεκμντνἀάη κτλ 6:69. κὶἡεςππσεκμνκὶἐνκμνὅισ ε κτλ
2:3. ἐντςἐτλςατῦτρμν(cf. 2:4, 3:22, 24, 5:3). 14:15. τςἐτλςτςἐὰ τρστ.
2:5. ὃ δ ἂ τρ ατῦτνλγν 14:21. ὁἔω τςἐτλςμυκὶτρνατς(cf. 15:10).
3:23. κθςἔωε ἐτλνἡῖ. 14:31. κθςἐτλνἔωέ μιὁπτρ(v.l. ἐεελτ).
12:49. ὁ…πτρἐτλνδδκντ επ.
13:34. ἐτλνκιὴ δδμ ὑῖ.
11:57. δδκια δ ο ἀχεες…ἐτλς
2:11. οκοδνπῦὑάε. 3:8. οκοδς…πῦὑάε.
8:14. οδ …πῦὑάω(cf. 13:33).
13:36. πῦὑάες (cf. 14:5, 16:5).
5:6. οτςἐτνὀἐθν 1:33. οτςἐτνὁβπίω.
(? Cf. 1:15. οτςἦ ὁεπνv.l. ὃ επν
2:17. μνιεςτναῶα 8:35. ὁυὸ μνιεςτναῶα
12:34. ὁχιτςμνιεςτναῶα(not confined to Johannine books).
2:27. ο χεα ἔεεἵατςδδσῃὑᾶ. 2:25. ο χεα εχνἵατςμρυήῃ
16:30. ο χεα ἔεςἵατςσ ἐωᾷ(cf. 13:10, οκἔε χεα νψσα).
3:3. ἁνζιἑυό. 11:55. ἵαἁνσσνἑυος
2:6. (ἐενς= Christ) κθςἐενςπρεάηε (cf. 3:3, 5, 7, 16, 4:17). 2:21. ἐενςδ ἔεε πρ τῦνο τῦσμτςατῦ
3:30. ἐεννδῖαξνι.
4:25. ὅα ἔθ ἐενς
9:37. ὁλλνμτ σῦἐενςἐτν
(?) 19:35. κὶἐενςοδνὅιἀηῆλγι
With regard to the use of ἐενςof Christ, Holtzmann quotes Joh_1:8, which is obviously a mistake. The last passage from the Gospel, not quoted by Holtzmann, is the only exact parallel, if it is to be interpreted in this sense, to the usage of the Epistle. In all the other instances there is some sort of antecedent which determines the meaning of ἐενς at any rate, it is possible to see in the Gospel, if it is earlier than the Epistle, a growing tendency to use ἐενςof Christ, almost as a proper name, a use which has become fixed in the Epistle.
The attempt has been made to show how each phrase is used in the Gospel and the Epistle. The connection is obvious. In explaining it the choice has to be made between an imitator and a writer repeating, not without significant variations, his common phrases and methods of expression. The usage of these phrases seems on the whole to support the latter hypothesis. But the question can only be determined after considering the other evidence.
It will be noticed that in the phrases quoted above the similarity is not confined to actual phrases used, but extends to common types, in which the same outline is variously filled up. Other, and perhaps clearer, instances of this have been noticed. Compare 1Jn_5:10 with Joh_3:18 (the upper line gives the words of the Epistle, the lower of the Gospel)
ὁμ πσεω τ θῷψύτνππίκνατν
ἤηκκια
ὅιο
μ
ππσεκνες
τνμρυίνἣ μμρύηε ὁθὸ πρ τῦ
τ ὄοατῦμνγνῦ
υο ατῦ
τῦθο
;
or 1Jn_1:2 with Joh_1:1,
(ἡζὴ ἥι
ὁλγς
ἦ πὸ τνπτρ
θό
;
1Jn_3:8 with Joh_8:41, τ ἔγ τῦδαόο
τῦπτὸ ὑῶ
1Jn_4:5 with Joh_3:31, ατὶ
ὁὢ ἐ τςγς
ἐ τῦκσο εσν
τςγςἐτνδὰτῦο
κὶ
δὰτῦο
κὶ
ἐ τῦκσο
τςγςλλῦι
λλῖ
;
1Jn_4:13 with Joh_6:56, ἐ ατ μνμνκὶατςἐ ἡῖ, ἐ ἐο μνικγ ἐ ατ ;
1Jn_5:4 with Joh_3:6, τ γγνηέο ἐ τῦθο
πεμτς
;
1Jn_3:15 with Joh_5:38, οκἔε ζὴ αώινἐ ατ μνυα,
τνλγνατῦοκἔεεἐ ὑῖ μννα;
1Jn_2:21 with Joh_8:32, οδτ
γώεθ
τνἀήεα.
