Prima facie, the case for identity of authorship is overwhelmingly strong.  On internal grounds, it would appear much more feasible to assign any two of Shakespeare's plays to different authors, than the Gospel and the First Epistle of "St. John."  They are equally saturated with that spiritual and theological atmosphere, they are equally characterised by that type of thought, which we call Johannine, and which presents an interpretation of Christianity not less original and distinctive than Paulinism.  In both we find the same fundamental positions regarding the Divine Nature; Eternal Life; the Person of Christ; the antecedents and consequents, metaphysical and ethical, of the Incarnation; the affinity and non-affinity of men with the Divine; Regeneration and the children of God; the mutual indwelling of God and man; the work of the Holy Spirit; the Christian Life as tested by Belief, Obedience, and the supreme duty of Love.  In both, the writer views almost every subject with an eye that steadfastly beholds radical antagonisms, but is blind to approximations.  Each conception has its fundamental antithesis: - Light, Darkness; Life, Death; Love, Hate; Truth, Falsehood; the Father, the World; God, the Devil.  There is no shading, no gradation, in the picture.  Affinities in manner and in substance of thought are not more remarkable than those in diction and style.  The vocabulary in each is of the same simplicity and restricted³ range, and is, to a surprising extent, identical in material.  There is in both the same strongly Hebraistic style of composition, the same development of ideas by parallelism or antithesis; the same emphatic repetition of key-words like "begotten of God," "abiding," "keeping His commandments"; the same monotonous simplicity of syntax, with avoidance of relative clauses and a singular parsimony in the use of connecting particles; the same lack of dialectical resource; the same method of implying causal relation by mere juxtaposition of ideas; the same apparently tautological habit of resuming consideration of a subject from a slightly different point of view.  In short, it seems impossible to conceive of two independent literary productions having a more intimate affinity.  The relation between them is, in every way, closer than that between the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, where the identity of authorship is now generally admitted, the only case of approximation to it being that of the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians.⁴

    For these statements some evidence must be furnished in detail.⁵  And I shall cite, in the first place, the coincidences of verbal expression; and, to begin with, those that are peculiar to the Gospel and the Epistle.
 

    I give next a list of verbal coincidences not peculiar to the Gospel and Epistle, yet characteristic.
 

    Next, I subjoin a list of passages in which there is coincidence in thought, though not in words.  Since to quote the passages in full would occupy too much space, only the references are given.
 

    The identity of vocabulary being so remarkable as we have seen it to be, it is surprising to discover how numerous and not unimportant the divergences are.

    There is an observable difference in the choice and use of particles.  de, is found 212 times in the Gospel, only 9 times in the Epistle; me,n is found 8 times, ou=n nearly 200 times, te thrice, in the Gospel, while there is no occurrence of any of them in the Epistle. ga,r is very frequent in the Gospel, but occurs only thrice in the Epistle, o[ti being often used where ga,r might have been expected.  Yet these discrepancies are not so hostile to unity of authorship as they seem.  In the case of ou=n, the discrepancy is only apparent, is rather, indeed, a point of real similarity; for, in the Gospel, it is used only in narrative, no occurrence of it being found, e.g., in chapters 14-16.  The facts brought out regarding me,n, de,, and ga,r, in so far as they are not accounted for by the absence of dialogue and narrative in the Epistle, point to the larger fact, that its style is more didactic and aphoristic than that of the Gospel.

    The construction of the verbs avkou,ein, aivtei/n, lambavnein, with avpo, instead of para, (avkou,ein para,, John 1⁴¹; aivtei/n para,, 4⁹; lambavnein para,, 5³⁴ etc.), is rather inexplicable, although in the Gospel itself there is a similar vacillation between para, and avpo, (avpo, qeou/ e;rcesqai, 3², 13³,16³⁰; para, tou/ qeou/ e;rcesqai, evkporeu,esqai, 16²⁷, 15²⁶, 17⁸).  And, in a cumulative argument, a certain weight must be attached to these lexical differences, minute as they are.

