(Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ), “used testimonies from the first (former) epistle of John (κέχρηται δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς µαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς) . προτέρας is merely a grammatical inaccuracy, as conversely πρῶτος for πρότερος in Matt. xxi. 36; Acts i. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 30; Heb. x. 9; Rev. xxi. 1. Cf. Eus. H. E. tii. 24; ἡ προτέρα τῶν ἐπιστολῶν . . . at λοιπαὶ δύο.
Irenzus, a disciple of Polycarp! and bishop of Lyons, quotes 1 John ii. 18, 19, 21, 22, iv. 1, 3, v. 1, and says expressly that he is. quoting from the Epistle of St. John.?
The Muratorian Canon (about Α.Ρ. 170) includes our epistle and ascribes it to St. John: ‘‘ Quid ergo mirum si Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat, dicens in semetipso: Que vidimus oculis nostris, et auribus audivimus, et manus nortre pal- paverunt, hec scripsimus ?” Cf. 1 John i. 1.8
These testimonies are primitive, and there is no need to adduce in addition the later and abundant testimonies of Clement of Alex- andria, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius.
With no less unanimity and emphasis does ancient tradition. ascribe the Fourth Gospel to St. John, and it hardly admits of reasonable doubt that the Gospel and the Epistle are from the one pen. They agree in style, language, and thought. They have the same Hebraistic style, abounding in parallelism (e.g. cf. 1 John ii. 10, 11 with John iti. 18, 20, 21) and parataxis (the co-ordinating καί is. the favourite conjunction). Their style is identical, and it is unique in the N.T. They have, moreover, common phrases and expressions Cf. Ep. i. 1, 2 with Gosp. i. 1, 2, 4, 14: Ep. i. 4 with Gosp. xv. 11, xvi. 24; Ep. ii. 1 with Gosp. xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7; Ep. ii. 8 with Gosp. xili. 34, xv. 10,12; Ep. ii. 11 with Gosp. xii. 35; Ep. iii. 8, 15 with Gosp. viii. 44; Ep. iii. 11, 16 with Gosp. xv. 12, 13; Ep. iii. 12 with Gosp. vii. 7; Ep. iii. 13 with Gosp. xv. 18,19; Ep. iii. 14 with Gosp. v. 24; Ep. iv. 6 with Gosp. viii. 47 ; Ep. iv. 12 with Gosp. i. 14 ;. Ep. iv. 14 with Gosp. iii. 17; Ep. v. 3 with Gosp. xiv. 15, 21; Ep. v. 6-8 with Gosp. xix. 34,35; Ep. v. 9 with Gosp. v. 32, 34, 36, viii. 17, 18; Ep. v.10 with Gosp. iii. 33; Ep. v. 12 with Gosp, iii. 15, 36; Ep. v. 13 with Gosp. xx. 31; Ep. v. 14 with Gosp. xiv. 13, 14, xvi. 23; Ep. v. 20 with Gosp. xvii. 3. Then they have in common certain fundamental conceptions which are thus defined and enumerated by Dr. H. J. Holtzmann: “the Son of God in the Flesh, the Life, which. has its source in Him and is identical with Him, the Being in Him, the Abiding in God, the Love of God actualised in the Sending of.
4 Jer. Script. Eccles. 2Tren. III. xviii. 5, 8. *The Mur. Can. is given in Routh’s Relig. Sacr., i. pp. 394 seq.
a