The most ancient historical te.stimony, there- fore, although it is of limited quantity, is in favour of the autliorship by John tiie apostle. It is testimony that comes from sources so far apart as Gaul, Alexandria, and North Africa. It is confirmed by the resemblance of 2 Jn to 1 Jn ; the considerations which go to establish the Johannine origin of the latter being so far avail- able also for the Johannine origin of the former. Nor is any difficulty created by the designation 'the elder.' That title rather supports the apos- tolic origin. It is still a moot point whether we have historical ground for believing in the exist- ence of a Presbyter John in Ejihesus as distinct from the Apostle John. Nor is there anything in the case as regards 2 Jn to make the hypothesis of this shadowy second John either necessary or helpful. It is to the apostle that the earliest evidence points. It is ditEcult, indeed, to under- stand how this small private letter could have been accepted as it was, and in due time made part of the Canon, unless the general opinion of the Church had ascribed it to John. And the use of the title, ' the elder,' in the inscription tells for the ordinary view. No one wishing to pass off a writing as by the apostle would have chosen so indefinite a title. No ordinary person, writing with honest intent in his o\vn name, would have called himself ' the elder,' as if there were none but he ; while, if the writer so styling himself had been a person of extraordinary importance, it would be strange that we should know nothing of him. There is nothing to show that the title is used to distinguish ' presbyter ' from ' apostle. ' Apostles could also be called presbyters, as we see from the NT itself (1 P 5'), and as is the case in the very sentence from Papias on which the hypo- thesis of a distinct Presbyter John is founded. It
* Et 18 conflrmcd, however, by the new US of the Fragment publiflbed In Miscellanea Cassinese, 1S97.
may be a question in what particular sense the title is applied to the writer, whether with reference to his advanced age, as St. Paul speaks of him- self as the 'aged,' i irpta^in-fii (Pliilem*), or, as is rather the case, in respect of his peculiar iiosition. But on no lips could this simple title be so lit or so intelligible as on those of the evangelist, the last of the apostles, who for long years had been over- seer of the Christian community in Asia Minor. On his lips the name would explain itself, and it would mean more than 'apostle.' It would be the note of the peculiar relation, both official and fatherly, which the apostle had held to the Churches and their members in those parts, and would be at once understood wherever his superin- tendence had been known.
3. Time, Place, and Destination. — It is impos- sible to determine with certainty the time wlien the Ep. was written. It seems to belong to the clo.sing years of the apostle. But whether it is earlier or later than the larger Ep. we have no means of deciding. There are those (e.g. Ebrard) who argue that it must be later, because there are things in it which appear to refer back to the First Epistle. But the similarities and supposed allusions are not of the kind that can be explained only by the priority of the larger Epistle. It is also probable that 2 Jn was written in the parts in which 1 Jn was written, especially as the false teachers in view are of the same order in both Epp. If the visit which is intimated in v." can be taken as an intended tour of inspection, we may go further, and say that, in all probability, the letter was written in Ephesus, the centre of the Asiatic circle.
The destination of the Ep. is also a matter of great difficulty. The most definite statement we have on the subject in early Christian literature is in the Latin fragment (if it be authentic) of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, already referred to. But it is a mixed statement, and one that does not help us much. It is to the effect that the Ep. was written ad virgines, and to ' a certain Babylonian, Electa by name ' {ad quandam Babyloniam Electam), but tnat this name Elerta signified the election of the holy Church. The question turns upon the address icXe/cT-j Kvpt(f., and tlie difficulty is in determining whether that refers to an individual or to a community. These different renderings of it are proposed : {I) to an elect lady ; (2) to the elect lady ; (3) to the elect Kyria ; (4) to the lady Electa ; (5) to Electa Kyria. Grammati- cally, the first is the simplest and most natural, but it is too indefinite. It is not easy to see how a letter of such a tenor could have been addressed so vaguely. The second interpretation may also be taken as grammatically defensible (cf. iKKcKToTi vap€TriS-/iti.oit, 1 P P), and has been followed by the English Versions and by Luther's German der auserwdhlten Frau. The third, w-hich appears to have been favoured by Athanasius, ami has been accepted later by Bengel, Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, etc., is supported so far by the fact that Kupf^i occurs as a proper name (Gniter, Inscript. p. 1127 n. 11), and by the ana- logy of the address of 3 Jn. But against it is the consideration that the more natural form in that case would have been Kuply rp iKXfiai, as we have Tattp T(f iyairrrrf (3 Jn '), 'PoC0oi' rbv {KKeKTbv (Ro 16"), and in the Ep. itself, dde\(p^s aov ttjs ^kXcict^s (v.i'i. The fourth rendering, though favoured by Clement, has the difficulty that, while Electus occurs as a personal name, Electa seems not to be found among the names of women. But, apart from this, there is the fact that the term ^itXe/cTi) occurs again in v.", and it is most unlikely that two sisters should have had the same name Electa. The least probable interpretation is the lastj