    The following words and phrases⁶ in the Epistle are foreign to the Gospel:  lo,goj th/j zwh/j (1¹); koinwni,a (1^3,6,7); *avgge,li,a (1⁵, 3¹¹); avkou,ein avpo, (1⁵; avkou,ein para,, John 1⁴¹, 6⁴⁵ etc.); *yeu,desqai (1⁶); kaqari,zein (1^7,9; but kaqarismo,j, John 2²⁶, 3²⁵); o`mologei/n ta.j a`marti,aj (1⁹, nowhere else in N.T.); pisto,j (of God, 1⁹); di,kaioj (of Christ, 2¹); i`lasmo,j (2<sup>2</sup>, 4<sup>10</sup>, nowhere else in N.T.); avga,ph teteleiwme,nh (2<sup>5</sup>, 4<sup>12,17,18</sup>), *avgaphtoi, (2<sup>7</sup> etc.), *palaio,j (2<sup>7</sup>); para,gesqai (2<sup>8,17</sup>); *misei/n to.n avdelfo.n, *avgapa/n to.n avdelfo.n, *ska,ndalon (2<sup>10</sup>; but cf. prosko,ptein, John 11<sup>9,10</sup>); *pate,rej (2<sup>13</sup>); *neani,skoi (2<sup>13,14</sup>); *ivscuroi, (2<sup>14</sup>); *avlazonei,a (2<sup>16</sup>); evsca,th w[ra (2<sup>18</sup>); *avnti,cristoj (2<sup>18</sup> etc.); cri/sma (2<sup>20</sup>); *avrnei/sqai o[ti (2<sup>22</sup>); *avrnei/sqai pate,ra, ui`o,n (2^22,23; but cf. John 13³⁸); e;cein pate,ra, ui`o,n (2<sup>23</sup>, 5<sup>12</sup>); o`mologei/n to.n ui`o,n (2<sup>23</sup>; but cf. John 9<sup>22</sup>); evpagge,llesqai (2<sup>25</sup>); lambavneinavpo, (2<sup>27</sup>, 3<sup>22</sup>); parvr`hsi,a (Godwards, 2²⁸ etc.); *aivscu,nesqai (2²⁸); h` parousi,a (2<sup>28</sup>); *poiei/n th.n dikaiosu,nhn (2<sup>29</sup>); *potapo,j (3<sup>1</sup>); *evlpi,da e;cein evpi, (3<sup>3</sup>); avnomi,a (3<sup>4</sup>); spe,rma auvtou/ (3<sup>9</sup>); *fanero,j (3<sup>10</sup>); *sfa,ttein (3<sup>12</sup>); *ca,rin ti,noj (3<sup>12</sup>); *bi,oj tou/ ko,smou tou,tou (3<sup>17</sup>); *klei,ein ta. spla,gcna (3<sup>17</sup>); *lo,gw| . . . glw,ssh|, e;rgw| . . . avlhqei,a| (3<sup>18</sup>); *pei,qein ta.j kardi,aj (3<sup>19</sup>); *kataginw,skein (3<sup>20</sup>); evnw,pion auvtou/ (3<sup>22</sup>); pisteu,ein tw/| ovno,mati (3<sup>23</sup>); evn qew/| me,nei kai. qeo.j evn auvto.j (3<sup>24</sup> etc.); *dokima,zein (4<sup>1</sup>); *yeudoprofh/tai (4<sup>1</sup>); evlhluqe,nai evn sarki, (4<sup>2</sup>); *pneu/ma th/j pla,nhj (4<sup>6</sup>); h` avga,ph (absolutely, 4⁷ etc.); qeo.j avga,ph evsti,n (4⁸); *qeo.n qea/sqai (4¹²); evk tou/ pneu,matoj (4¹³; but cf. John 3³⁴); h` h`me,ra th/j kri,sewj (4¹⁷); *fo,boj, fo,bei/sqai (Godwards, 4¹⁸); *ko,lasij (4¹⁸); *evntola.j poiei/n (5²); *barei/ai (5³); *to. gegennhme,non evk tou/ qeou/ (5⁴); pi,stij (5⁴); *marturi,an marturei/n (5¹⁰); qeo.n yeu,sthn poiei/n (1¹⁰, 5¹⁰); *aivtein aivth,mata (5¹⁵); *e;cein aivth,mata (5¹⁵); kata. to. qe,lhma auvtou/ (5¹⁴); *a`marta,nein a`marti,an (5¹⁶); *o` ko,smoj o[loj (5¹⁹); *evn tw/| ponhrw/| kei/sqai (5¹⁹); dia,noia (5²⁰); *ei;dwlon (5²¹).

