Nor have we more to guide us in determining the (late of the Ep. and the place where it was written. Its general character and its likeness to 2 Jn point to the close of the apostle's ministry, if it is his composition, aud to one or other of the Asiatic Churches over which his .superintendence was exer- cised. As in the case of 2 Jn, Ephesus would most jirobably be the place, especially if the visit re- ferred to in v." could be understood to mean a tour of inspection. And Eusebius (HE iii. 23), speaking of John's administration of the Churches in Asia after the death of Dumitian, quotes from Clement a statement bearing that the apostle ' coming from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, went also, wlien called, to the neighbouring re;,'ions of the Gentiles ; in some to appoint bishops, m some to institute entire new Churches, in others to ap- point to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Holy Ghost.'
3. Ocfffciion.— The Ep. appears to have been occa- sioned by the visits of certain Christian brethren who moved about from place to place, pvobalilv as travelling preachers or missionary teachers, ami by the dillerent receptions that hail been given them. Such men were dependent on the hospitalitv of their brethren, and deserved to enjoy it. 'I hey had visited the Church to which Gaius belonged, and had also come to John. Tliey had re»'eived a brotherly welcome from (Iaius, but had been nnlely treated Vy another menil>er of the Church, a man of ambitious spirit who di.sowned the 0|>08tle's authority. The letter is written in these circum- stances to encourage tiaius in his generous attitu<b' to such strangers, and to intimate the B|xM<tle's pnr|M>se to visit the Church in person ami set matters right. \Vu gather from it, too, that it had
r-42
JOH^^ EPISTLES OF
JOIAKIB
been preceded by another short letter, whioli seems to have had no ellect. That letter hivs been idoiili- lied by some with 1 Jn (Storr, etc.), by others with 2 Jn(Be8ser, Ewald, etc.). But the subjects dealt with in these Kpp. are so unlike those questions of nospitality to a particular class which make the main contents of 3 Jn, that little can be said for such identilications. The letter appears to be one of the lost Epp. of Apostles.
4. AJ/inities and Authorship. — It has marked athnities both with 1 Jn and 2 Jn. It has some \vords, (pXvapetif, ipi\oTp(irT€U€tyf inroKa/ji^ivea' OS = welcome, which are not found in these others. But they are due to the case whicli the Ep. has to express. It baa other words and phrases, such as irp&Tri^TeiP, tvovdouffdai^ iryiaiveiy, ivib^x^'^^^-^f Tntrrbv TOitiv, which are either peculiar or more after Paul's style than John's. But they are far out- weighed by the general resemblance in tlie case of the two smaller letters ; the similarity of the terms in which the closing personal e.xplanations are made (2Jn"-", 3 Jn "• ") ; and the occur- rence of such parallelisms of phrase between 3 J n and the Johannine writings as these — tv iXriddq. (v.>», cf. Ijn3'», 2 Jn '•■'), U 9«oC el^a. (v.", cf. 1 Jn 2"), 6ebv &pfv (v.", cf. 1 Jn 3'), luipi-vpCw ru-t (v.", cf. Jn 21-''), oKas Sri i) itaprrvpla iiiiQv dXj)9i)s i(jTiv{v.",ci. Jn 12=*).
In respect of historical attestation this Ep. stands much in the same position as 2 Jn. The testimony to its recognition in the Church and to its being from the hand of the Apostle John, is on the whole, however, somewhat less in amount and in deliniteness. Like 2 Jn, it was omitted by the Peshitta, and seems not to have been accepted by the school of Antioch. Like 2 Jn, it was placed by Eusebius among the Antilegomena, and was referred to by Origen as one not admitted by all to be genuine. From the time of Eusebius it appears to have been generally received. With 2 Jn it found a place in the Apostolic Canons, the sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Canon of the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), etc. It is referred to by Jerome as among the Catholic Epp., but as said to have been ^vritten together with 2 Jn by John the presbyter (de Vir. Illustr. c. 9), to whom it was also attributed in the decree of Damasus (Charteris, Canonicity, p. 24), and by Cosmos Indicopleustes. It is not quoted by TertuUiau, Cvprian, or Irenaens. It is not mentioned by Clement of Alexandria when he deals with the Second Epistle. Eusebius, however, speaks of Clement as having explained the Catholic Epp. in his Hypotyposes (HE vi. 14), from which it may perhaps be inferred that he used this Ep. as well as the others. Tliere is no such evidence that this Ep. was recognized by the Church of North Africa as we have in the case of 2 Jn, notwith- standing the lack of any reference to it in the writings of the great North African Fathers. On the other hand, it has a place in the Muratorian Canon (according to the most probable interpreta- tion) ; it was in the Old Latin Version ; it was recognized by Dionysius of Alexandria ; and it was quoted by Ephraem the Syrian. The most ancient testimony to its existence and recognition asso- ciates it not with the presbyter, but with the Apostle John. This association is in harmony with the Johannine touches which attract our attention in it, while the arguments that go to show this Ep. to be from the same hand as the other two Epp. ascribed to John, go also to prove it to be by the Apostle Jolin. The doubts which over- hung it for a time may have been due to its private character and the length of time which a letter of this kind would naturally take before it could become widely known in the Churches.