AUTHOR
AUTHOR
The external evidence is consistent and can be briefly stated. Possible allusions are found in many of the documents from the end of the first century and the first half of the second century. The most likely are the following: (1) Clement of Rome describes God’s elect people as being "perfected in love” (1 Clem. 49:5; 50:3, c. A.D. 96; cf. 1 John 2:5; 4:12, 17-18); (2) the Didache (estimated date ranges from 90 to 120) has something similar (10:5), a parallel made more impressive in this case by the mention in the next verse of the world passing away (10:6; cf. 1 John 2:17); (3) the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130) speaks of Jesus as "the Son of God come in the flesh” (5:9-11; 12:10; cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7); (4) Polycarp warns against deceiving false brothers in these terms: "For everyone who does not confess Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is Antichrist” (Phil. 7:1, c. 135), surely dependent on 2 John 7 and 1 John 4:2-3; cf. 1 John 2:22. Numerous other allusions are proposed, most of them less plausible than these.5
However, the first author to refer specifically to a Johannine epistle as the work of John is Papias of Hierapolis in the middle of the second century, who, according to Eusebius (H.E. 3.39.17), "used testimonies drawn from the former Epistle of John.” It is important to note that "former” is Eusebius’s word, not Papias’s; one cannot deduce from it that Papias knew of more than one Johannine epistle. By the time of Ireneus (c. A.D. 180), at least the first and second epistles are explicitly attributed to John, the disciple of the Lord and the author of the fourth gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.16.18). Writing about the same time, Clement of Alexandria knows of more than one Johannine epistle, since he refers to "the greater epistle” and ascribes it to the apostle John (see Strom. 2.15.66; cf. 3.4.32; 3.5.42; 4.16.100). Thereafter the evidence becomes plentiful.
The external evidence for 2 and 3 John is not as strong as for 1 John, partly owing to the fact that they are so brief and somewhat less theologically focused, and thus they would be unlikely to be quoted so often. We have already noted that 2 John is linked with 1 John by Ireneus and that Clement knows of more than one Johannine epistle. So far as our records go, it is Origen (d. A.D. 253) who first mentions all three epistles, but according to Eusebius (H.E. 6.25.10), he does so in part to acknowledge that not everyone accepted the authenticity of 2 and 3 John. Origen’s pupil Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265) insisted that John the apostle wrote the fourth gospel and 1 John (but not Revelation) and knew about 2 and 3 John. See further the section Adoption into the Canon, below. Never is any of the three Johannine epistles attributed to anyone other than John the son of Zebedee.
As for the internal evidence, nothing in any of the epistles points unambiguously to a specific author. All the arguments finally turn on the relation of these epistles to the fourth gospel. Methodologically, it is easiest first to deal with the relation of 1 John to the gospel, and then to consider the relation of 2 John and 3 John to 1 John.
A superficial reading of the fourth gospel and of 1 John reveals many striking similarities in theme, vocabulary, and syntax. 6 The same stark polarities prevail: light and darkness, life and death, truth and lie, love and hate—with no third alternative. The same relatively simple syntax is found in both, combined with a marked penchant for parallelism. Poythress has shown that the prevalence of asyndeton and the relative infrequency of intersentence conjunctions in both documents argue for the same author.
7 Stott has demonstrated that the same "scheme of salvation” pervades both 1 John and the fourth gospel. 8 To offer but a few examples drawn from several score: In our unredeemed state we are "of the devil,” who has sinned and lied and murdered "from the beginning” (1 John 3:8/John 8:44); we are "from the world” (1 John 2:16; 4:5/John 8:23; 15:19). We therefore "sin” (1 John 3:4/John 8:34) and "have” sin (1 John 1:8/John 9:41), "walk in the darkness” (1 John 1:6; 2:11/John 8:12; 12:35) and are "dead” (1 John 3:14/John 5:25). God loved us and sent his Son to be "the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14/John 4:42) so that "we might live” (1 John 4:9/John 3:16). Believing in him or in his "name” (1 John 5:13/John 1:12), we pass from death to life (1 John 3:14/John 5:24). We "have life” (1 John 5:11, 12/John 3:15, 36; 20:31), for life is in the Son of God (1 John 5:11-12/John 1:4; 14:6). This is what it means to be "born of God” (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 5:4, 18/John 1:13). There is much more of the same.
Those who argue for a different author for the two documents usually appeal to two kinds of phenomena. 9
1. There are subtle but significant differences between John and 1 John in both doctrine and wording, even when they are formally parallel. For instance, it is commonly argued that only in John is the λόγος (logos, "Word”, G3364) personal (see John 1:1,
14); in 1 John 1:1-4, the "word” is the "word of life,” and it is the life that is personal. In the fourth gospel, the Holy Spirit is the παρακλήτος (parakletos, "Paraclete” or "Counselor,”, G4156, John 14-16); in 1 John 2:1, it is Jesus himself. John affirms that "God is Spirit”; 1 John says, rather, that he is light (1 John 1:5) and love (4:8, 16). In the fourth gospel, the death of Jesus is presented as his being "lifted up” and "glorified”; in the epistle, the purpose of Jesus’ death is propitiatory (2:2; 4:10). It is often argued that in the fourth gospel the eschatology is profoundly "realized” (i.e. people enjoy eternal life already), while in 1 John much more place is given to Jesus’ future, personal coming (2:28; 3:2; 4:17).