    The words which I have marked with an asterisk may be set aside as unimportant.  They are merely accidental terms of expression, like yeu,desqai, ca,rin ti,noj, evntola.j poiei/n, and the three successive cognate accusatives marturi,an marturei/n, aivtein aivth,mata, a`marta,nein a`marti,an; or they express ideas that naturally do not occur in the Gospel, such as avgge,li,a, avgaphtoi,, pate,rej, neani,skoi, ivscuroi,, avlazonei,a, ei;dwlon, etc.; or they have a definite reference to the polemical object of the Epistle, as avnti,cristoj, yeudoprofh/tai, dokima,zein, avrnei/sqai pate,ra, ui`o,n (to the same cause are to be referred the unique o` le,gwn and eva.n ei;pwmen).  In other cases, variation of expression is accounted for on exegetical grounds.  Thus e;cein evlpi,da evpi, conveys a stronger idea than evlpi,zein eivj (John 5⁴⁵); and when Holtzmann asks why the Epistle uses poiei/n th.n dikaiosu,nhn (2²⁹, 3^7,10) instead of poiei/n th.n avlh,qeian (John 3²¹), it is evident that he has been absorbed in the Concordance to the neglect of the context (eva.n eivdh/te o[ti di,kaio,j evstin, 2²²); and, again, when he asks why we read in the Epistle o` qeo.j avga,ph evsti,n instead of pneu/ma o` qeo.j (John 4²⁴), one asks in reply whether the statement, "God is Love," would have been relevant in our Lord's conversation with the woman of Samaria, or where the development of thought in the Epistle is weakened by the absence of the statement that "God is Spirit."  parvr`hsi,a, aivscu,nesqai, evnw,pion auvtou/, pei,qein ta.j kardi,aj, kataginw,skein, fo,boj, fo,bei/sqai, ko,lasij, are all accounted for by the fact, that the topic of assurance is not explicitly treated in the Gospel.  Others, again, of the terms peculiar to the Epistle are simply conveniences of language, signifying briefly and abstractly thoughts that are more concretely expressed in the Gospel.  Thus koinwni,a expresses the contents of John 17<sup>23</sup>; avga,ph teteleiwme,nh, that of John 14<sup>21-24</sup>; while dia,noian dido,nia i[na gniw,skomen to.n avlhqino,n condenses the meaning of John 1<sup>18</sup>, 8<sup>12</sup>, 17<sup>3</sup> and 18<sup>37</sup>.  There remain, as suggestive of the question whether the Epistle does not contain theological and ethical conceptions alien to the Gospel, such words and phrases as lo,goj th/j zwh/j, kaqari,zein avpo. pa,shj a`msrti,aj, o`mologei/n ta.j a`marti,aj, pisto,j (of God), di,kaioj (of Christ), i`lasmo,j, evsca,th w[ra, h` parousi,a, avnomi,a, spe,rma qeou/, evn qew/| me,nein, evk tou/ pneu,matoj dido,nia, h` h`me,ra th/j kri,sewj.  And it is upon these that the weight of argument for a dual authorship is chiefly laid.

    Before proceeding, however, to the detailed consideration of these points, I desire to make an observation on the general question.  It is the constant assumption of writers like Pfleiderer that the Gospel and the Epistle cannot have proceeded from the same author; for, otherwise, he would certainly have ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel the views (regarding, e.g., propitiation and the Parousia) which he himself states in the Epistle, and that regardless of historical propriety.  A naive example of this point of view may be quoted from Dr. Scott's Fourth Gospel, in which he argues that the writer had a certain sympathy with Gnosticism - the evidence for this being that "He finds room within the historical limitations of his narrative to wage a sharp polemic with his Jewish adversaries; and he might just as easily have assailed the Gnostics in terms that could not be mistaken" (p. 95).  Here the assumption is, not only that the Evangelist employed his "Gospel" as little else than a literary vehicle for his own conception of Christianity, but that in doing so he would naturally show himself destitute of all regard to historical probability.  It was not any sense of the fitness of things, but a leaning towards Gnosticism, that prevented him from making Jesus the mouthpiece of an attack upon it in "terms that could not be mistaken."  He must not be supposed even to have possessed enough of artistic faculty to invest his theological romance with an air of verisimilitude.