It would be easy to make the list a long one. But these examples serve as illustrations. Again, the usage suggests a writer who varies his own phrases, rather than a mere copyist. If it is a question of copying, there has at least been intelligent use and not slavish imitation.
The following points of similarity of style have often been noticed:
(1) The infrequent use of the relative. The thought is carried on by means of
(a) ο…ἀλ. This use is very frequent. Cf. Joh_1:8, Joh_1:13; 1Jn_2:2, 1Jn_2:16, 1Jn_2:21.
(b) Disconnected sentences. Cf. 1Jn_1:8 (ἐνεπμν 9 (ἐνὁοοῶε), 10 (ἐνεπμν Joh_3:18, ὁπσεω…ὁμ πσεω Frequent in Gospel and Epistle.
(c) Positive and negative expression of a thought. Cf. 1Jn_1:5, ὁθὸ φςἐτνκὶσοί οκἔτνζνατ οδμα Joh_1:3, πναδʼατῦἐέεοκὶχρςατῦἐέεοοδ ἕ.
(2) The emphasizing of a thought by introducing it with a demonstrative, ἐ τύῳ ατ, etc., followed by an explanatory clause introduced by ἵα ἐν or ὅι or by a clause added in apposition.
Epistle Gospel
5:4. ατ ἐτνἡνκ…ἡπσι ἡῶ.
3:11. ατ ἐτνἡἀγλα ἵαἀαῶε. 15:12. ατ ἐτνἡἐτλ…ἵαἀαᾶε
6:29. τῦόἐτ τ ἔγν ἵαπσεηε
5:9. ατ ἐτνἡμρυί…ὅιμμρύηε. 3:19. ατ ἐτνἡκίι ὅιτ φςἐήυε κτλ
4:9. ἐ τύῳἐαεώηἡἀάη ὅι…ἀέτλε. 9:30. ἐ τύῳγρτ θυατνὲτνὅιὑεςοκοδτ.
2:3. ἐ τύῳγνσοε…ἐντρμν 13:35. ἐ τύῳγώοτι ἐνἀάη ἔηε
2:6. ἐ τύῳγνσοε…ὁλγν ὀελι 4:37. ἐ τύῳὁλγςἐτνἀηιὸ…ἐὼἀέτιακτλ
3:24. ἐ τύῳγνσοε…ἐ τῦπεμτς
4:17. ἐ τύῳττλίτι ἵαπρηίνἔωε. 15:8. ἐ τύῳἐοάθ…ἵακρὸ φρτ.
5:2. ἐ τύῳγνσοε…ὅα…ἀαῶε.
3:1. δὰτῦοο γνσε…τ οκἔν. 5:16. δὰτῦοἐίκν ὅιἐοε.
3:8. εςτῦοἐαεώη ἵαλσ. 18:37. εςτῦογγνηα…ἵαμρυήω
In most of these instances the reference of ἐτύῳ to what follows is undoubted, though some of them are often, if not usually, interpreted otherwise. Again, the impression left by studying them is not that of slavish copying.
(3) Several other small points may also be noticed:
The use of πςὁwith a participle: cf. 1Jn_3:4, πςὁπιν Joh_3:16, πςὁπσεω. Frequent in both writings.
πν(τ) with the participle, where πνε might have been used.
Cf. 1Jn_5:4, πντ γγνηέο ἐ τῦθο νκ:Joh_6:37, πνὃδδσνμι πό μ ἥε.
The repetition of emphatic words, especially κσο, θό, πεμ.
The frequent use of κὶ δ: cf. 1Jn_1:3, κὶἡκιωί δ ἡἡεέα Joh_6:51, κὶὁἀτςδ.
