by which to lix its (lute. Some, indeed, have thought it possible to deline the time of its com- position precisely, and have been bold enough even to refer it to one particular year. Ebrard a.scribes it to the year 95 of the iJionysian era. But his reasoning turns upon the uncertain suppositions that the Ep. is a dedicatory companion to the (Jospel, and that the Gospel was written in Patmos, John being in that island, as he holds, in the lifteenlh year of Domitian. En aid, again, puts the writing of the Gospel at 80 A.D., but thinks it was not in circulation till immediately before John's death ; while the Ep. , accordin"; to him, was written later, but circulated earlier. All that can be said with any measure of con- fidence is that the Ep. belongs to the later apostolic period. This seems the natural, if not the necessary, inference from the general cast of its contents, the condition of the Christian com- munities which is indicated in it, the errors which it combats, the lack of any reference to the con- test between legalism and liberty, and the im- pression which it conveys that the questions which occui)y so large a place in the great Pauline Epp. are no longer the questions of the day. It is in harmony with the traditional account of the period of John's stay in Ephesus, as it appears in Polycrates (cf. Euseb. BE iii. 31), Irenujus {adv. Nrcr. ii. 39, iii. 1, 3), Origen, and Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. HE iii. 1, 23), as well as in Jerome [de Vir. Illiistr. c. 9). It is also in harmony with the tone of the Ep., for it reads like the calm counsel of old age and ripest experience ; and with the presumption which is created by St. Paul's declared principle of action (Ko lo-*), and by the absence of any reference to John or any salutation to him in the Pauline Epp. addressed to Asiatic Churches, that it was \mtten after the deatli of the great Apostle 'A the Gentiles. It is most probable, also, that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, though how long after that event it is impossible to say. Some, indeed {e.g. Grotius, Diisterdieck, Eritzsche), have held it to be earlier than that catastrophe, on the ground of the mention of ' the last hour ' in 2", or for the liroiider reason that an event of so terrible moment could scarcely have passed without some notice, if it had happened. But there may be no allusion to that event, for the simple reason that there was no special call to refer to it, or because it w!is no longer a very recent thing. Nor can anything ))e made of the statement in 2'*. The term ' the last hour ' applies, not to the destruction of Jerusalem (how could the 'antichrists' be signs of that ?), but to the Parouaia, in which connexion we find the phriLse trxaroi xatpol used even by Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.). The Gnostic teaching which is condemned, and the external position of the errorists, combine with other things to point to a period later than 70 A. I)., and towards the end of the century. This is in har- mony also with the traditional date of Cerinthus, with whose doctrine the view of Christ's Per.soa repudiated in the Ep. is most probably identified, and with the period in John's life to which tradi- tion assigns hia connexion with the heretic.
It has been sought to define the time of com- position more precisely by determining the chrono- logical relation of the Ep. to the Gospel. But the materials for doing so are far too scanty, and the arguments which have been urged for the one view or the other have little weigTit. Some hold the Ep. to be prior to the Gospel, on the ground that writings of ' momentary design, like letters, come naturally before writing of permanent design, '•ike narratives or histones' (Thiersch) ; or on the ground that a letter of warning to inrtic\ilar Churches against particular errors would prubal'ly
738
JOUX, EPISTLES Of
JOHN, EPISTLES OF
have been writ ten earlier than a composition like the Uosiiul, whiih deals with the historical lounila- tions, ami ajipears to he uildressed to all Christen- dom (Huther, al.). Others argue for the posteri- ority of the Ep. on the basis of certain jiassages which are supposed to refer to the (Josiicl, or to presuppose it, or on the ground that the Kp. seems to require the Gospel for its explanation. But, even if the latter were granted, it would not follow that the Ei>. was later than the Gospel. Keuss, who thinks tliat the former needs the latter as its commentarj', yet admits that 'as it once had one in the oral instruction of the author, it is not thereby proved that it is later' {Hist, of the AT, Houghton's tr., p. 237). And as to the passages aiipcaled to in particular, the opening ver.ses in their relation to the Prologue of the Gospel, the phrase iv aapxl i\i)\v6jTa (f) as compared with crdpf iyif(To, etc., they are almost equally applicable or inapplicable as arguments for the priority of the Ep. and for its liosteriority. There is, indeed, nothing in the E|>. that can be justly said to presuppose the existence of the Gospel as we have it, or to go beyond what is explainable by the earlier oral preaching and teaching.