Iasion

Greetings all,

It is traditionally argued (e.g. by Brown) that the epistles of John were written after the Gospel (as to the issue of authorship, only the die-hards still claim it was by the author of G.John).

But,
I have to agree with Earl that the case for the epistles being written FIRST is clear.
(2 and 3 John are of relatively little import, the focus will be on 1 John)

Consider :

Primitiveness
In terms of language, doctrine and theology, the epistle is clearly more primitive than G.John, as even conservatives admit.
The epistle prologue omits to mention that :
* Jesus is the Logos or Word
* the Wod was made flesh
which are central themes of G.John, showing the Gospel was written later, after this new doctrine had developed.

No Gospel Details
The epistle gives -
* NO teachings attributed to Jesus
* NO reference to the cross
* NO reference to the resurrection
showing they were unknown in this early stage.

Last Times
The epistle is written in an apocalyptic "last hour", yet G.John shows no sense of this - on the contrary it emphasises a Paraclete who will be with them "forever", suggesting earlier apocalyptism had been abandoned for the long haul when time had passed.

Theo-centricity visibly changes to Christ-centricity
The epistle is focussed on God, while the Gospel is Christ-centric :
* the epistle has "God is light", then G.John has Jesus say' "I am the light of the world"
* the epistle urges reads to "love one another" because God said so, whereas G.John has Jesus say this
* the epistle urges readers to ask God, G.John has Jesus urge them to ask "in my name"


Brown's argument that the schism in the epistle would have left a mark in the Gospel or even destroyed the community is not a strong one. Sects often regroup after arguments, and the sect could easily rejuvenate itself in 20 years, especially given a new impetus - the idea that the Word had become Flesh.

Internal conflict is entirely compatible with a young sect still developing its doctrines, and conflict with the outside community is entirely compatible with the wider promulgation of that new doctrine - this sequence supports the epistle as early and the Gospel later.

The detail which is so clearly MISSING from the epistle of John goes to support the view that the Gospel stories of Jesus are late productions, e.g. the famous Jesus sayings and events only turn up at a LATE stage in the record, showing they are not based on history, but developed over time in the minds of humans.

Iasion