The elliptic use of ἀλ ἵα cf. 1Jn_2:19, ἀλ ἵαφνρθσνὅιοκεσνπνε ἐ ἡῶ: Joh_9:3, ἀλ ἵαφνρθ τ ἕγ τῦθο: Joh_1:8, ἀλ ἵαμρυήῃπρ τῦφτς
The use of κθς κί cf. 1Jn_2:18, κθςἠοστ…κὶνν γγνσν Joh_13:15, ἵακθςἐὼἐοηα κὶὑεςπιτ.
The elliptic use of ο κθς cf. 1Jn_3:11, 1Jn_3:12, ἀαῶε ἀλλυ·ο κθςΚὶ ἐ τῦπνρῦἦ: Joh_6:58, οτςἐτνὁἄτςὁἐ ορνῦκτβς ο κθςἔαο ο πτρςκὶἀέαο.
Some of these are worth noticing in view of the assertion that the similarities of style and expression are mostly in the case of obvious points, which are easily imitated.
(4) Attention must also be drawn to the limited vocabulary of both writings, and the very small number of ἅα λγμν (i.e. words not found elsewhere in the New Testament) which they contain in common. Of words common to both writings but not found elsewhere in the New Testament we have only ἀθωότνςand πρκηο. The First Epistle gives us four ἅα λγμν (ἀγλα ἱαμς νκ, χίμ). If the three Epistles are taken together the list is increased by the following words, ἀτχιτς ἐιέοα, κρα φλπωεω φυρω χρη. The number in the Gospel is far larger, and does not offer any striking contrast to the other Books of the N.T. But its longer list, as compared with the Epistles, is adequately explained by the character of the words which it contains.
The importance of N.T. ἅα λγμν has naturally decreased in consequence of the discoveries of Papyri in the last quarter of a century, which have taught us the danger of treating N.T. Greek as an isolated phenomenon, even if the actual words in question are not among those of which our knowledge has been substantially increased by better acquaintance with vulgar Greek. It may also be doubted whether the author’s vocabulary is really so limited as the perusal of his writings at first suggests. He can say most of what he has to say by the careful use of a few words, and prefers to vary his forms of expression rather than his vocabulary. He has no love for synonyms which have no difference in meaning. He does not care to show his command of language by the use of many σμίοτ to express the same σμιόεο. He is altogether free from the artificialities of the later literary κιή He does not, however seem to be at loss for a word to express his meaning. But however this may be, the limited range of normal vocabulary is a feature common to both writings.
The similarity is not confined to style and vocabulary, extends to ideas, both as regards doctrine and ethics.
(1) The general ideas which form the basis of the Johannine teaching are common to both.
The incarnation of the Son of God:
1Jn_4:2. Ἰσῦ Χιτνἐ σρὶἐηυόα
Joh_1:14. ὁλγςσρ ἐέεο
The life which has its source in Him:
1Jn_5:11. ατ ἡζὴἐ τ υῷατῦἐτν
Joh_1:4. (ὃγγνν ἐ ατ ζὴἦ.
6:35. ὁἄτςτςζῆ (cf. ver. 48).
6:33. ζὴ δδὺ τ κσῳ
And which is identified with Him:
1Jn_1:1, 1Jn_1:2. ὃἦ ἀʼἀχς πρ τῦλγυτςζῆ…κὶἡζὴἐαεώη
Joh_5:26. οτςκὶτ υῷἔωε ζὴ ἔενἐ ἑυῷ
11:25. ἐώεμ…ἡζή
(In 1Jn_5:20, οτςἐτνὁἀηιὸ θὸ κὶζὴαώιςprobably refers to the Father,the God who has been made known by Jesus Christ; cf. Joh_5:26a.)
Abiding in God: being in Christ, the means of abiding in God:
1Jn_2:24. ἐ τ υῷκὶἐ τ πτὶμνῖε
3:6. πςὁἐ ατ μνν
Joh_6:56. ἐ ἐο μνικγ ἐ ατ.
15:4-7. (ὁμννἐ ἐο κγ ἐ ατ).
1Jn_5:20. ἐμνἐ τ ἀηιῷἐ τ υῷατῦἸσῦΧιτ.
