The designation of Christ as 'Advocate' (2') ia also held by Baur and others of his school to be in affinity with the Ep. to the Hebrews rather than with the Fourth Gospel, and to indicate a view of Christ's relation to His disciples which 'lay far apart from the evangelist.' But the idea of Ohrist as Intercessor is not peculiar to any particular Ep., but is found again and again In the NT ; nor can it be made out that in anything else that is said of Christ's relations to His disciples there is any difierence between the Ep. and the Gospel. Nor is it the case that the Ep. has an eschatology which is not known to the Gospel. The (Conceptions of a present judgment and a spiritual Parousia prevail, it is true, in the Gospel, but not to the exclusion of the ideas of a future judgment and »
JOHN, EPISTLES OF
lolIX, EPISTLES OF
•37
Parousia at tlie end of things [o'^- ■■=* U™- *> etc. ). And the eschatological concejjtion of the Advent and the Judgment is expressed in the Ep., hut not to the absolute exclusion of the form of doctrine character- istic of the Gospel. For it speaks of a passing from death to life which is already accomplished, and of eternal life as a present pos-session. !• urther, to sa_y, with Baur, Hilgenfetd, and others, that there is a more 'material and external' mode of Ihouglit in tlie Ep. than in the Gospel, is to mis- judge and misinterpret tlie former. The designa- tion, c.ff., of God as 'light' is strangely thought to express a more material conception of God than is ]i(i-..-ihle to the writer of the Gospel, and the syniliiilsof the ' water' and the ' blood ' are thought to be dillerently used, more materially in the Ep., more ideally in the Gospel. Hut these supposi- tions rest on mistaken interpretations of the passages.
There are diflerences between the two ^vritings, as we have seen, and these dill'erences are neither few in number nor inconsiderable in weight. They aredillerences which go to establish the independ- ence of the two compositions. But they are not sullicient to prove a dill'erence of authorship. They can be made to apjiear so only by forced constructions, and by overlooking the distinct purposes and circumstances of the writings. They can be explained by the ditl'erences between the Gospel and the Ei>. in the occasions which pro- duced them, the subjects with which they have to deal, and the ends which they have in view, and by the natural ditl'erence between an historical com- position and a letter. On the other hand, there are similarities of the most remarkable kind in thought, style, and expression, in characteristic ideas, in imagery and symbolism, and in the special tyjie of doctrine. They are similarities which pervade the two writings, and point strongly to identity of authorship.
No explanation of the origin of the Ep., there- fore, fits the facts so well as the one that has prevailed. It is to internal considerations that tho.se ap]ieal who reject it ; and it is largely on the ground of the sui)poscd impossibilitj- of two writ- ings so dill'erent in character as the Ep. and the Apoc. proceeding from one and the same hand, tliat the Tubingen critics deny the apostolicity of the former. The external evidence is not seriously assailed. It is admitted even by so uncom[)romis- ing a critic as the late Dr. Samuel David.son that ' the letter is well attested by the voice of an- tiquity, and that, as far a.s external evidence reaches, its authenticity seems to be secure' {Intniduction to the NT, li. 30'2).
8. Place and Date. — If the Ep. is the work of John, it is most natural to suppose it to have been written in Asia Minor, most probably in Ephesus. It is true that we have no dilinite statement in early Christian literature to that ellcct, and some who regard it as intended to form a companion to the Gospel are inclined to refer it to Patmos. But it is with Ephesus that the most ancient tradition connects the comj)osition of the Gospel. What Ircn;cus .says of John the fiaOrp-i^s toD Kvptov and his (lOspcl is this: Kal avr6t ^^^5ti}K€ rA evayy^Xioy, i" 'K0(?irv TTji Ao-fo! SiaTplfiuy {ailv. Ilcrr. iii. 1), <ina the same is said in ellect by .leronie (Prolng. to Miitth. vol. vii. pp. 5, 0). If the (Jospel and the Ep., therefore, belong to the same period in John's life, as many things go to show, it is rca.sonable to sup])0.se that the En. as well as the Gospel was written in Asia Nlinor, and most probably in Ephesus, all the more that it is with that territory and that city that ancient tradition connects the closing stage )f John's career.
[f tliere is lilllc by which to dctormino the place where the Ep. was written, there is lus little vou U.— 47