First John-Introduction-First John: Authorship of First John
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday February 2, 2017
First John: Authorship of First John
Lesson # 4
The author of this epistle is anonymous but there can be no question that the author of the Gospel of John is the author of 1, 2 and 3 John as well.
Church history supports Johannine authorship.
More importantly, a comparison of the vocabulary and its usage between the Gospel of John and 1, 2 and 3 John indicates that the apostle John wrote all three epistles (cf. 2 John 5 with 1 John 2:7 and John 13:34-35; 2 John 6 with 1 John 5:3 and John 14:23; 2 John 7 with 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 12 with 1 John 1:4 and John 15:11).
It is clear by the opening statements in both the Gospel of John and 1 John that the same writer penned both letters.
The language, style, theological concepts and thought world of the writer of 1, 2 and 3 John indicates clearly a close relationship with the Gospel of John, which we know was written by the apostle John.
There are very few scholars who deny that the epistles of John and the Gospel of John are by the same writer.
The most widespread alternative to authorship of 1 John by the apostle John is authorship by a second person whose name is John, usually designated John the Elder (or Presbyter, from the Greek word).
Proponents of this alternative employ 2 and 3 John for support.
These two epistles both introduce their author as “the elder” although no name is mentioned in connection with either.
Support is also claimed from a much-debated passage attributed to Papias and quoted in Eusebius, which may possibly refer to a person distinct from the apostle John.
Papias is quoted by Eusebius as saying: “And again, if anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I used to enquire about the sayings of the elders—what Andrew, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples said and what Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice.”
The problem, quite simply stated, is the interpretation of Papias’ words.
Who are the “elders”?
Are they to be identified with the “disciples” also named, or are they a separate group?
C. K. Barrett was convinced the “sayings of the elders” consisted of reports of what the named disciples (i.e. apostles) had already said, and Papias only heard these second hand.
There would be no question of Papias being a hearer of the apostle John and companion of Polycarp.
Thus, Papias would be referring to three groups: the apostles (Disciples), their followers the elders, and the other disciples.
If, however, Papias is describing the apostles as elders, then there are only two groups (apostles and disciples), and Papias’ use to enquire directly from the followers of the apostles what the apostles had said.
His testimony is therefore closer to that of Irenaeus but if Papias is describing the apostles as “elders,” then it is possible that the “elder John” is also the apostle John mentioned earlier.
In this case, Papias is distinguishing between what John said in the past and what he was still saying at the time of Papias’ enquiry.
At the same time, the possibility that there may have been two men with the name John cannot be ruled out.
It is supported by Eusebius’ interpretation of Papias’ words. (But since Eusebius wished to attribute the Book of Revelation to a different John than the author of the gospel, his interpretation may not have been impartial.)
In any case, the only other evidence for the existence for an “elder” John appears to be the introduction to 2 and 3 John, where the author calls himself by this title.
However, even if there was a second John, the “elder,” Papias gives no location and no hint of any writings.
He merely happens to possess a name, which is identical to the person to which the fourth Gospel is traditionally ascribed and this makes the “confusion” theory possible but, if the later church mixed up apostles and elders in this way might not Papias have done so himself?
After all, it is still possible that he was originally referring to only one person himself, and Papias’ words were confused by Eusebius.
Those who hold this view usually link it to their theory of authorship of the fourth Gospel, because of the evidently close relationship between this Gospel and 1 John (mentioned briefly above).
In moderately critical circles it is becoming common to ascribe authorship of the Gospel to a follower of the apostle John (or the Beloved Disciple).
This permits one to say that the witness behind the fourth Gospel was apostolic or near-apostolic, while the actual authorship was not.
Some would go on to see this individual as the same one who then wrote either 1 John or all three of the Johannine letters.
According to this view the author would be a Christian leader who was neither a personal acquaintance of the apostle John nor the author of the fourth Gospel:
This is currently the leading theory in Johannine scholarship, held by R. Brown and S. Smalley.
It is based primarily on the assumptions that (1) after the essential composition of the gospel, development has taken place in the situation to which the letters are addressed, and (2) there are sufficient differences in emphasis, theology, style, etc. to warrant the conclusion that the same individual was not the author of both the fourth Gospel and the letters.
Both Brown and Smalley hold, however, that the same author wrote 1, 2, and 3 John, although Smalley is less certain on common authorship for 1 John.
In response to all three of the above suggestions we may refer to the external and internal evidence cited earlier which points to the apostle John as the author of 1, 2, and 3 John (as well as the Fourth Gospel, although this is something of a separate issue).
One might refer to the statement by B. H. Streeter with which I agree: “The three epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship.”
There is nothing in the evidence put forward by either Brown or Smalley, which demands authorship by a person other than the apostle John.
It is certainly possible to agree that development has taken place in the situation within the Johannine community between the composition of the Gospel and 1 John while holding to apostolic authorship for both Gospel and letters.
Such a conclusion appears to best explain all the available evidence.
Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is.
The earliest identification comes from the church fathers: Irenaeus (c. A.D. 140-203), Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-215), Tertullian (c. 150-222) and Origen (c. 185-253), Polycarp, Papias, Muratorian fragment, the Syriac Peshitta and Eusebius all designated the writer as the apostle John.
As far as we know, the early church suggested no one else and the internal evidence confirms this traditional identification:
(1) The style of the Gospel of John is very similar to that of this letter.
Both are written in simple Greek and use contrasting figures, such as light and darkness, life and death, truth and lies, love and hate.
(2) Similar phrases and expressions.
(3) The mention of eyewitness testimony in the prologue (1:1-4) harmonizes with the fact that John was a disciple of Christ from the earliest days of His ministry.
(4) The authoritative manner that pervades the letter as seen in its commands (2:15, 24, 28; 4:1; 5:21), its firm assertions (2:6; 3:14; 4:12), and its identification of error in a direct manner (1:6, 8; 2:4, 22) is what would be expected from an apostle.
(5) The suggestions of advanced age (addressing his readers as “children,” 2:1, 28; 3:7) agree with early church tradition concerning John’s age when he wrote the books known to be his.
(6) The description of the heretics as antichrists (2:18), liars (2:22) and children of the devil (3:10) is consistent with Jesus’ characterization of John as a son of thunder (Mk. 3:17).
(7) The indications of a close relationship with the Lord (1:1; 2:5-6, 24, 27-28) fit the descriptions of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and the one who reclined “next to Him” (Jn. 13:23).
The stylistic considerations in favor of John being the author of both 1 John and the Gospel of John are indeed overwhelming.
According to Eusebius Origen’s pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria (died ad 265) regarded 1 John to be written by the same author as the Fourth Gospel, although he distinguished both 1 John and the Fourth Gospel in style from Revelation, which he therefore attributed to a different author.
It can be determined from the external evidence that 1 John, at least, was being quoted without question as to its authenticity or authority well before the end of the second century in both the West and the East.
It also appears that the author was accepted to be John the Apostle, who was understood to be the author of the Fourth Gospel as well.