Joh_14:20. ἐὼἐ τ πτίμυκὶὑεςἐ ἐο κγ ἐ ὑῖ.
17:21. ἵακὶατὶἐ ἡῖ ὧι.
God’s word abiding in us:
1Jn_2:14. ὁλγςτῦθο ἐ ὑῖ μνι
2:24. ὃἠοστ ἀʼἀχςἐ ὑῖ μντ.
Joh_5:38. τνλγνατῦοκἔεεἐ ὑῖ μννα
God’s love proved by the sending of His Son:
1Jn_4:9. ἐ τύῳἐαεώηἡἀάητῦθο ἐ ἡῖ ὅιτνυὸ ατῦτνμνγν ἀέτλε.
Joh_3:16. οτςἠάηε ὁθὸ τνκσο ὥτ τνυὸ τνμνγν ἔωε.
The command to love the brethren, which is the result of this:
1Jn_3:23. κὶἀαῶε ἀλλυ κθςἔωε ἐτλνἡῖ (cf. 3:11, 16, 18).
Joh_13:34. ἵαἀαᾶεἀλλυ κθςἠάηαὑᾶ (cf. 15:12, 17).
Believers the children of God:
1Jn_5:1. πςὁπσεω…ἐ τῦθο γγνηα.
Joh_1:12, Joh_1:13. ἔωε ατῖ ἐοσα τκαθο γνσα, τῖ πσεοσνεςτ ὄοαατῦ
The great stress laid on “witness”:
1Jn_5:6. τ πεμ ἐτντ μρυον(cf. vv. 9-11).
Joh_5:36, Joh_5:37. ἐὼδ ἔωτνμρυίνμίωτῦἸάο κτλ Cf. 8:17 f.
(2) Certain pairs of opposites common to both writings: Light and Darkness, Life and Death, Love and Hate, Truth and Falsehood, The Father and the World, To be of the World, To be not of the World, God and the Devil, The children of God and the children of the Devil, To know and not to know God, To have seen and not to have seen Him, To have life and not to have life.
It would be very easy to extend largely those lists of similarities between the two writings. Many more are noticed in the Commentary. To quote all that exist would involve printing practically the whole of the Epistle and a large part of the Gospel. Schulze’s statement, quoted by Holtzmann (p. 134), can hardly be denied, “In the whole of the first Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel.”
No one would dispute Holtzmann’s judgment, that these similarities are closer than those which connect the Third Gospel and the Acts, “whose common authorship is undoubted.” In the Pauline literature the case of Ephesians and Colossians is analogous. We ought perhaps to add that of (part of) the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. And it must be admitted that these analogies raise the question of imitation. The question may well be asked whether a writer of such undoubted power and originality as the author of the Fourth Gospel1 would be likely “only to copy himself.” It is quite possible that a writer who had steeped himself in the thought of the Fourth Gospel might produce the First Epistle. And it is by no means impossible that we have a similar case, perhaps the work of the same imitator, in the twenty-first chapter of the Gospel.
The answer to the question may prove to be discoverable only in the light of the writer’s circumstances. The author of the Epistle certainly does not aim at literary effect. The edification of his children in the faith is his sole purpose in writing. And he is intensely in earnest. He is convinced that he knows what truths will meet their needs. He is fully aware that he has nothing new to say. They must learn to use what they already possess, even that which they had been taught from the beginning, by himself or by another. These are circumstances under which repetition was almost inevitable, especially in the case of a man whose nature led him to ponder deeply over a few ideas rather than to produce new thoughts every day.
