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.