THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
author of what he considers the original nucleus (i. 4-vii. 17, xxii. 8-21).
Space forbids going into the long history of the
hypotheses which have been set forth as to the
growth of the book, which is frequently held to
have been a lengthy process. The fol-
4 The Date lowing conclusions, however, seem safe.
of Com- The assertion of Irenaeus (Haer., V.,
position, xxx. 3) that the visions were seen and the book written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, or about 95, finds support in the numerous historical data of the opening chapters. The designed and immediately accomplished introduction of the book into public liturgical use precludes the possibility of any notable alterations in it between 100 and 150. The author, as his name and idiom show, is of Hebrew birth, and about 95 had a recognized position of authority over the church of the province, without having any contemporary rival of the same name. He is the only John of Ephesus of whom anything is known from a tradition reaching back into his lifetime and in decisive points independent of his own writings. That he does not call himself an apostle is no proof that he was not one; his apostleship had no immediate connection with his apocalyptic purpose, and he does not describe himself at all.
2. The Epistles; Of the Epistles, the first, which Papias cites and Polycarp obviously imitates, is not in form a letter. Not only is the introduction (i. 1-4) unlike the ordinary beginning 1. I John, of a letter, but it lacks at its close, too, what would be expected. There is almost no allusion to any local conditions of the readers. From v. 21 it may be inferred that the readers lived amid pagan surroundings; the repeated " I write unto you " shows that it was not a homily delivered before an assembled community, but rather a treatise addressed from a distance to a number of local churches of non-Jewish origin. The tone is that of an aged man who enjoyed high consideration as a teacher, and who spoke not only in his own name but in that of others who have likewise seen and heard Christ on earth, and stood as witnesses to a great fact (i. 1 sqq., iv. 14). A personal follower of Christ (named John, according to all tradition except that of the Alogi), who, with his colleagues of similar qualifications, had been occupied in other fields, in his old age addressed himself to some communities of Gentile converts as a teacher possessing great authority, presumably superior to that of others laboring among them. History knows of no one who fulfils all these conditions except the John who at the end of the first century ruled the Church of Asia Minor from Ephesus. That the writer was an apostle, as in the second century not only his disciples but (in their way) his opponents admitted, is rendered extremely probable by the strong expressions of the opening verses.
The second and third Epistles are intimately connected with the first by their language and line of thought, by the combating of the same errors (I John ii. 18-26, iv. 1-3, v. 5-12; II John 7-11), and by the position of the writer, which stands out even more clearly from them than it does from the
first Epistle and the Apocalypse. That this position was not unquestioned appears from I John iv. 6' and in II John 8-11 the author 2. II and charges the churches to have nothing III John, to do with those who refused to receive his teaching. From III John 9, 10 it appears that a leader of the Church has not only employed " malicious words " against John but has renounced communion with John's associates and attempted to cut off those who received them. Asserting his authority, John writes not to the insubordinate Diotrephes, but to one Gains who is in close relation with himself, sending a letter at the same time to the whole Church of the region — for there should be no doubt that the reference in III John 7 is to II John. In II John 12 and III John 13, 14, the intention is expressed of coming to call Diotrephes to account. John's confidence in his own position is noteworthy, especially in connection with the question why and in what sense he designates himself (II John 1; III John 1) as " the elder." Since in the province there were certainly far more than the seven churches of Rev. i., each with its own local presbyter, he could hardly, writing to another church (II John 13) as one of the elders of his own community, have called himself simply " the elder," even if (as III John and Rev. i.-iii. seem to show) the monarchical episcopate had already developed in that region. It is more probably a title of honor, not chosen by himself but open to him to use after it had become customary in the churches to call him by it in the sense of the venerable teacher of the whole region, the father who calls all the Christians in it his children. That there was such a venerable old man in Asia Minor at that time, who would be designated with quite sufficient clearness by the title " the elder," and that his name was John, is known from Papias, who was a disciple of his (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxxix. 15), and so return is made to John of Ephesus as the assumed or actual author of the two short letters. That elsewhere, in places where this designation was not familiar, doubts were raised as to the identity of authorship with I John precisely on the ground of this peculiar designation, can be readily understood, as also that after the discovery of a " John the Presbyter " these epistles were ascribed to him, as by Jerome (De vir. ill., ix., xviii.) after the suggestion of Eusebius (Hist, eccl., III., xxv. 3).
3. The Gospel; This resembles the works already discussed in being directed not to a general public, but to a definite circle of read- 1. Its ers, whom the author twice addresses Character, (xix. 35, xx. 31) as a preacher might his hearers. By this fact and by tradition the view is supported that the author of the Apocalypse and the Epistles is here addressing the same churches; and it is confirmed by the undeniable likeness of both language and religious views, to say nothing of the obvious fact that the Gospel is destined for readers unfamiliar with the speech and customs of the Jews. In i. 14, 16, as well as in xix. 35, he reckons himself, precisely as in the Epistles, among the eye-witnesses of the facts which he relates.