JOHX, EPISTLES OF
JOHN, EPISTLES OF
647
the point, if true, is not decisive. It could as plausibly be explained as a modification of more original and less jaopular views. But serious diver- gence can only be maintained bj' the excision of 526-29 g3;n. g^jjj^ other inconvenient passages from the Gospel. The differences are definite, but not fundamental. The treatment of the Antichrist legend in the Epistle is as complete a process of ' spiritualization ' as that of popular eschatology in the Gospel.
(4) It has also been maintained that on the sub- ject of Propitiation the Epistle is nearer to the Pauline standpoint than the Gospel, which con- ceives of Christ's work merely as the glorifying of the Father by the Son's revelation of Him to men. Again there is a difference of relative prominence, but there is no reason to neglect what is involved in Jn P6 95"-.
(5) In the record of the piercing of the side a misunderstanding of 1 Jn 5^ has been found by some writers. It is, however, more natural to see in the Epistle a reference to a well-known story, though the incident itself does not atibrd a com- plete explanation of the meaning of the verse.
(6) External evidence is equally indecisive. The probable 'quotation' of the Epistle by Polycarp proves nothing, especially if Schwartz and Light- foot are right in their view that Papias knew and valued the Gospel.
On the other hand, there are many passages in the Epistle which seem unintelligible without a knowledge of corresponding passages in the Gospel to explain them. If there is no clear proof of borrowing in the Epistle, it is almost indisputable that 'the Gospel is original, the Epistle is not.' And it is hard to escape the general impression left by the study of the two documents, that in the Epistle the writer summarizes the important parts in the teaching of the Gospel, which his readers had failed to make their own. They were therefore in danger of falling victims to errors which their ' knowledge ' ought to have enabled them to detect and avoid.
4. Relation to Mystery religions. — The time has hardly come for a satisfactory treatment of the question of the relation of the Johannine writings to the Mystery religions. The valuable work of Dieterich, Reitzenstein, and others is well known. But until the actual dates of documents can be determined with greater certainty than is at present possible, the influence of the Mysteries on early Christian thought and literature must remain a matter for conjecture. Keference may be made to the valuable treatise of C. Clemen (Der Einfluss tier Mysterienreligionen aiifdas alteste Christentiim, 1913) and to the admirable summary in Feine's Theologie des Neiien Testaments-, 1911, p. 556 ff". with reference to the Johannine books.
II. The shorter Epistles.— \. Authorship.— It is unnecessary to waste time in discussing the common authorship of the two shorter Epistles. The close parallelism of their general structure, and the similarity of their style, vocabulary, and ideas (see Harnack, TU xv. 3 [1897]) leave us with as high a degree of certainty as such evidence can ever give, though the reference Avhich many scholars find in the Third Epistle to the Second is improbable. Their relation to the First Epistle is less certain. External and internal evidence raises the possibility of different authorship. The problem, however, is clearly similar to that of the relation of the First Epistle to the Gospel. A study of the facts leads to a similar answer. It is a case of common authorship or conscious imitation. The freedom of handling of the same tools points to the former alternative. The shorter Epistles are the most obviously ' genuine ' of the five books generally attributed to St. John. Common sense
and sounil criticism alike shrink from the hypo- thesis that either the Gospel or the First Epistle is modelled on them.
2. Contents of Second Epistle.— The object of the second letter is to give advice to the church or family addressed in it about hospitality to Christians from other churches. The question of the reception of the higher order of ministers who moved from place to place ('apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists'), and who claimed authority over the resident officers, was a burning one in early days, and the situation presupposed in this Epistle is parallel with that found in the Didache. The stages of development are similar, though it does not follow that they had been reached at the same date in both centres. The answer given to the question is the application of the two tests, practical and doctrinal, of the First Epistle. Those who 'walk in love' and who confess 'Jesus Christ coming in flesh ' are to be welcomed. (A possible interpretation of ipx6fJ.evov as opposed to eXijXvdora (1 Jn 4-) suggests that doubts as to the Parousia liad come into greater prominence, but this is far from certain. )
3. Destination of Second Epistle. — The contro- versy whether the letter is addressed to a church or an individual is still acute. The latter hypo- thesis has been ably maintained by Rendel Harris (Expositor, 6th ser. iii. [1901] 194 ff.) and others. The attempts to find a proper name either in Kyria or Eclecta are not convincing. If a lady is addressed, it is best to suppose that her name is not given. The language in which the writer's affection is expressed, and the subjects with which the letter deals, point to a church rather than to an individual. And the interchange of singular and plural in the use of the second person is almost decisive in favour of the former view.