There is another point which must be considered in this connection. In what sense is the author of the Fourth Gospel original? Few would venture to deny the depth of thought and spiritual insight of the Fourth Gospel. How far is this due to the author’s originality? How much has he learnt from others, or from Another? There will probably always be differences of opinion as to whether he is most indebted to S. Paul or to the Lord Himself. The Fourth Gospel has a large part to play in the controversy which rages round the question Jesus or Paul? But whether we accept or reject the paradox of Wernle, “It is S. Paul who is original, S. John is not,” as a solution of the Johannine problem, we can hardly escape the impression which the study of the Fourth Gospel leaves with us, that its author meditates and transforms rather than originates. The process may have reached a further stage of development in the Epistle. We may be nearer to the writer’s own thoughts, or rather the process of assimilation may be more complete, whereas in the Gospel we can trace more clearly his debt to another. But such a writer as the author of the Gospel might well “repeat himself,” especially if he were fully conscious that he had already said or taught his readers all that they required to meet the circumstances in which they found themselves placed. Ὑεςὃἠοστ ἀʼἀχςἐ ὑῖ μντ is the burden of his message. His chief object in writing is to remind them what it was.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the absence of new matter in the Epistle is necessarily suspicious. But this view would, of course, have to be modified if convincing evidence were forthcoming that the resemblance between the two writings is mainly confined to obvious points which could be easily caught and imitated, while there are real differences in minor points of style and expression where conscious imitation would be less easy, and where the peculiarities of the imitator would be most likely to show themselves. The following points are cited in support of such a hypothesis:
Ἔενἐπδ ἐίτν. This is said to be “contrary to the general usage of the N.T. (Rom_15:12 being a quotation from the O.T.), and also to that of Joh_5:45 (ἐπζι εςτν).” The “usage of the N.T.” is surely rather difficult to decide. As to ἔενἐπδ we have Act_24:15, ἐπδ ἔω εςτνθό, and the passage in question from the Epistle with ἐί As to ἐπζι we find εςὅ, Joh_5:45; ἐʼατ, Rom_15:12 ( = Isa_11:10); ἐ Χιτ, 1Co_15:19; ἐὶθῷ 1Ti_4:10, 1Ti_4:6:17; ἐὶ[τν θό, 1Ti_5:5; ἐὶποτυἀηόηι 1Ti_6:17; ἐὶτν χρν 1 P. 1:13; εςθό, 1 P. 3:5. It is unnecessary to illustrate or quote its use with the accusative, or ὅι or the infinitive, or its use absolutely. The evidence is clearly insufficient to establish a N.T. use for or against any particular construction.
We must next consider the use of ἀόwith the verbs ἀοενατῖ, λμάεν(cf. also ἔεν 2:20, 4:21), as against the usual construction with πρ which is found in the Gospel. With regard to ἀοενthe usage is clear, so far as it goes, though it may be noticed that ἀοενἀόoccurs only once in the Epistle, where it probably has a slightly different shade of meaning, emphasizing the ultimate rather than the immediate source of the hearing, that both constructions, ἀόand πρ, are found in Acts (9:13, 10:22), and that Gospel and Epistle share the commoner construction, i.e., with a genitive of the person. Λμάενoccurs twice, ατῖ once in the Epistle, with the construction ἀότνς In the Gospel λμάενπρ is found four times, ατῖ πρ once. There is not very much ground here for a theory of separate authorship.
The following differences are also noticed, which for convenience may be tabulated:
Epistle Gospel
κιωί. The Holy Spirit.
ἔεντνυό. Birth from above.
ἀάηττλιμν.
θὸ ἀάη θὸ πεμ.
ἀάη ἀαᾶ. ἀάη δδνι
ππσεκμνκὶἐνκμν ἐνκμνκὶππσεκμν
πιῖ τνδκισνν πιῖ τνἀήεα.
So far the list is perhaps more striking for its resemblances than its differences. There are, however, undoubtedly many words and phrases which are peculiar to each. Some of them remind us that the vocabulary of the author or authors is not quite so limited as is generally assumed. In any case, can we say that the peculiarities are greater than can be naturally explained by differences of time, circumstances, and subject?
The Index has been arranged so as to give with rough accuracy the full facts of vocabulary. It will be sufficient here to notice the differences to which Holtzmann has called attention.
The following words are quoted from the Gospel which are absent from the Epistle: δξ, δξζι, χρς πήωα ορνς ἀιτνι, ἀατνι ἀάτσς ἐερι, ο νκο, ἄωε, βσλί τῦθο, τ ἐίεα(ἐορνα ὑοσα, ἀολνι σζι, ἐγζσα (used in the shorter Epp.), στρα ὁπμα, κίεν κία δαοεν δάοο, ἐφνζι, ερν. Of these words some are so rare, comparatively or absolutely, that their absence in the Epistle would be more probable than their presence. There are not many which we should even expect to find, though the absence of δξ, ὁπμα, κίεν ἄωε calls for notice. There is perhaps not one of which we can say that the author of the Gospel must have used it if the Epistle were his.
