(2.) On similar grounds may be refuted Bretschnei- der's arguments derived from the anti-docetic character of John's Epistle. It is true, docetism, or the idealistic philosophy, was not fully developed before the second century, but its germ existed before the time of Christ, as has been shown by Moshcim,'\Valch, and Niemeyer. Traces of Jewish theology and Oriental theosophy hav- ing been applied to the Christian doctrine in the apos- tolic age are to be found in the Epistles of Paul, and it would be unaccountable to suppose that the fidly devel- oped docetism should have first made its appearance in the Epistles of Irenreus and Polycarp. "We have the authority of tlie former of these for the fact that Cerin- thus tauglit the docetic heresy in the lifetime of John in tlie simjile form in which it seems to be attacked in 1 John iv, 1-3 ; ii, 22 ; 2 John 7. See Docet.e .
II. /«/er//-iV?/.— The genuineness of only two small por- tions of this writing have been called in question, viz., the words o ti/toAoywi' rov v'lov Kal rov Traripa txii (".23), and the words h' r<p ovpain^ u Jlariip, 6 Ad y of Kui TO uyiovnvii'ija- Kai ovtoi ol rptlg 'iv ttai. Kai Tpi~u: ilciv oi itaprvpovvTic tv -y yy (v, 7, 8). The former of these is omitted in the Text. Rec, and is print- ed in italics in the A.Y. It is, however, supported by sufficient authority, and is inserted by Griesbach, Lach- mann, Tischendorf, Scholz, etc. The latter of these pas- sages has given rise to a world-famous controversy, which can hardly be said to have yet ended (Orme, Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Heavenb/ Wit- nesses [Lond. 1830J). The prevailing judgment", how- ever, of all critics and interpreters is that the passage is spurious (see Griesbach, Append. adN. T. ii, 1-25; Tisch- endorf on the passage ; Liicke, Comment, on the Epistles of John, in Bib. Cabinet, No. x v, etc.) . See Witnesses, the Three Heavenly.
III. Time and Place of wnting the Eirst Epistle.— On these points nothing certain can be determined.
1. It has been conjectured by many interpreters, an- cient and modern, that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The more ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at Ephesus, and a less authentic report refers it to the island of Patmos. Hug (Infrod.) infers, from the absence of writing materials (3 John 13;, that all John's Epistles were composed at Patmos. The most probable opinion is that it was written somewhere in Asia IMinor, in which was the ordinary- residence of the apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii, 23) ; perhaps, accord- ing to the tradition of the Greek Church, at Ephesus, but for this we have no historical warrant (Liicke, Com- mentary),
2. It is equally difficult to determine the time of the writing of this Epistle, although it was most probably posterior to the Gospel, which seems to be referred to in 1 John i, 4. Some are of opinion that the Epistle was
JOHX
952
JOHN
an envelope or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that they were consequently written nearly simultaneously (Hug, In/rod.). As, ho'wever, the period when the Gos- pel was written, according to the evidence of tradition and criticism, '• rtuctuates between the sixth and ninth decennium of the first centurv-" (LUcke, Commentart/^we are at a loss for data on which to found any probable hypothesis respecting the exact time of the writing of the Epistle; but that it was posterior to the Gospel is further rendered probable from the fact that it is formed on such a view of the person of Jesus as is found only in Jolni's Gospel, and that it abounds in allusions to the speeches of Jesus as there recorded. Lucke concludes, from its resembling the Gospel in its apologetical and polemical allusions, that it indicates such a state of the Christian communitv as proves that it must be posterior even to the last Epistles of Paid, and consequently that the ancient Church was justified in classing it among the catholic Epistles, which all bear this chronological character.
It has been argued by several, from ii, 18 (tffxnri; wpa tffnV), that the Epistle was written bejln-e the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, while others, founding their conjectiu-e on the same passage, maintain the very reverse. Among the former are to be found the names of Hammond, Gro- tius, Calovius, Lange, and Hiinlein, and among tho lat- ter those of I$aronius, Basnage, Mill, and Le Clerc.
Equally unsatisfactory is the argument, in respect to the time when this Epistle was written, derived from its supposed senile tone ; for, although the style is somewhat more tautological than the Gospel, this can be accounted for by its epistolary character, without ascribing it to the effects of senile forgetfulness. In fact, this character is altogether denied by some of the ablest critics. Still, from the patriarchal tone assumed in the Epistle, and the frequent use of the appellation " little children," we may reasonably conclude that it was written in advanced age, perhaps not long after the Gospel, or about A.D. 92. IV. Fur whom written.— The. writer evidently had in his eye a circle of readers with whom he stood in close personal relation— Christians, apparently, who were liv- ing in the midst of idolaters (v, 21), and who were ex- posed to danger from false speculation and wrong meth- ods of presenting the truths of Christianity (ii, 22-2G; iv, 1-3; v, 1-6, etc.). If the Epistle was written by John at Ejjhesus, we maj', from these circumstances, with much proljability conclude that the Christians in that region were the parties for whusc I ichoof it was first designed. Augustine {Qimst. /■:,-, m;/' I. ii. :!9) says it was addressed ''ad I'arthos," and this insiT^iition appears in several JISS. of the Vulgate, and has been defended by Grotius, I'aulus, and others, as giving the real destina- tion of the Epistle. John, however, had no relations with the I'arthians that we know of, nor does a single ancient testimony confirm the statement of Augustine, except on tlie part of later writers of tlie Latin Church, who probalily simply followed him. It has been sug- gested that, as the 2d Epistle is by some of the ancients •Icscribed as irpiq irapytvovQ (Clem. Alex. Friu/., edit. Totter, p. 1011), this may have been changed into Trpoc Ih'ipcnvr, and by mistake applied to the 1st Epistle (Whiston, Ciimnwni. on the Cath. Epistles ; Hug, Introd. p. 4G4, Fosdick's transl.). This is possible, but not very probable. The suggestion of Wegscheider, that "ad Parthos" is an error for '-ad Sparsos," an inscription whicli actually is found in several IMSS. (Scholz, Bibl. Kril. Reue, p. 07), is ingenious, and mav be .correct. If we arc to understand the term cutholic,\» applied to this Epistle, in the sense of circular, we mav naturally infer, from tho absence of the epistolur;) form, that this was an encyclical letter addressed to several of John's congrega- tions, and in all probability to the cliurches of the Apoc- alypse. See (^ 8, below. Lardncr is clearly right when he says that it was (irimarily meant for the churches in Asia under John's inspection, to whom he had already orally delivered his doctrine (i, 3 ; ii, 7). See Revkua-