    Now, if this be accepted as a canon of criticism, the question of a single or dual authorship for the Gospel and the Epistle becomes simple indeed.  Any noticeable development in the latter of truths contained in the former, any difference of perspective or in the grouping of ideas is decisive for a different authorship.  But I submit that this assumption is altogether unwarrantable.  Without discussing the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, I claim, as a basis for our consideration of the real or alleged divergences between the Gospel and the Epistle, the fact that the one purports, at least, to be a Gospel, the other an utterance of the writer in propria persona.

    I. It is objected⁷that the idea of Forgiveness, emphasised in the Epistle, is foreign to the Evangelist's conception of the relation between God and man.  But it is not the fact that the idea of forgiveness is absent from the Gospel.  It is implied in such utterances as "The wrath of God abideth on him" (3³⁶), and "hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment" (5²⁴), and is explicitly enunciated in the promise, "Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven" (20³⁶).  But the strength of the reply does not rest upon a few proof-texts.  The word "sin" (a`marti,a) occurs sixteen times in the Gospel (with the idea of guilt definitely attached to it in six passages, 9⁴¹, 15^22,24, 16^8,9,  19¹¹); and to assert that, where the idea of sin enters into the conception of the relation between God and man, the idea of forgiveness is foreign to that conception, would be to assert a mere contradiction.  What sin means is conduct that needs forgiveness.

    It is true, indeed, that in the Epistle a clearer prominence is given to the confession and the forgiveness of sin than in the Gospel; but, in estimating the significance of this, due consideration must be given to the polemical factor in the Epistle.  It was a characteristic tenet of Gnosticism that "Upon believing one receives the forgiveness of sins from the Lord; but he who has attained to Gnosis, having become as one who no longer sins, procures forgiveness thereafter from himself" (Clem. Alex., quoted by Westcott, p. 22).  The germs, at least, of this doctrine were in the atmosphere of the Johannine period.⁸  And if in the Epistle the polemic is more directly pointed against contemporary error than in the Gospel, if, moreover, such a statement as "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins" (1⁹) has a more Pauline ring than any utterance of the Fourth Gospel, the question is relevant, here and elsewhere - Why not?  The Gospel assumes, at least, to be a record of the teaching, not of the Evangelist, but of Jesus.

    2.  It is said also that the ideas of "cleansing" (kaqari,zein) from sin by the "Blood of Jesus" (1⁷), and of Christ as a "propitiation" (2², 4¹⁰), are alien to the Gospel (Martineau, von Soden).  But this cannot be conceded in view of such utterances as "The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1²⁹), "And for their sakes I sanctify⁹ Myself" (17¹⁹); and of the interpretation of Christ's Death as effective "for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather into one the children of God that are scattered abroad" (11^51,52; cf. I John 2²).  The conceptions in the Epistle of propitiation, intercession, and cleansing belong to the same circle of religious ideas and spring from the same root in Old Testament ritual as those that are implied in the passages quoted from the Gospel.  And if the Epistle presents these in a much more explicit and technical form, again we ask - Why not?  In not ascribing to Jesus a fully developed doctrine of propitiation, the author of the Fourth Gospel only places himself in line with the Synoptics.

    3.  The objection, that a different view of the Christian relation to the Law is held by the writer of the Epistle and by the Evangelist, who sets the Law which "came by Moses" in absolute contrast to the "grace and truth" which came by Jesus Christ (John 1¹⁶), is founded on a misapprehension of the statement that "Sin is lawlessness" (avnomi,a, 3⁴), in which there is no special reference to the Jewish Law.¹⁰  On the other hand, the insistence upon the keeping of the "commandments," especially the old-new commandment of Love, is one of the most obvious affinities between the Gospel and the Epistle.

    4.  It is asserted that the doctrine of the Spirit in the Epistle involves a departure from that of the Gospel.  In the Gospel the Spirit, in the Epistle Christ, is the Paraclete.  In the Gospel the Spirit is regarded as distinctly personal, in the Epistle as an impersonal "anointing" (2²⁰), and even (4¹³, o[ti evk tou/ pneu,matoj auvtou/ de,dwken h`mi/n) as a divisible entity (Pfleiderer, ii. 447).  In answer, it is to be said, in the first place, that the Gospel expressly speaks of the Spirit as "another" Paraclete (14<sup>16</sup>), implying that Jesus Himself is the first Paraclete; in the second place, that cri/sma denotes the Spirit, not in His essence or agency, but as the gift of the Holy One, with which He "anoints" believers; and that, in any case, the expression is not more impersonal than that of John 7<sup>38,39</sup>: - "He that believeth on Me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.  But this spake He of the Spirit"; in the third place, that the expression evk tou/ pneu,matoj auvtou/ de,dwken h`mi/n is no more inconsistent with the personality of the Spirit, than is the saying of John 3³⁴, that "To Him whom He hath sent" God "giveth not the Spirit by measure," or than our speaking of Christians as having much or little of the Spirit (v. supra, Ch. XIII).

