The Making of the New Testament

by Benjamin Wisner Bacon

How salutary if Paul himself could have lived to control the divergent elements among his churches, to check the subjective individualism of the Gnostics on the one hand, and the reactionary tendencies of the orthodox on the other. His parting words to his beloved Philippians are sadly appreciative of how needful it was for their sake that he should "abide in the flesh" (Phil. i. 24). Yet there was one thing still more expedient—that he should abide with them in the spirit. And that is just what we find evidenced in the great 'spiritual' Gospel and its accompanying Epistles from Ephesus.

Debate still rages over a mere name, attached by tradition to these writings that themselves bear no name. The titles prefixed by early transcribers attribute them to "John." But they are never employed before 175-180 in a way to even remotely suggest that they were then regarded as written by John, or even as apostolic in any sense. And when we trace the tradition back to its earliest form, in the Epilogue attached to the Gospel (John xxi.) it seems to be no more than a dubious attempt to identify that mysterious figure, the "disciple whom Jesus loved." If, however, we postpone this question raised by the Epilogue, the writings can at least be assigned to a definite locality (Ephesus) and a fairly definite date (c. 105-110), with the general consent both of ancient tradition and of modern criticism. This is for us the important thing, since it enables us to understand their purpose and bearing; whereas even those who contend that they were written by the Apostle John can make little use of the alleged fact. For (1) the little that is known of John from other sources is completely opposed to the characteristics of these writings. They are characterized by a broad universalism, and reproduce the mysticism of Paul. To attribute them to the Pillar of Gal. ii. 9, or the Galilean fisherman of Mark i. 19 and ix. 38, it becomes necessary to suppose that John after migrating to Ephesus underwent a transformation so complete as to make him in reality another man. (2) The meagre possibility that the basis of Revelation might represent the Apostle John becomes more remote than ever. Now it is a curious fact that critics who hold to the much-disputed tradition that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel and Epistles, although these writings make no such claim, and have no affinity with the known character, show as a rule remarkable alacrity to dismiss the claims of Revelation, which positively declares John to have been its author, and has far stronger evidence, both internal and external, in support of the claim, than have either the Gospel or the Epistles. We may prefer the style and doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles, but this playing fast and loose with the evidence can only discredit criticism of this type. (3) The value of the demonstration of Johannine authorship would lie in the fact that we should then have a first-hand witness to the actual life and teaching of Jesus, immeasurably superior to the remote and indirect tradition of the present Synoptic sources. But as a matter of real fact those who maintain the Johannine authorship do not venture to assert any such historical superiority. On the contrary they consider the Synoptic tradition not only historically superior to "John," as respects both sayings and course of events, but they are apt to attribute to this Galilean apostle an extreme of Philonic abstraction, so that he even prefers deliberate "fiction" to fact. Thus the reasoning employed to defend the tradition destroys the only factor which could give it value.

On the other hand it is possible to disregard these secondary disputes, which aim only to increase or diminish the authority of the writings by asserting or denying that they were written by the Apostle John, and to approach the interpretation of them on the basis only of what is really known, accredited both by ancient tradition and by modern criticism. On this basis we can safely affirm that they originated in Ephesus early in the second century, 'spiritualizing' what we have designated 'apostolic' teaching, while at the same time strongly reacting against Doketic and Antinomian heresy. By such a procedure we shall be employing modern critical methods to the highest practical advantage in the interest of genuinely historical interpretation.

Even those who find minute distinctions in style and point of view between the Epistles and Gospel of John will admit that all four documents emanate from the same period, situation, and circumstances, and represent the same school of thought. We shall make no serious mistake, then, if we treat them as written by the same individual, and even as intended to accompany one another. We shall have the example of so high an authority as Lightfoot, who considered 1st John an Epilogue composed to accompany the Gospel in place of the present Epilogue (John xxi.). Moreover the distinctions in the ancient treatment of 1st John and the two smaller Epistles are all subsequent to the attribution of the Gospel and First Epistle to the Apostle, and a consequence of it. For 1st John and the Gospel had always been inseparable, and having no name attached could easily be treated as the Apostle's. But 2nd and 3rd John distinctly declare themselves written by an "Elder"; and in the days when men still appreciated the distinction between an Elder and an Apostle it was felt to be so serious a difficulty that 2nd and 3rd John were put in the class of "disputed" writings. In reality 1st John and the Gospel are just as certainly the work of an "Elder" as 2nd John and 3rd John, though no declaration to that effect is made. Moreover 1st John and the Gospel may safely be treated as from the same author; for such minute differences as exist in style and point of view can be fully accounted for by the processes of revision the Gospel has demonstrably undergone. This is more reasonable than to imagine two authors so extraordinarily similar to one another and extraordinarily different from everybody else.

