Introduction

In recent times, a vast amount of learning has been devoted to the critical study of the

four Gospels, with some sort of special attention given to the fourth (the Gospel according to

John); and by extension, the Johannine Epistles. This special attention is probably due to the

uniqueness of the vocabulary style, and theology of the Johannine literature. As such, it has been

observed that there are some striking resemblance between the prologue of John and 1 John, with

notable differences, which have led some modern exegetes to question the long held traditional

unity of authorship. It is this uniqueness and the question of the exact relationship between these

two documents that this paper proposes to address. And this will be done by examining the

following: authorship, date and place of composition, similarities, differences, and then, an

evaluative conclusion.

The Authorship

The question of the authorship is important, because the value of the testimony given

depends in part on the identity of the author, especially if the human author was an eye witness

of the events he reports – as is the case with the Gospel according to John, which says that “he

who saw it has borne witness his testimony is true” (John 19:35); and “this is the disciple who is

bearing witness to these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Some New

Testament texts contain the writer’s name, but in the case of the text in question, no name is

explicitly mentioned,1 as such, the authorship is debatable among scholars; some suggest that

‘Prologue was originally a poem from some other religious traditions perhaps gnostic but there

are explicit testimonies which clearly state that the author was a Jew of Palestine, an eye-witness,

1
Cf. The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary (Dublin: Colour Books Ltd, 1993), p. 13.

1
and an apostle called John, the son of Zebedee.2 Examples of such testimonies are: that of Papias

of Hierapolis (a disciple of John3) who – in the famous Muratori Canon written in Rome around

the year 180AD – said that “the Gospel of John was communicated and proclaimed to the

Churches by himself, while he was still alive.

Also, in reference to the authenticity of the Gospel, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons says

that “John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself published the

Gospel, while he was living in Ephesus.”4 Irenaeus personally knew Polycarp, who according to

Tertullian was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John himself.5 These instances among other great

mass of information that has come down to us from antiquity, and the internal evidence, all argue

in favour of St. John the Apostle as author of the fourth Gospel (the Gospel according to John).

So it is not surprising that the church holds to the traditional attribution of this Gospel to John.6

Similarly, no mention of the author’s is made in the epistle but the manner in which he

addresses his audience obviously shows presents him as a revered figure. The authorship of the

epistle has been traditionally attributed to the author of the Gospel according to John. Among

those whose testimonies support this are: Polycarp (in his Epistle to the Philippians), Eusebius,

Justin Martyr (in his dialogue with Tryphon), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,

Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria; they used the Gospel and the Epistle interchangeably – they

all drew from 1 John as they do from the Gospel to challenge the apocalypse. 7 This common

origin of the two documents has also been affirmed in contemporary times by the members of the

faculty of Theology of Navarre University, who have pointed out that the teaching and style of

the epistle are so similar to those of the fourth Gospel that one cannot doubt that they are written

2
Cf. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, with a New Introduction by Adam Fox (London: James Clarke & Co.,
Ltd., 1958), p. v.
3
So what he has to say is particularly valuable.
4
Against the Heresies, III, 1, 1.; quoted in The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary, p. 14.
5
This testimony caries special weight, given Irenaeus’ connection with Polycarp.
6
The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary, p. 15.
7
Cf. A. Robert and Andre Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament (Belgium: Desclee Company, 1965), p. 677.

2
by the same hand. In fact, they suggest that all the indicators show that both texts were written in

the same time, but as to which came first, nothing has been established on that.8

Date and Place of Composition

It has been established above that the Epistle was known by Polycarp and Justin who

certainly existed before AD 150.9 Recent studies date the final compositions of both the Gospel

and the Epistle AD 98 in the time of Trajan (to which period Irenaeus dates the last days of John,

son of Zebedee) and AD 100, that is, after the Jewish Council at Jamnia (AD 90).10 The

traditional place of publication of the Gospel as well as that of the epistle is Ephesus.11 Most

contemporary scholars believe that it was at Ephesus between his exile on Patmos and his death

at the start of Trajan’s reign (AD 98–AD 117), that John, in his Solitude for the Church, wrote

the 1st epistle (of course with 2nd and the 3rd) and the Gospel.12 They also believe that the epistle

was written after the Gospel.13

The Similarities

It is widely accepted by a good number scripture scholars that the first epistle of John was

written after the traditions of the Gospel according to John. The most obvious reason for this

view is the common community setting presupposed in both documents. Though the epistle in

question contains no any direct quotation of the Gospel, most of its passages echo the Johannine

tradition as established in the Gospel.14 There are similarities in the writing style, vocabulary and

theology (Cf. John 1:1-5; 1 John 1: 1-4), especially in the mixture of persuasive and

8
Cf. The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary, p. 15.
9
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (India: Theological Publications in India, 2004), p. 389.
10
Cf. Teresa Okure, “John” in International Bible Commentary: An Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century (ed.), p.
1528.
11
Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing The New Testament: Its Literature and Theology
(Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), p. 204.
12
The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary, p. 15.
13
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 389–390.
14
Cf. Perkins, “The Johannine Epistles” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (eds.) Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and
Roland E. Murphy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990), p. 987.

