By their inclusion in the peculiar circle of the Catlioiic Epp. these three are marked oil' in one particular respect both from the Pauline Epp. and from other Epp. which were held in a measure of honour in the Church but not ultimately accepted as canonical. In other resjiects they also form a class by themselves. They have a character which cannot be mistaken. They are so obviously dis- tinguished from the other members of the group to which they belong and from the NT Epp. generally, that the least discerning eye must recognize theii ajiartness.
The ijeculiar character is most evident, of course in the largest of tlie three, but it discovers itself also in the smaller two. The latter are Epp of extremest brevity, the shortest citings in the Canon. They are writings, too. of incidental interest, and nersonal or ecclesiastical, not to say congregational, concern; while the former looks more like a studied composition, and deals with the weightiest questions of doctrine and the iargest concerns of practice. Yet they are so much of tlie same stamn that in all ages the prevailing, if not absolutely universal, opinion has been that they come from the same mint and are by tlie same hand. They are writings in wliich tlie profound and the simple kiss each other, great and inexhaustible thoughts being wedded to the clearest and least ambitious terms. They combine the qualities of majesty, maturity, authority, and serenity with occasional fire and vehement utter- ance.
They are almost impersonal as regards the mind to which we owe them. The first gives ao hint of the author beyond the fact that he classes liimseif in an unstudied and informal way \vith those who had seen Christ in the fiesh. and indi- cates a measure of acquaintance with the circum- stances of those whom he addresses. The second and third give only the intimations contained in tiie use of the designation of ' the presbyter,' and in the mention of certain individuals whom we have no means of identifying with any confidence, vet. devoid as they are of tangible, nersonal notes, tlie writer s individuality makes itself felt through- out. I hey move within a circle of ideas wliich. wlule not without points of affinity with the thought of the other NT Epp.. especially the gieater Pauline letters, are for the most part theii own. I hey have a diction which also belongs in a marked degree to themselves. Their wrrds are
JOHN, EPISTLES OF
JOHX, EPISTLES OF
729
words of calmest dignity, yet instinct with emociou —words which might be those of the philosopher, but yet are those of the common Ciiristian in- telligence.
A Targe literature has CTOwn up around these Epj)., which has always found something new to saj- in expounding their teaching and in grappling with the problems of their history. The alUuence of their thought, the fruitfulness of their doctrine, the spell of their spirituality and their deep tranquillity, have attracted the richest and do- voutest minds, the most practical and the most speculative intellects in every age. Their charac- teristic contents, the forms in which they present the essential message of the gospel, the e.xpression which they give to some of the cardinal Christiiin doctrines, the insight which they all'ord into the condition of the early Christian societies, the liglit which they shed upon the operation and the intlu- ence of certain kinds of error, make them Epp. of singular interest. Even in the few verses of the Third Ep. disclosures are found which are of far- reaching signiticance for the story of the life and the theory of the constitntion of the primitive Church.
Questions of various interest and of no small dithculty are connected with them. They present some problems in exegesis (I 2" 3-- •■ '" S"'*- '"), and some curious points in textual criticism (I 3' 2=8 43. -.^o 57^ II », 1II»). Most things touching their literary history have been the subject of dispute, and some of them are far from easy to determine. The old debate is prolonged as to the where and the by whom of their com- position; whether thej' were written in Ephesus, in I'atmos, or elsewhere ; whether by one hand or more ; whether by one John or two Johns or three. The destination of tlie first two; the way in which the second and the third came to rank as Coth'^'- Epp. and to have a position in the Canon ; the source and the explanation of their special form of doctrine ; whether a place can be found within the apostolic age for the type of thought and the ecclesiastical conditions which they ex- hibit,— these are questions which are still under discussion.
Of these questions, that of their origin and author- ship is of primary importance. The answer which comes readiest to hand when one reads them to- gether is that all three are products of the same mind. The answer that is suggested both by historical testimony and by their contents is that that mind is the mind to which we also owe the Foiirth Gospel and the Apocalypse. And in point of fact these are the views which prevailed in the ancient Church, and which have been generally acquiesced in since then. l?\it they were not left unchallenged even in ancient times, while in modem tunes they have been disavowed by a succession of thinkers of distinguished rank among NT critics.