    5.  It is alleged that in the matter of the Last Things¹¹ the Epistle recedes from the idealism of the Gospel, placing itself more nearly in line with the apocalyptic conceptions of the traditional Eschatology.  Whereas the Gospel speaks of Christ's departure in bodily presence as "expedient," because it is the necessary condition of His coming again in the Spirit to make His permanent abode with His disciples (John 16⁷, 14^18,23, 15¹⁶), the writer of the Epistle thinks of a visible Parousia as nigh at hand (2²⁸); and whereas the Gospel conceives of Judgment as a present spiritual fact (John 3^18,19 etc.), the Epistle clings to the "popular" idea of a Judgment Day (4¹⁷).  In reply, it ought to be noted that in the Epistle, as compared with the Gospel, the eschatological point of view is necessarily different.  The perspective is shortened.  The author writes under the conviction that "the world is passing away," that "the last hour" of its day has come (2^17,18).  And even if the Fourth Gospel be regarded as containing nothing else than the Evangelist's own conception of Christian truth, we need not, surely, deny him such a sense of historical propriety as would prevent the manifest anachronism of importing this conviction into it.  Apart from this, the fundamental similarities between the eschatology of the Epistle and that of the Gospel are vastly more obvious than the differences.  If the Gospel conceives of Eternal Life as a present rather than a future possession, this is the invariable conception in the Epistle also.  If, in the Gospel, Christ's spiritual presence is an abiding reality, this truth, though naturally not presented in the Epistle with the exquisite pathos and glowing emphasis of the Farewell Discourse, is everywhere fundamental.  "Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1⁸).  We are to "abide in Him," that we may not be "ashamed before Him at His coming" (2²⁸).  We "have" the Son (5¹²); and His coming again will be only the manifestation of what is now hidden reality (3²).  If the Gospel speaks of the revelation of Christ to men as bringing a present and inevitable kri,sij into the world, the Epistle is saturated with the same thought, and, indeed, has as its aim nothing else than to awaken, strengthen, and educate the consciousness of this.  If, on the other hand, the Epistle speaks of a future and visible Parousia, this is quite obviously implied also in John 5^28,29.  And if the Epistle makes a single reference to the "Day of Judgment" (4¹⁷), the Gospel has no fewer than six passages which speak of the "Last Day," and in these the "Last Day" is explicitly the Day of Resurrection (6^39,40,44,54, 11²⁴) and of Judgment (12⁴⁸).  Except for the singular fact of its silence as to the Resurrection, the Epistle, in its eschatology, covers exactly the same canvas as the Gospel; and if, in the two writings, different features of the picture are made more or less conspicuous, there is no such diversity as to warrant the hypothesis of their separate authorship.