"The Elder" does not give his name, and it is hopeless for us to try to guess it, though it was of course well known to his "beloved" friend "Gaius," to whom the third letter (the outside envelope) was addressed. We have simply three epistles, one (3rd John) personal, to the aforesaid Gaius, who is to serve as the writer's intermediary with "the church," because Diotrephes, its bishop, violently opposes him. Another (2nd John) is addressed to a particular church ("the elect lady and her children"), in all probability the church of Diotrephes and Gaius. It may be the letter referred to in 3rd John 9. The third (1st John) is entirely general, not even so much modified from the type of the homily toward that of the epistle as Hebrews or James; for it has neither superscription nor epistolary close. And yet it is, and speaks of itself (i. 4; ii. 1, 7, 9, 12-14, etc.) as a literary product. It is not impossible that this group of 'epistles,' one individual, one to a particular church, one general, was composed after the plan of the similar group addressed by Paul to churches of this same region, Philemon, Colossians, and the more general epistle known to us as Ephesians. They may have been intended to accompany and introduce the Gospel written by the same author, just as the prophecies of Rev. iv.-xxi. are introduced by the 'epistles' of Rev. i.-iii., or as Luke-Acts is sent under enclosure to Theophilus for publication under his patronage. At all events, be the connection with the Gospel closer or more remote, to learn anything really reliable about the writer and his purpose and environment we must begin with his own references to them, first in the letter to Gaius, then in that to "the elect lady and her children," then in his 'word of exhortation' to young and old, of 1st John. Thus we shall gain a historical approach finally to that treatise on the manifestation of God in Christ which has won him the title since antiquity of the 'theologian.'

Third John shows the author to be a man of eminence in the (larger?) church whence he writes, old enough to speak of Gaius with commendation as one of his "children," though Gaius himself is certainly no mere youth, and eminent enough to call Diotrephes to answer for his misconduct. He has sent out evangelistic workers, some of whom have recently returned and borne witness "before the church" to their hospitable reception by Gaius. For this he thanks Gaius, and urges him to continue the good work. The main object of the letter, however, is to commend Demetrius, who is doubtless the bearer of this letter as well as another written "to the church" (2nd John?). This letter, the author fears, will never reach its destination if Diotrephes has his way. There is very little to indicate whence the opposition of Diotrephes arises, but what little there is (ver. 11) points to those who make claims to "seeing" God and being "of" Him, without adequate foundation in a life of purity and beneficence. The letter "to the church" is more explicit.

Second John is perfectly definite in its purpose. After congratulating the "elect lady" on those of her children (members) whom the writer has found leading consistent Christian lives, he entreats the church to remember the "new commandment" of Jesus, which yet is not new but the foundation of all, the commandment of ministering love. The reason for this urgency is that "many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh" (ver. 7). And here we come upon a very novel and distinctive application of an ancient datum of 'prophecy,' clearly differentiating this writer from the author of Revelation. The Doketic heresy is explicitly identified with "the deceiver and the antichrist." That must have been a new and surprising turn for men accustomed to connect the antichrist idea with the persecuting power of Rome. Satan, as we know, had been repeatedly conceived as operating through the coercion of outward force brought against the Messiah and his people through the Beast and the false Prophet (Rev. xiii.). There was good authority, too, for a mystical "man of sin" setting himself forth as God in the temple (2nd Thess. ii. 4), or for connecting Daniel's "abomination that maketh desolate" with the sufferings of the Jewish war and the later attempts of false prophets to deceive the elect with lying wonders (2nd Thess. ii. 9; Mark xiii. 22; Rev. xiii. 14). But this was a new application of the prophecy. To declare that the heretical teachers were themselves antichrists was to call the attention of the church back from outward opposition to inward disloyalty as the greater peril. And the identification is not enunciated in this general warning alone, but fully developed and defended in two elaborate paragraphs of the 'word of exhortation' (1st John ii. 18-29; iv. 1-6). When, therefore, we find Polycarp in his letter (110-171) quietly adopting the idea, almost as an understood thing, declaring "For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist" (vii. 1), it becomes almost a certainty that he had read 1st John.[27]

Our elder's warning "to the church" (perhaps more particularly its governing body) is to beware of these deceivers; not to receive them, nor even to greet them, because they "go onward" (are 'progressives') and do not "abide in the teaching of Christ." To abide in this "teaching" is the church's only safeguard.

If next we turn to the more general epistle known as 1st John the lack of any superscription is more than counterbalanced by the writer's full and explicit declarations regarding motive and occasion. The epistle was certainly intended to be read before entire congregations. Of part of it at least the author himself says that it was "written concerning them that would lead you astray" (ii. 26). Comparison of the full denunciation with what we know of Doketism from its own writings, such as the so-called Acts of John (c. 175), shows very plainly what type of heresy is meant. Moreover we have the Epistles of Ignatius, written to these same churches but a few years later, and the detailed descriptions of the Doketist Cerinthus and his doctrines given by Irenæus, together with the explicit statement that the writings of John were directed against this same Cerinthus.