3
argumentative tone. This fact was pointed out by Dionysius of Alexandria as early as the end of

the 3rd century.15 The phraseology of the epistle is on the whole much like that of the prologue16

The prologue of the fourth Gospel and the first epistle of John are undoubtedly similar in

the sense that they both speak about the “The Word”; though, while the prologue of the Gospel

focuses on the preexistence of the word, the epistle focuses on the fact that the author and his

companions personally saw and experienced this word that they now proclaim to the intended

audience.17 In other words, the object of the eye witnessing is “the word, who is life” (1 John

1:2) through whom all that came to be had life (John 1:4), but with more emphasis on the “life”

than on the “word” – a life that was made known. But then, to show that the author is virtually

addressing the same problem in the prologue of the Gospel, as he did in the epistle using

different words, he did not forget to make his readers understand that the preexisted “Word”

whom he emphasised from the beginning of the prologue, was actually made flesh and lived

among his people; as such, he made a statement that is very much similar to the one he made in 1

John 1:2 concerning the eye witnessing of “the word, he says: “He lived among us, and we saw

his glory”

The differences

Despite the above convincing similarities between the two documents, it appears that

there are notable differences which have led some modern exegetes to question the unity of the

authorship.18 The most prominent of these exegetes are J. Reville, J. Wellhausen,C. H. Dodd etc.

They argue that some of the key words of the Gospel are missing from the Epistle, examples of

such words are: to save and salvation, to lose and loss, scripture, law, glory, glorification, to

15
Cf. Eusebius, HE VII, 25, 21), quoted in A. Robert and Andre Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament (Belgium: Desclee
Company, 1965), A. Robert and Andre Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament (Belgium: Desclee Company, 1965), p. 678.
16
As well as the entire Gospel.
17
Cf. Teresa Okure, “John” in International Bible Commentary: An Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century (ed.),
William R. Farmer (India: The Theological Publications in India, 2004), p. 1527.
18
But such differences are not convincing enough to support their claim.

4
seek, to send, Holy spirit, to be born from above to come from below, to judge and judgment.

Inversely, certain characteristic words and statements of the epistle are not used by the

Evangelist in the Gospel. Examples of such unction, seed of God, communion (χoiνωνα),

parousia, propitiation, false prophet, victory, antichrist, to have the father, to have the son, to

deny the father, to deny the son, etc. furthermore, the epistle’s style is more monotonous, less

powerful, much less Semitic than that of the Gospel’s prologue.19 Again, A. Robert– A. Feuillet

add, that the gospel has more Old Testament allusions than the epistle.20

On the theological plane, “word” in the epistle is less personalized than in the prologue of

the Gospel. Although “the word of life” in the epistle means more than simply the news or

message about “the divine life”, it is less than the incarnate word that possesses and gives life in

the in the prologue of the fourth Gospel. In other words, the prologue of 1 John does not

emphasise the incarnation of the personified word, as does the prologue of the Gospel (John);

rather, it testifies to the ‘word’ (message) of life which was seen, heard and felt.21 The epistle

assigns to God features that the Gospel assigns to Jesus; for instance, in 1 John 1:5 God is light

(Cf. John 8:12; 9:5); in 1 John 4:21 God gives the commandment to love one another. Again,

while the Paraclete is attributed to the Spirit in the Gospel, in the epistle it is attributed to Christ

(1 John 1, 2). Final eschatology is stronger in the epistle than in the Gospel.22

Evaluation and conclusion

The foregoing has been an effort to identify the relationship between the prologue of the

Gospel according to John and the first epistle of John. Indeed, there are well spelt-out similarities

and some differences. These similarities and differences, as presented above, make scripture

19
But experience has made us to understand that even if two documents where written by the same author, addressing the same problem,
surrounded by the same conditions, such documents cannot be exactly the same: unless one is a direct copy of the other. Such insignificant
differences, as those listed here are presupposed by the fact that these are two different documents, though arguably written by the same author.
20
Cf. A. Robert and Andre Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 679.
21
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 389.
22 22
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 389.

5
scholars wonder about the exact relationship of the Gospel to the epistle. But then, in general,

most scholars (as already shown in this paper) believe that these documents were written by the

same author to meet the faith needs of the audience.

While the prologue (and subsequent passages) of the Gospel according to John tackles

problems in the community by putting the disciples directly in touch with Jesus – the preexisted

“Word” who is God made man – and reminding them of the consequences of unbelief at that

level, the first epistle (as well as the second and the third) addresses problems of faith and morals

within the community. In other words, the epistle seeks apply the messages of the Gospel more

directly to the situation of the audience addressed. Again, though the works are similar, the style

and vocabulary of the epistle has not undergone the same polishing that the material in the

Gospel enjoyed through a long period of oral transmission.23

In addition to the aforesaid, prominent Church fathers and internal criticism confirm the

attribution of the first epistle of John to the same authorship with the Johannine Gospel, to which

the prologue in question belongs. As such, in consonance with A. Robert and A. Feuillet; and

some other scripture scholars whose views have been presented above, this paper holds that if

not the entire Johannine Gospel, at least, both its prologue and the first epistle of John were

written by a Jew of Palestine, an eye-witness (an apostle) called John, the son of Zebedee.24

Again, since argument for their close similarities appears more convincing than the insignificant

differences, such that whoever admits the apostolic origin of the one can hardly deny the

apostolic origin of the other.

23
Cf. Teresa Okure, “John” in International Bible Commentary: An Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, p. 1528.
24
Cf. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, with a New Introduction by Adam Fox, p. v.

6
Bibliography

The Jerusalem Bible. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966.)

Achtemeier J. Paul, Green B. Joel and Thompson Meye Marianne. Introducing The New

Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2001.

Brown, E., Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. India: Theological Publications in

India, 2004.

Okure, Teresa. “John” in International Bible Commentary: An Ecumenical Commentary for the

Twenty-First Century (ed.), William R. Farmer. India: The Theological Publications in

India, 2004.

Robert, A. and Feuillet, Andre. Introduction to the New Testament. Belgium: Desclee Company,

1965.

The Navarre Bible, St. John: Text and Commentary. Dublin: Colour Books Ltd, 1993.

Vawter, Bruce. “The Johannine Epistles” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (eds.)

Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall, Inc., 1990.

Westcott, Foss, Brooke. The Gospel According to St. John, with a New Introduction by Adam

Fox. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1958.