    6.  It is alleged that in the Epistle the unique conception of the Logos found in the Gospel is modified in the direction of conformity to traditional doctrine.  The distinctly personal Logos, Who "in the beginning was, and was with God, and was God" (John 1¹), and Who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1¹⁴), becomes in the Epistle the less indubitably personal "Word of Life" (1¹).  The difference of expression, quantum valeat, being admitted, to have built upon this tiny basis such a superstructure of inference as Pfleiderer (following Holtzmann) has done is a marvel of ingenuity.  The conception of the personal, preexistent Logos was new, we are told, and, because of its Gnostic tinge, suspect, and was therefore avoided and generalised into the "Word of Life."  "The reason why the writer of the Epistle gives up the self-subsistence of the Logos (and of the Spirit) is, without doubt, his anxiety to keep at a safe distance from the aeons and 'idols' (5²¹) of Gnosticism, and to maintain his stand upon the solid ground of Biblical Monotheism" (Pfleiderer, ii. 446, 447).  "The primitive Church had not yet, like the Fourth Evangelist, seen in Jesus the Incarnate Logos; to it He was the Man filled with the Divine Spirit of Life, and it was because he was conscious of this difference in point of view and was desirous of obliterating it, that our author has avoided speaking of the personal Logos" (ibid. p. 392).  And here, as elsewhere in the Epistle, one is to discern traces of the "universal Monarchianism¹² of the second century" (Holtzmann, J. P. T., 1882, p. 141).  This, it seems to me, is to make bricks not only without straw, but without clay; to speak bluntly, it is mere moonshine.  What ground is there for the assertion that o` lo,goj th/j zwh/j necessarily signifies anything less personal than does the phraseology of the Gospel?  The phraseology in both cases is exactly adapted to its purpose.  In the Gospel, evn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj . . . kai. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto is right, because it sums up the contents of the Gospel - announces its subject, the history of the Incarnate Logos.  In the Epistle, o` lo,goj th/j zwh/j (with the emphasis on th/j zwh/j. See Note, in loc.) is right, because the theme of the Epistle is to be the Life, not as to its historical manifestation in the Incarnate Logos, but as to its essential qualities, in whomsoever it exists.

    7.  But while this microscopic detection of tendency in the phrase "Word of Life" borders upon the ridiculous, there is a real difference in point of view between the Gospel and the Epistle which has been already¹² alluded to, and is worthy of fuller consideration.  The Gospel is, to speak broadly, Christocentric, the Epistle Theocentric.  In the former, Life consists in our relation to Christ - He is the Vine and we are the branches; in the latter, Life consists in our relation to God - He is the Father and we are His children.  There are important exceptions on either side to this generalisation; but upon the whole view of the facts it is strikingly justified.
 

    In the Gospel we find passages as strongly Theocentric as any in the Epistle.  In John 3^16,17 the source of salvation is the Love of God, as clearly as in I John 4^9,10.  In John 17³, as clearly as in I John 5²⁰, Eternal Life is to know God.  So also in the Gospel we read that God "abides in" men (5⁴²), that men are "begotten of God" (1¹³), and are "of God" (8⁴⁷); that the end of all Christ's work is that the Father may be glorified (15⁸), and that Belief in Christ is the gift of God (1¹³, 6^37,39,44,45, 18³⁷).  On the other hand, the Epistle contains passages which are as strongly Christocentric as any in the Gospel.  "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (5¹²).  From Christ believers receive the "anointing" of the Spirit (2²⁰).  At His Parousia Christ is the Judge (2²⁸).  To abide in the Son is tantamount to abiding in the Father (2²⁴).  To be in Him that is True is to be in His Son Jesus Christ (520).  Not only so; the offices of Christ as Intercessor and as Propitiation are more clearly displayed in the Epistle than in the Gospel (2^1,2); and when Holtzmann asserts (J. P. T., 1882, p. 145) that "the author is here, for a moments in conflict with the tendencies of his own Christology," and "consciously and deliberately veers round to the popular conception according to which Christ is still active in Heaven as our Intercessor (contrary to the representation of John 16²⁶)," the assertion is one which much more evidently fits his theory than it does the facts of the case.  In full view of these facts, I submit that the allegation of Monarchian tendency in the Epistle is without foundation.  If in the Gospel itself, we find that the point of view changes so rapidly that in one chapter Christ is the source of commandment (14¹⁵), and in the next the pattern of obedience (15¹⁰); that in one verse He is the Answerer of prayer (14^13,14), and almost in the next that He is the Intercessor, while the Father is the Answerer (14¹⁶); and if in the Epistle we find that in one chapter Christ is the Giver of the Spirit (2²⁰), and in the next that God is the Giver (3²⁴, 4¹³), the fact that the one point of view is, upon the whole, more distinctive of the one writing, the other of the other, cannot be held as disproof that both have emanated from the same mind, especially when the one is a biography of the Incarnate Word, the other, we may say, a biological study of the Divine Life itself .

