|
Author: There are great similarities in doctrine, style and
vocabulary among these Epistles and the Gospel. Most would admit that all these are by the one author. St. Polycarp in his Epistle to Philippi 7:1 clearly alludes to 1 John 22-3 and also to 2 John 7. And Polycarp knew John personally. Eusebius affirms that Papias used 1 John. There is a complication in the case of Papias, for he peaks of two Johns. From the end of 2nd century there begin explicit citations: Muratorian Canon, St. Irenaeus (who knew St. Polycarp), Tertullian and Origen. Early Canons of Scripture, both East and West, attribute them to John. A complication comes from the fact that the Beloved Disciple is left without a name in the Gospel. But St. Irenaeus identifies him as John, and Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John. Also: the Beloved Disciple is one of inner three: he reclined on breast of Jesus, was present at the cross, went to the tomb with Peter, the Mother of Jesus was entrusted to him. Now could not be Peter of course. Is it James Elder? - but he was martyred in 44, too early to write the Gospel. James the Younger is barely known outside of the lists of the Apostles. He then could hardly be the special disciple. Another complication: in 2 John and 3 John he calls himself the Presbyter, not the Apostle. This is strange, yet Peter also calls himself a fellow presbyter. (1 Pet. 5:1) Many today propose that the Gospel of John and 1 John were composed by a Johannine Community. The reasons are these: 1) they claim to find traces of splits within the community. 2) They claim there are signs of breaks in the composition. I. Splits within the community? Even among the Twelve there were squabbles --arguing about who is greater. Jesus used this event to teach humility and the most essential lesson of all: God is our Father: to get a place in His mansions we are not required, or able, to earn a place. We get that because our Father is most generous. Unless by doing evil we could earn to lose it (This is the essence of the right answer on predestination). The early church of Corinth had factions which Paul combatted. On his way to Jerusalem: Paul (Acts 20:29) said ravening wolves would come from their number. -Such as these would be apt to claim: "We are the church". They really went out, yet claimed to be within. But not all squabbles led to that situation:, e. g, the factions at Corinth did not lead to any departures. Yet there are some texts in 1 John that seem to indicate such breaks: In 2:19: "They went out from us they were not of us". That going out seems doctrinal rather than moral. --And 2:26. warns against deception, which would be doctrinal rather than moral. Bad morals would be scandal, not deception. They can distinguish truth from error by means of the Spirit given to them. In 3:6 we read : "No one who abides in him sins" Could hardly mean those who do not secede are free of sin (Cf. the fact that we have an advocate, in 2:1, who obtains pardon for sin). Rather we have here a <focused> picture, the sort of thing St. Paul often uses when he artificially limits his field of vision, as if he were looking through a tube, and so would see only the things within the circle formed by the tube. e.g. when he says that no one can keep the law, and it is the ministry of condemnation, he is leaving out, (blocked out by the circle), the fact that even before Christ grace was available. So if one accepts it, he can stay out of sin. An example of a factual picture (without the tube's circle) would be the texts early in chapters 3 and 9 of Romans which say that having the law was a great privilege. In short this means: the state of being a child of the Father as such can bring only good, not sin. So: no one who aides in Him sins. 4:15 "everyone who confesses Jesus is of God"--seems to mean accepts the divinity of Christ, cf. confessing Him to be saved (=enter the Church) in Rom 10. 5:16 : If we see someone commit a sin which is not mortal, a sin to death, --pray for him. But if it is mortal--i.e. if he stays in his sin until he dies, then finally he breaks with the Church, then we need not pray for him, for he has died in his sin. Of course we should pray for his conversion, --getting out of the mortal state, ---this fits with 2 John: whoever denies divinity of Christ does not have God within him. 3 John 9 speaks of Diotrephes, who rejects John and casts out those who do accept John. Most likely that break was doctrinal, not just disciplinary. Many, not nearly all, hold for the existence of a Johannine Community, who broke over interpretations of the Gospel of John. For sure 1 John does speak of some who have broken--but is this the same? Reasons for a supposed split are chiefly as follows: The major division in the Gospel of John is between