On close examination, these and similar objections carry little weight. It is true that the prologue to the gospel uses λόγος (logos, G3364) to refer to the preincarnate Son of God, but it uses the same word numerous times throughout the gospel with its more common meaning of "message” (e.g., John 8:31), and some scholars think that even in 1 John the personal usage has not disappeared (i.e. they understand the text to say that it is the "word of life,” not the "life,” that has appeared). That Jesus should be called the παράκλητος (parakletos, G4156) in 1 John is scarcely surprising, for Jesus in John insists he is sending another Paraclete (John 14:16): one could surely argue common authorship from this, rather than disparate authorship. The suggestion that the one who wrote that God is spirit is unlikely to have written that he is light and love is almost silly on the face of it. If the fourth gospel looks at Jesus’ death as a "lifting up” and a "glorification,” it is partly because it is focusing on the historical Jesus, and partly because it is intent on showing that the cross was not the defeat that some Jews thought it was. If 1 John casts Jesus’ death in terms of its propitiatory significance, that owes much to his polemical purpose: he is concerned to show that sin has serious effects, and the only way to remove those effects is by the provision that God himself has made. In any case, the presentation of Jesus’ death in the fourth gospel is not univocal: other themes intrude there and overlap with those of 1 John (see John 1:29; 3:14-16, 36; 6:51; 10:11, 15; 11:49-52; etc.). We should speak of complementarity of vision and thought, of differentiation in application, not of mutual contradiction. Finally, although the eschatological emphases of the two books are not identical, the complementary truth is also found in both books: the fourth gospel reserves space for futurist eschatology (5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24-26; 12:48; 14:3), while 1 John insists that those who believe may have confidence that they experience eternal life as a present possession.
2. There are words and expressions in John not found in 1 John, and vice versa (see Brooke’s commentary). Today most scholars acknowledge that nothing decisive can be based on these lists. The divergent vocabularies enjoy greater similarity than those of, say, Luke and Acts, known to come from the same pen, or of Ephesians and Colossians, or of 1 Timothy and Titus. "The variations in phrase suggest common authorship rather than servile, or even intelligent, copying.” 10
Although a few scholars have argued that 2 John and 3 John came from some pen other than that which wrote 1 John, not many have been persuaded by them. The links of both vocabulary and theme are too many (granted the brevity of the second and third epistles) to justify such skepticism (e.g., "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” [2 John 7/1 John 4:2]; "deceiver” and "antichrist” [2 John 7/2:23]; those who love and do good show that they are "from God” [3 John 11/3:10; 4:4, 7]).
More difficult to explain, on the traditional view, is why the author of 2 John and 3 John should refer to himself as ο πρεσβύτερος (ho presbyteros, "the elder”, G4565). This certainly does not give justification to the position of Eusebius, and of many modern scholars who have followed him, who argue that the fourth gospel and the Johannine Epistles were written not by John the apostle but by John the elder (see discussion in 21. 1, 2, 3 John, AUTHOR). Note, however, that there is nothing anomalous about an apostle designating himself as an elder (1 Peter 5:1; cf. Papias, in the discussion just reported). Furthermore, the term "elder” can refer to an old man (see Phlm. 9, using the cognate term πρεσβύτης, [presbytes, G4566]). If the author is John the son of Zebedee,
the last of the apostles, it is not inappropriate for him to make a dual allusion. This interpretation may be strengthened by observing the article: John refers to himself as "the elder.” He could scarcely refer to himself as "the apostle”: that would surely sound a trifle pompous, even if he was the last of the Twelve to survive. He was simply an apostle (note the usage of Paul in Rom. 1:1, and of Peter in 1 Peter 1:1). But he could be the elder in the Ephesus region, precisely because he was not just an ordinary elder.
Two other factors argue for apostolic authorship. 11
1. Although in most of the "we” passages in the Johannine Epistles the pronoun includes the Christian readers and is set over against the "they” of the "world” (i.e. non-Christians, including heretics—e.g., 1 John 2:3; 3:2, 11; 4:19), in a few passages the most reasonable exegesis suggests that the "we” refers to the author and his fellow eyewitnesses over against the "you” of the Christian readers. This is particularly true in 1:1, 3; 4:14; 5:6-7. Despite vigorous protests to the contrary, in these passages the author distinguishes himself not only as writer from his readers but as eyewitness from second-generation believers and as authoritative teacher from those who are being taught.
2. The latter distinction (between authoritative teacher and those being taught) deserves expansion. It is not simply the sweep and tone of the writer’s authority that is at issue, though that is impressive (e.g., 1 John 2:1-2, 8, 15, 17, 23, 28; 3:6, 9; 4:1, 8,
16; 5:21), not least when he brands certain people as liars, deceivers, and antichrists (cf. Gal.1:8, 9). Rather, it is that he does so across congregations (2 and 3 John).
Indeed, it is this fact that prompts Kasemann to argue that the author of the Johannine Epistles was not the apostle John but the first of what became monarchical bishops, leading directly to the stance of Ignatius that the church exists where the bishop is. 12 That means, of course, that it is Diotrephes who is trying to preserve the more primitive pattern of local church autonomy. Few have agreed with Kasemann; the more obvious motive for Diotrephes’s power play is simply that he loved to be first (3 John 9)—a problem not unknown in either the ancient church (see 2 Cor. 10-13) or the modern. But that means that the most obvious explanation for this cross-congregational authority is that the author of these epistles was an apostle, since elders per se did not, so far as we know, enjoy such authority.
Almost inevitably, the most fundamental reasons advanced today for rejecting Johannine authorship of these epistles turn not on the hard evidence or on source theories 13 that have almost universally been abandoned but on reconstructions of the development of the Johannine "circle” or "community” or "school.” This reconstruction exercises such controlling power in contemporary discussion that the possibility of apostolic authorship is prematurely ruled out of court, in favor of a document refracting the light from community beliefs. These matters are treated at some length in chapter 5 above on the fourth gospel, and they also have a bearing on our understanding of the purpose of these epistles (see the section Purpose below).