    It is to be observed that the inquiry we have undertaken is widely different from such a question as, for example, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.  In such a case, where the most pronounced characteristics of the reputed author are absent in the writing ascribed to him, the argument from the positive dissimilarities between it and his acknowledged writings tells with fatal effect.  Here, on the contrary, the identity of the two writings in matter and manner of thought, in vocabulary and style, creates a presumption in favour of identity of authorship that can be resisted only by the discovery of differences very radical and profound, proving the existence of two systems of thought or lines of tendency that do not readily coalesce, and cannot be supposed to have been held, simultaneously or successively, by the same person.  But, while there are, between the Fourth Gospel and our Epistle, differences of emphasis, of perspective and point of view, it is no insecure verdict to say that these differences do not yield even an approximation to the proof required.

    But, further, the diversities as well as the similarities tell in favour of identity of authorship.  The writer of the Epistle was either the author of the Gospel or one whose mind was so saturated and obsessed by it (or the oral teaching it embodies) that, for the most part, he could not move except in its circle of ideas, nor express them except in its diction.  But, in the latter case, how are we to account for the diversities?  Would such a mere copyist have ventured to introduce, or have been capable of introducing, so many and important elements of independence both in thought and language?  "It is easy enough to imitate tricks of style, or to borrow some peculiarities of phrase; but to write in a required style without betraying any signs of imitation; to introduce variations into sentences which are, nevertheless, characteristic; to have shades of thought and suggestion which remind one of what has been said elsewhere, and, nevertheless, are delicately modified and pass easily into another subject; in a word, to preserve the whole flavour of a writer's composition in a treatise which has a theme of its own, and follows its own independent development, may well seem beyond the reach of the imitator, and must be held to guarantee the authorship of a work, unless very weighty arguments can be advanced on the other side."¹³  I cannot but think that, in this case, the arguments so advanced have far too little substance to counterbalance the affinity, unique in kind and degree, between the two writings,¹⁴ together with the testimony of a tradition which is ancient, unanimous, and unbroken.

    The question of priority, as between the two writings, is not so easy of determination as at a first glance it might seem to be.  For while it is true that to the modern reader the Epistle would be unintelligible without the Gospel, - such expressions as the "Word of Life" or the "new commandment" would be merely enigmatic, - it does not follow that its original readers would have been in the same case.  That they were familiar, through oral communication, with the leading ideas and main contents of its author's Gospel, is assumed in the Epistle itself (1^1-3, 2²⁴, 4⁶).  The relation of the two writings would be at once fixed, if we could adopt that tempting interpretation of the Prologue to the Epistle which refers 1^1-3 to the habitual oral teaching of the author and 1⁴ to his written Gospel.  The Epistle would thus have been written simultaneously with the Gospel, and despatched along with it to its original readers.  But the characteristics of the Epistle do not lend themselves to this supposition.  It is an independent composition, concerned with other objects than the Gospel, and so persistently and exclusively devoted to these that it is difficult to think of it as a simultaneous production.  The question then is - Are there distinguishable references in the Epistle to the documentary Fourth Gospel?  It seems to me that there are.  The Prologue to the Epistle is reminiscent of that to the Gospel.¹⁵  In 2^9-11 there are distinct traces of John 11^9,10, 12³⁵ and the coincidence is the more striking because it is chiefly verbal, the connection in thought between the passages being but slight.¹⁶  Again, it seems as if in writing 3^8-15 the echoes of John 8^40-44 must still have lingered in the author's ear;¹⁷ and when we compare the passages there can be little doubt which of the two is the original.  Again, in 3¹³, eiv misei/ u`ma/j o` ko,smoj is a verbal reproduction of John 15¹⁸, and qeo.n ouvdei.j pw,pote teqe,atai (4¹³) very nearly so of John 1¹⁸; and in both cases the probability is that the occurrence in the Gospel is the original.  Again, it seems more probable that 4^9,10 is an expansion of John 3¹⁶, than that the latter is a condensation of the former.¹⁸

    Upon a whole view of the case, the verdict must be, first and certainly, that the Epistle presupposes its reader's acquaintance with the substance of the Johannine Gospel; secondly, and with much probability, that it shows signs of being posterior to the composition of that Gospel in literary form.