the concept of a Jesus who is from above, the so-called high vs low christology. II. There are some strange points. The clearest cases come in chapters 15-17 and 21, especially they come after verses that seem to be definite conclusions: In 14:31: Jesus says He does as the Father has commanded Him: But right away: "Get up and go hence". But then there is more discourse on vine and branches. COMMENTS : Could He have said these added things on the way to garden? And although memories were fine then, and Jesus probably taught in digestible units, as the rabbis commonly did, yet what came to mind later could not be inserted as with an insert key--so just write it on next available space. Chapter 20, 30-31 says there were many other things Jesus did and said so that if all were written down, the: "world could not contain all the books. These are written so you may believe" --but then after seeming to have concluded, there follows chap 21 on the apparition at the Lake and the grant of primacy. COMMENTS: The comment on memories given in 14:31 above holds here too. It is said that 16:5 contradicts 14:4. For in 16:5 we read: "Now I am going to Him who sent me". - but in 14:4: "You know the way". COMMENT: no problem at all, injected in a long discourse. The functions of the Paraclete in 14:16-17 and in 14:26 are said to differ from those given in 16:7-11 and 16:13-14. -- COMMENT: the lines from cap 14:16-17 say the Father will send another Paraclete whom the world does not recognize and v. 26 says Paraclete will bring to your mind all I have said. In contrast, the lines from chapter 16 say: "If I do not go He will not come and He will take what is mine from the Father and give it to you."--COMMENT: no change of function. So it is suggested these were things circulating in the Johannine community which were added later on, without good connections-- yes, but again remember they had no insert key. John's Gospel suggests three groups: 1) Followers of the Baptist: 1:35-37; 3:23-30; 4:1-3; 10:40-42. COMMENT: There is no solid evidence that followers of John stayed within the community as followers of John. In 1:35-37, Peter and Andrew left the Baptist and followed Jesus--so no problem. In 3:23-30 some followers of the Baptist object that Jesus is baptizing COMMENT: But John himself had testified to Jesus, as he then said the objectors had admitted. - In 4:1-4 it is really the Pharisees who are objecting. -- In 10:40-42 Jesus went where John was baptizing and they went over to Jesus saying John had not done any sign, and what John had said about Jesus was true. Further, when Paul came to Ephesus in Acts 19 he found followers of John the Baptist. But they readily accepted the baptism of Jesus. 2) There were Jews who had taken measures to expel those who believed in Jesus: 9:22-23; 16:1-4a. COMMENT: the Jews who moved to expel those who went to Jesus did not themselves become part of the Jcommunity; but those expelled did so. 3) Others, former followers, who now have separated themselves from Jesus' community over such things as the promise of the Eucharist: John 6:60-65. COMMENTS: They just gave up on Jesus, no longer walked with Him. 4) It is claimed that some gave up, seeing the futility to the mission to the Jews. and so turned to outsiders. This happened later in the 1st century, some suggest c 90 when the benediction was formulated against the "heretics ": birkat hamminim. -- COMMENT: There was such a curse against the <minims, Jewish Christians>. Some Jewish Christians then may have given up on converting other Jews and so turned to the gentiles. But did not give up altogether, cf. Paul's practice: go first to synagogue, few converts, often persecution. So he turned to gentiles <in that place>--but did not give up on Jews altogether He tried to convert them in other places. And, notice his anguished exclamation in Romans 9:1 ff. Jesus at first told apostles to go not to the Samaritans and other gentiles. This was a provisional move. Apostles were not really psychologically ready to go to gentiles yet--see the scene in Acts 10, it was not even then a case of Apostles giving up on gentiles. 5) Finally it is claimed that Peter in the Gospel seems to represent Christians of apostolic communities outside the Johannine church. Peter emerges as leader of the Twelve and cap 21 makes Peter the shepherd--but at same time the faith and closeness of Peter to Jesus are always inferior to that of the Beloved Disciple. COMMENT: Faith has a double category: sanctifying and charismatic. Peter was weak on the second, not on the first. Objector misses distinction of grant of authority and special warmth of affection. <Haurietis aquas> says Jesus had triple love- -third was a love of feeling. Its special power has nothing to do with grant of authority. |