The list of phrases is larger. A few facts as to usage, which go far to modify the significance of the list, have been noted in brackets: τ πεμ τ ἅιν(once in Gospel, cf. also 20:22, πεμ ἅιν whereas τ πεμ is the common usage in both), γνηῆα ἐ πεμτς ἐ ὕαο κὶπεμτς(confined to the conversation with Nicodemus, while γνηῆα ἐ θο is common to both writings), ἀαᾶ τ φς τ σόο (once in Gospel), φῦαπάσι (twice), μρυί, of God (? cf. 1Jn_5:9, 1Jn_5:10), ὁκρο, of Christ (six times, of which three are in ch. 21.; 13:14, 16 have not been included), ἡὀγ τῦθο (once, cf. Apoc.), ἰενζή (once), ποκνῖ ἐ πεμτ κὶἀηεᾳ(twice, in ch. 4.), τμντνπτρ, υό (thrice in one verse, besides which only 8:49, τμ τνπτρ μυ cf. 12:26, τμσιατνὁπτρ πιῖ τ ἀαά(once), ἀάτσςζῆ, κίες(once each), μρυεντ ἀηεᾳ(twice, cf. 1Jn_5:6, κὶτ πεμ ἐτ τ μρυον ὅιτ πεμ ἐτνἡἀήεα ἐανντςγαά (once), οκἀονσεν(twice, in ch. 21., but cf. μ, ο μ twice or thrice) ἀονσενἐ τ ἁατᾳ(thrice, in one context), ρμτ τῦθο, ζῆ αωίυ(twice and once), φςτῦκσο, τςζῆ (thrice and once), ενιἐ τνἄω κτ (once each), μνι ἐ τ λγ (once, cf. 2Jn_1:9, μνι ἐ τ δδχ: the corresponding ὁλγς μνι ἐ is common to Gospel and Epistle), ὁλγςχρῖ(once), ἐεθρῦ (twice); and ἐεθρςγνσα (once, in same context), θωενθντν γύσα θντυ(once each), ὁἄχντῦκσο (once, τύο twice), υο τῦφτς(once), ὁυὸ ἐ τ πτί(?), ὁπτρἐ τ υῷ(once, ὁπτρἐ ἐο, etc., fairly common), φλῖ, μσῖ τνψχν(once each), ἔενερνν(once), ἔεντ φς(twice), πσεενεςτ φς(once), ἑομζι τπν(twice, in same context), ατῖ ἐ τ ὀόαι(Χιτῦ (five times, cf. 1Jn_5:14, κτ τ θλμ), μννπιῖ πρ τν (once), κρὸ φρι (eight times, of which six are in 15:2-8), φνρῦ τ ὄοα(once, the use of φνρῦ is characteristic of both), ἓ ενι(four times). If this list is at all complete, or representative, it certainly affords very little evidence of the presence in the Gospel of characteristic phrases not to be found in the Epistle. It consists mostly of phrases which are found only once or twice, or which, if they occur more frequently, are generally confined to a special context. There are very few of them of which we can say that their absence from the Epistle is significant.
It may be worth while to go through in the same way the fifty “pecularities” which Holtzmann has noted for the Epistle.
(1) ὁwith the Present Participle. (Found eight times in Jn. 13-16., but certainly more frequent in the Epistle.)
(2) ἐνεπμνὅι πρπτμν ὁοοῶε (ἐνwith each of these verbs occurs in the Gospel, and the use of ἐνis fairly frequent in both writings; naturally opportunities for the use of the 1st person plural are far less in the Gospel than in the Epistle).
(3) ἔ τνςγνσεν(twice). Cf. 1Jn_2:18 (ὅε).
(4) ὑεςfollowed by a relative sentence, which becomes the subject of the main sentence (ὑεςὃἠοστ…ἐ ὑῖ μντ, 2:24, cf. 27). (May we not compare Joh_10:29, ὁπτρμυὃδ&delta