The Epistles of John: What's New Since Brooke's ICC in 1912?

Abstract

Brooke's commentary remains a worthwhile help in interpreting the Johannine Epistles, although it now seems conservative on such issues as authorship. Brooke entertains the possibility that the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles were written by different authors, but maintains that the arguments for that position are not strong enough to warrant abandonment of the tradition, although the author cannot be confidently identified as the son of Zebedee. Nevertheless, he is a leading figure exercising authority within a circle of churches. First John presumes the Gospel, since, for example its prologue becomes readily intelligible on the basis of the Gospel's, while the reverse is not the case. In place of common authorship of Gospel and Epistles, one may now speak of a Johannine community and, perhaps anachronistically, of a Johannine `canon' in which these documents alone functioned authoritatively. One notices the pervasive dualism, as Brooke did not, and must ask whether it poses a challenge for contemporary interpretation in a world marked by the kind of diversity which the Johannine writings seem not to tolerate. The historical circumstances of the Johannine writings may go far to explain this state of affairs. Yet the delineation of those circumstances is a matter of controversy in contemporary scholarship, and this leads back to the perennial question of the role of history and historical reconstruction in the task of interpretation.