JOHN
954
JOHN
1823, 4to); RickU. ErUarung (Luz. 1828, 8vo); Pierce, Hermong (Lond. 1835, 2 vols. «vo) ; Johamisen, I'redyjten (.Utoii. 1«:38, 8vo) : I'aterson, Commentary/ (Lond. 1842, 18mo); Thomas, K/iuks, etc. (Gen. 1849, 8vo) ; *Nean- der, Krlauteriiny (Berl. 1851, 8vo; tr. into Engl, by Mrs. Conant, N. Y. 1852, 12mo); Erdmann, A r//umentu>n, etc. (Bsrol. 1855, 8vo); Graham, Commentary (Lond. 1857, 12mo); Myrberg, Commentarius (Upsala, 1859, 8vo) ; Handcock, Exposition (Edinburgh, 18Gl,8vo); Candlish, Lectures (Edinburgh, 1866, 8vo) ; Haupt, Einleituwj, etc. (Colb. 1869, 8vo). See Epistles (Catholic).
JOHX, SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF. The title catholic does not properly belong to the 2d and 3d Epistles. It became attached to them, although addressed to individuals, because they were of too little importance to be classed by themselves, and, so far as doctrine went, were regarded as appendices to the 1st Epistle.
I. Authorship. — 1. The ex/eraw/ evidence for the gen- uineness of these two Epistles is less copious and deci- sive than that for the 1st Epistle. They are not in the Peshito version, which shows that at the time it was ex- ecuted they were not recognised by the SjTian church- es; and Kuscbius places them among the uvriXtyopiva (II. E. iii, 25). See Antilegomexa. The 11th verse of tlie 2d Epistle, however, is quoted by Irenoeus {Iher. i, 16, 3) as a saying of John, the disciple of the Lord, meaning thereby, without doubt, the apostle. Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ii), in referring to John's 1st Epis- tle, uses the words 'Iujti)'»'/;c tu ry /itijoi'i tTrirrroXy, whicli show.-i that he was acquainted with at least two Epistles of John; there is extant, in a Latin translation, a commentary by him on the 2d Epistle; and, as Euse- biu3 and Photius both attest that he wrote commenta- ries on all the seeen catholic Epistles, it would appear that he must have known and acknowledged the 3d also. If the Adumhrationes are Clement's, he bears di- rect testimony to the 2d Epistle (.-IcZwMi/-. p. 1011,edit. Potter). <^rigen s'leaks of the apostle John having left a 2d and 3d Epistle, which, however, he adds, all did not accept as genuine (In Joan. ap. Eusebius, vi, 25). Dionysius of Alexandria (ibid, vii, 25) recognises them as productions of the same John who wrote the Gospel and tlie Ist Epistle, and so do all the later Alexandrian writers. Eii>liiiis linnstlf elsewhere refers to them (Dem. Eeaii'i. iii, .'> i w ii liuiit hesitation as John's; and in the synod li:l 1 ar Ciriliage (A.D. 256), Aurelius, bishop of Chullal)i, contirmod his vote by citing 2 John 10 sq. as the language of the apostle John (Cyprian, 0pp. ii, 120,ed.Oberthiir). Ephrem Syrus speaks of them in the same way in the fourth century. In the fifth cen- tury they are almost universally received. A homily, wrongly attributed to St. Chrysostom, declares them un- canonical. In the Muraiori Eriif/ment, which, howe\-er, in the part relating to the Epistles of John, is somewhat confused or apparently vitiated, there are at least two Epistles of .lohn recognised, for the author uses the plu- ral in mentioning John's Epistles, In all the later cat- alogues, witii the exception of the Iambics ad Seleuciim, they are inserted with the other canonical books of the N. T. There is thus a solid boily of evidence in favor of the genuineness of these epistles. That they were not iniivcrsally known and received is probably to be accounted for by their character as jmvate letters to in- dividuals, wliieli would naturally be longer in coming under genera! recognition than such as were addressed t fi> 'hurehes or the Christians of a district.
Tlie only antagonistic testimonv which has reached us from anticpiity is that of Jerome, who says (I)e rir. Illust. IX, IK I iliat both epistles were commonly reputed to be the production, not of John the apostle, but of John the preol.yter, confirmed by the statement of Eusebius (iii, 2o) that it was doubtful whether thev were the produc- fion of the evangelist or of another" John. On this it may be observed, 1. That the statement of Jerome is certainly not true in its fuU extent, for there is evidence enough that both in his own time and before, as well as
after it, the general belief, both in the Latin and the Greek churches, was that they were written by John the apostle. 2. Both Jerome and Eusebius concur in at- testing that all ascribed these Epistles either to John the apostle or John the presbyter as their author, which may be accepted as convincing evidence that they are not forgeries of an age later than that of the apostle, 3. The question being between John the apostle and John the presbj'ter, we may, without laying stress on the fact that the existence of the latter is, to say the least, involved in doubt [see John the Presbyter], call attention to the consideration that, whilst the use of the expression 6 TrpeajivTipot; by the WTiter of the 2d Epistle may have given rise to the report which Jerome and Eusebius attest, there lies in this a strong evidence that the writer was John the apostle, and not John the presbyter; for it is quite credible that the former, writ- ing in his old age, should employ the term TrpiafivTipog to express this fact just as Paul does (Philem. 9), and as Peter does (1 Epist. v, 1), whereas it is incredible that the latter, with whom presbyter was a title of office, should, in writing a letter to an individual, designate himself thus, inasmuch as, the olfice being common to him with many others, the title, in the absence of his name, was no designation at all, to say nothing of the fact that there is no evidence that the members of the 7rpe(Tf3v- rljpiov in the primitive churches ever received Trpia- fiiinpoi; as a title, any more than the members of the Church, though collectively oi «yiot and oi «c!fX^oi', re- ceived individually uyiog or ciCt\(p6c as a title (see be- low). On these grounds there seems to be no reason for attaching much importance to the opinion or tradition reported by Jerome, though it has been adopted by Eras- mus, Grotius, Credner, Jachmann (Comm. iib. d. Kathol. Br.), and more recently by Ebrard (Olshausen, Comment. vi, 4, E. T. vol. X, and in Ilerzog, Encijc. vi, 736). A late writer (Willichen, Der geschichtliche Character des Ev. Joh. Elberf. 1869) holds that the 2d and 3d Epistles are the production of disciples of John the apostle.