    How much posterior, we have not the means of determining.  Writers of the critical school, whether admitting or denying identity of authorship, agree in requiring a considerable interval between the two writings, in order to make room for their theory of the aim and tendency of the Epistle.  This, it is said, was to "popularise" the ideas of the Gospel (Weizsacker),¹⁹ or to correct and tone down what in it was obnoxious to the feeling of the Church, and, at the same time, to add certain links of connection (ilasmo,j, parousi,a, para,klhtoj, etc.) with the traditional type of doctrine, or to emphasise these where they existed (Holtzmann).²⁰  Pfleiderer compares it with the "mediating" successors of Schleiermacher.  "In his earnest endeavour to make the great thoughts of the master useful and edifying for the whole Church, he became more conservative than the master himself had been.  He wrote with more decisive repudiation of the heretical Gnosis, and gave to the Johannine Gnosis, wherever it appeared to come into dangerous approximation to the former, an application and a significance which were unexceptionable and in full accord with the common religious consciousness of the Church" (ii. 448).  This account of the purpose of the Epistle, in so far as it is based upon an alleged retreat from the well-defined personality of the Logos and the Spirit taught in the Gospel, has been already shown to be groundless.  And while it is admitted that the more definite statement of Christ's office as Propitiation and Intercessor, and of the near approach of a visible Parousia, does emphasise points of contact with traditional doctrine which are less discernible in the Gospel, this furnishes an extremely slender basis for the conclusion, that the Epistle as a whole is of a mediating" tendency, and that in this lies the very motive of its composition.

    A slightly different view is, that the Evangelist (or another) produced the Epistle after the earlier and greater work, " because his Gospel and his conception of Christianity were now being seriously threatened by the Gnostics, who actually employed some of his formulae in order to commend themselves to the ignorant, and who in effect found many points of agreement between his views and their own" (Julicher).²¹  Julicher offers no shred of evidence for this confident statement; and one is left to learn from other sources what formulae or features of the Fourth Gospel there are which the Gnostics were able to appropriate, and which are retraced or modified in the Epistle.  It is said²² that "the Gospel itself bears a semi-docetic character," and yet the Epistle contains no utterance more strongly antidocetic than several which are contained in the Gospel (e.g. 1¹⁴, 4⁶, 19^17,34, 20²⁷).  If "the Gnostic view that the Resurrection takes place here and now when a man attains to the true 'knowledge has a striking parallel in Johannine doctrine,"²³ it is to be noted that, while the Gospel is by no means silent regarding a future resurrection, the Epistle is.  If, in the Gospel, the influence of Gnosticism appears in St. John's "favourite opposition of light and darkness,"²³ and in the assumption that "certain elect natures have an inborn affinity to the light,"²⁴ all this is equally characteristic of the Epistle.  If, finally, it is true that, in the Gospel, St. John describes the supreme energy of the religious life as an act of "knowing,"²⁴ this is equally true in the Epistle (2³, 4⁷, 5²⁰).  Evidence for the theory, that the Epistle was written as an antidote to Gnostic appropriation of the Johannine Gospel, is very much to seek.

    The sum of the matter is, that our knowledge of the historical situation is insufficient for an exact determination of the relative dates of the two writings.  That there was an appreciable interval of time seems probable.  Gnostic tendencies have hardened into more definite form.  Many false prophets have gone forth into the world.  The "antichrists" have declared themselves.  It is high time for the Evangelist to focus the rays of his Gospel upon the malignant growth which is acutely endangering the life of the Church.  And there are other features in the case that are more easily explicable on the supposition of some appreciable difference of date.  There are the diversities of diction, minute, but, as bearing on this point, not unimportant.  And there is the fact that, while the leading thoughts in the Epistle are almost identical with those in the Gospel, they are placed in relation to a different centre: not the Incarnate Logos, but the Eternal Life, not the channel, but the living water it conveys is now the cardinal theme.²⁵  In this respect the Epistle may be said to represent a further stage of theological reflection.  Its doctrine of the Divine nature, self-existing and self-imparting as Life, Light, Righteousness, and Love, is, it appears to me, the largest and loftiest conception in the New Testament.

    Brooke, in his full and able discussion of the subject of this chapter, reaches the same conclusions.  "It is practically impossible to prove common authorship, as against imitation, or similarity produced by common education in the same school of thought. . . . But there are no adequate reasons for setting aside the traditional view which attributes the Epistle and the Gospel to the same authorship.  It remains the most probable explanation of the facts known to us" (p. xviii).  He also finds the relevant facts decisive for the priority of the Gospel to the Epistle, so far as the substantial content of the two documents is concerned.  "They do not, perhaps, preclude the possibility of a later date for the actual composition, or publication, of the Gospel.  But in view of them such hypotheses are extremely unlikely" (p. lxvii).