Although the internal evidence, therefore, is held by most to point to the author of the First Ep. a.s also the writer of the Second, and to the Apostle John as that writer, it is not read in that way by all. How, then, does the case stand with respect to the external evidence ? The historical testi raony, it must be admitted, is neither very abund- ant nor very clear. That it should be so need not seem strange when regard is had to the extreme brevity of the Ep. and its private character. What we have is as much as could be expected, and it is on the whole sulUcient for the i)urpose. The Ep. seems not to have been accejilcd by the school of Antioch. Theodore of Mopsuestia appears to be reported by Leontius ot Byzantium as rejecting James and the other Catli. Epp. The words, however, viz. ob quam causam, ut arbitrttr, ipsain epistolam Jacobi et alias deirucps catholicas abrogat et antiquat, are not very precise. Theo- doret makes no reference to 2 Jn. In a homily on Mt 21^, which is doubtfully ascribed to Chry.sostora, it is said of it, as well as of 3 Jn, ol iraHpe^ ajro/ta- ►ovij'oi'Tai. Jerome (rfe Vir. Illus. c 9) contrasts the two smaller Epp. with the First, and speaks of them as ascribed to the Presbyter John. Origen, who quotes 1 Jn, never quotes either 2 Jn or 3 Jn. He knows of the circulation, however, of the two minor Eji])., but remarks that ' not all affirm them to be genuine' (Euseb. HE vi. 25). Neither the one nor the other seems to have been included in the Peshitta Version. And Eusebius cl.isses both ajiiong the Antilegoniena. He speaks of them as the 'so-called second and third of John,' and indicates that it was questioned whether they belonged to the evangelist, ' or possibly to another of the same name as ho' [HE iii. 25').
On the other hand, Irena>u8 quotes 2 Jn "• " as the words of ' John, the disciple of the Lord ' (adv. Uier. i. 16'), and gives the statement al)oiit the ' deceivers ' and ' Antichrist ' (2 Jn ') also as by the Lord's 'disciple,' though he refers to it as in 1 Jn instead of 2 Jn (adv. Jlctr. iii. 16'). Clement of Alex, speaks of John ' in his larger Epistle' (tv rj lieiiovi ^iriffToXfl) as seeming to teach a certain thing ; from which it is clear that he knew a shorter Ep. or shorter Epp. (Strom, ii. 15). In a fragmentary Latin translation of the Hyjmty- posis he speaks of the same Ep. in these very definite terms : Secund'i Joannis epistola, quce ad virgines scripta siinplicissima est ; scripta vera est ad quanJam Unbyloniam Electam nomitu, siqnificat aiitcm electiunem ecilesiw sanctit. He is also reported by Eusebius (HE vi. 14') to have commented in liis Jlynutypuses on the disjiuted books, viz. 'the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles.' Oionysius of .\lexandria (in a pa.s,sage given in Eusebius, HE vii. 25) speaks of John as not naming himself, ^f rj Stirrip<f tftpoiUyj) 'lufdFvou xal Tplrj), KaWoi fipaxti<m oOaatt ^ncrroXair, but as writing 'anonymously a.<< the presbyter.' Dionysius therefore regarded the anonymity of 2 Jn lus quite in John's manner. And tiic school of Alexandria seems to have generally accepted the Secomi F.p. as John the apostle's. Alexander, e.g., in quoting vv.'"- " sjiys of them in ra()i)y7»»
•40
JOliX, EPISTLKS Ul
JOHN, EPISTLES OF
\ey 6 fiaKdpLOi 'luivvrji (Socrates, IIE i. 6). The Muratoriiin Fragment refers to at least two Epp. of .John in the dillicult sentence, Ejtistoln snne Jiicic et superscripti Johannis ditas in cat/uilica hubentur et saptetitia ab amicis Salomonis in Itonurcm ipsitts scripta (liouth, Reliq. Sac. i. p. 290). D at the text requires emendation, and it is dillerently interpreted, some (Liicke, Huther, etc.) understanding it to speak for the Johannine authorship, others (reading ut for et sapientia)* taking it to mean tliat, as llie Book of Wisdom was not written by Solomon, so these Epp. were not written by John the apostle.
It should be added that, though the ^reat North African Fatliers, Tertullian and Cyprian, do not quote 2 Jn, it is clear tliat it was recognized in their Churcli. For Cyprian himself, in reportin;? the statements made oy the bishops at the synod which was held at Cartilage in a.d. 256, speaks of Aurelius, bishop of Cliullabi, as appealing to 2 Jn "• in these words: Joannes Apostolus in epistola eua posuit diccns, si nuis ad vos venit, etc. In like manner, although tlie Ep. was not in the great Sj'riac Version, it appears to have been used by Epliraem in the 4th cent., and that in a way in- dicating that it was understood to be by John the ajiostle {dc Amnre Paup. iii. 52; ad Imitat. Prov. i. 70). And whUe Eusebius placeil it, as we have seen, among the ' disputed ' books, he ex- presses himself uift'erently in his Devionstratio Evangelica (iii. 5), when he gives, as it appears, his own opinion. There lie says of John that in his Epistles he ' either makes no mention of himself or calls himself presbyter, but nowhere apostle or evangelist ' — iv fi^v rats ^toroXats aiVoO oi'5^ tiv^fnjf Tys o/Kc/as Tpoaiyyopias TTOtetTai, ^ Trpea^u- repof iavrbv dvofidi^ei, ovSa/j.ou S^ dndaroKoif ovSi eta-y^e- XiffTTiv). It was included, too, in the Old Latin VS.