JOHN, FIRST EPISTLE OF. I. Genuineness.- That this is the production of the same author as wrote the fourth gospel, is so manifest, that it has been universally admitted (comp. Hauff, Die Authentic u. der hone werth des Evang. yohan., p. 137, ff.) The establishment of the genuineness of the one, therefore, involves the admission of that of the other. The evidence, however, in favour of the epistle is sufficient to establish its claims, apart from its relation to the Gospel. Eusebius informs us that Papias knew and made use of it (H. E. iii. 39) ; Polycarp quotes a pas sage (iv. 3) from it in his Epistle to the Philippians, ch. vii. ; Irenxus uses it (comp. Adv. liar. iii. 15; v. 8, with John ii. 18 ; iv. I, 3 ; v. 1) ; it is quoted or referred to by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 38o) and Tertullian (Scorpiac. c. 22 ; Adv. Prax. c. 15) ; and Eusebius assures us that it VC as universally and always acknowledged in the church (H. E. iii. 25-26). It is found in the Peshito and in all the ancient versions ; and is in cluded in every catalogue of the canonical books which has come down to us (Lardner, Works, vol.
vi. p. 584). With this the internal evidence fully accords. The work is anonymous, but the Apostle John is plainly indicated throughout as the writer. The author asserts himself to have been an imme diate disciple of Jesus, who testifies what he him self had seen and heard (i. 1-4 ; iv. 14) ; and this assumption is sustained throughout in a way so natural and unaffected, that it would be doing violence to all probability to suppose that it could have been attained by one who felt that he was practising in this a deliberate imposition. The cir cumstances also of the writer to which he alludes, the themes on which he chiefly dwells, and the gpirit his writing breathes, are all such as fall in with what we know of the Apostle John, and sug gest him as the writer. If this be the work of a pretender, he has, as De Wette remarks (Exeget. Hdb.), shewn incredible subtlety in concealing the name of the Apostle, yvhilst he has indirectly, and in a most simple natural way, indicated him as the writer.' 2. Integrity. —The genuineness of only two small portions of this writing have been called in question, viz., the words 6 OkcoXo-yOn, 7-61, tap Kai .7-6v rwripa exee (ii. 23) ; and the words iv rci3 O6pav43 b Kai 1-6 &my 11pefiga• Kai • ol /Ties gy dol. Kai rpeis duo, oi
TES go ri -yij (v. 7, 8). The former of these is omitted in the Text. Rec., and is printed in italics in the A. V. It is, however, supported by sufficient authority, and is inserted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Scholz, etc. The latter of these passages has given rise to a world-famous controversy, which can hardly be said to have y-et ended (Orme, lifemair of the Controversy respecting the Heavenly Witnesses, Lond. 1S3o). The pre vailing judgment, however, of all critics and interpreters is, that passage is spurious (see Gricsbach, Append. ad N. T., ii. 1-25; Tischen dorf on the passage ; Liicke, Comn2ent. on the Epp. of yohn in Biblical Cabinet, No. xv. etc.) 3. For whom written.—The writer evidently had in his eye a circle of readers with whom Ile stood in close persona] relation, Cbristians apparently who were living in the midst of idolaters (v. 21), and who were exposed to danger from false specu lation and wrong methods of presenting the truths of Christianity (ii. 22-26 ; IV. 1-3 ; V. 1-6, etc.) If the epistle was written by John at Ephesus, we ntay, from these circumstances, with much proba bility conclude that the Christians in that region were the parties for whose behoof it was first de signed. Augustine (Qucest. Eva n,srel. ii. 39) says it was addressed ad Parthos,' and this inscription appears in several MSS. of the Vulg., and has been defended by Grotius, Paulus, and others, as giving the real destination of the epistle. John, however, had no relations with the Parthians that we know of ; nor does a single ancient testimony confirm the statement of Augustine, except on the part of /ater writers of the Latin Church, who probably simply followed him. It has been suggested that, as the second epistle is by some of the ancients de scribed as robs rapOboin (Clem. Alex., Frag., ed. Potter, p. Tor I), this may have been changed into rpds IlcipOovs, and by mistake applied to the first epistle (Whiston, Comment. on the Cat& Epp. ; Hug, Introd., p. 464, Fosdick's transl.) This is possible, but not very probable. The suggestion of Wegscheider, that Ad Parthos' is an error for Ad Sparsos,' an inscription which actually is found in several MSS. (Scholz, BIN. Kril. Reise, p. 67), is ingenious, and may be correct.