JOHN
437
JOHN
ary of Christian Biography, III, 39S), Hausleiter
(fheol. Litteraturblatt, 1S9Q), Stilting, Guerike, and
otliers.
Eusebius is here a special pleader. He opposes the millennium. Wrongly fancying that the Apocalypse favours the Cliiliasts, he assigns it to this John the Elder and tries to rob the work of its Apostolic author- ity; the clumsiness of expression of Papias gives occa- sion to Eusebius in proof of the existence of two disciples of the Lord named John. To be sure, Papias mentions two Johns, — one among the .\postles, the other in a clause with .\ristion. Both are called elders; and elders here (irpea^iTcpoi) are admitted by Euse- bius to be Apostles, since he admits that Papias got information from those who had met the Apostles (substituting riDi' dToirTAXui/ for tuiv TrpeafivT^puv; see Hist, eccl.. Ill, xxxix, 7). Hence it is that Papia.s, in joining John with Aristion, speaks of John the Elder and not of Aristion the Elder; Aristion was not an elder or Apostle. The reason for joining the Aristion with John at all is that they were both witnesses of the present to Papias, whereas all the .\postles were wit- nesses of the past generation. Note that the second aorist (tfireK) is used in regard to the group of wit- nesses of the past generation, since there is question of what they had said, whereas the present {Xdyovaiv) is used in regard to the witnesses of the present genera- tion, i. e. Aristion and John the Elder, since the ques- tion is what they are now saying. The Apostle John was alive in the time of Papias. He and he alone can be the elder of whom Papias speaks. How is it, then, that Papias mentions John twice? Hausleiter con- jectures that the phrase v Tt'ladw-ns is agloss (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1S96). It is likelier that the repe- tition of the name of John is due to the clumsiness of expression of Papias. He does not mention all the Apostles, but only seven; though he undoubtedly means them all. His mention of John is quite natural, in view of the relation in which he stood to that Apostle. After mention of the group that were gone, he names the two from whom he now receives indirect information of the Lord's teaching; these two are the disciple .\ristion and John the Apostle.
V. Time and Place. — Irenteus tells us the letter was written by St. John during his stay in .\sia (Adv. Hser., Ill, i). Nothing certain can be determined in this matter. The arguments are probable in favour of Ephesus and also for the last few years of the first century.
VI. Destination and Purpose. — The form is that of an encyclical letter. Its destination is clearly the churches which St. John evangelized; he speaks to his "little children", "beloved", "brethren", and is af- fectionate and fatherly throughout the entire letter. The purpose is identical with the purpose of the Fourth Gospel, — that his children may believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that beheving may have life eternal in His name (I John, v, 1.3; John, XX, 31).
VII. Argtiment. — .\ logical analysis of the letter would be a mistake. The thought is built up not analytically but synthetically. .4fter a brief intro- duction, St. John works up the thought that God is Light (i, 5) ; so, too, should we walk in the light (i, 7), keep from sin (i, 6-ii, 6), observe the new command- ment of love (ii, 7), since he that loves is in the Ught and he that hates is in darkness (ii, 8-iii). Then fol- lows the second leading Johannine thought that God is Love (iii-v, 12) . Love means that we are sons of God (iii, 1-4) ; DiWne sonship means that we are not in sin (iii, 4-13), that we love one another (iii, 13-44), that we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God (iv, 5, 6) ; for it was love that impelled God to give us His only Son (iv, 7-v, 12). The conclusion (v, 13-end) tells the reader that the purpose of the letter is to inculcate faith in Jesus Christ, since this faith is life eternal. In this conclusion as well as in other parts of the letter,
the same sahent and leading Johannine thoughts recur
to defy analysis. John had two or three things to
say; he said these two or three things over and over
again in ever varj'ing form.
Second Epistle. — These thirteen verses are di- rected against the same Docetic errors and germs of Gnosticism which St. John strives to uproot in liis Gospel and First Epistle. Harnack and some others, who admit the canonicity of the Secomi and Third Epistles, assign them to the authorship of John the Elder; we have shown that this John the Elder never existed. The authenticity of this second letter is at- tested by very early Fathers. St. Polycarp ("Pliil.", VII, i; Funk. " Patres Apostolici ", I, 304) cites rather II John, 7, than I John, 4. St. Irenieus expressly quotes II John, 10, as the words of "John the Disciple of the Lord". The Muratorian Canon speaks of two Epistles of John. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the larger Epistle of John; and, as a consequence, knows at least two. Origen bears witness to the two shorter letters, which " both together do not contain a hundred hnes" and are not admitted by all to be authentic. The canonicity of these two letters was long disputed. Eusebius puts them among the Anti- legomena. They are not found in the Peshito. The Canon of the Western Church includes them after the fourth century; although only Trent's decree set the question of their canonicity beyond the dispute of such men as Cajetan. The Canon of the Eastern Church, outside that of .\ntioch, includes them after the fourth century. The style and manner of the second letter are very like to those of the first. The destination of the letter has been much disputed. The opening words are variously interpreted, — "The ancient to the lady Elect, and her children" (6 nptapimpos 'e/cX^xTj; Kvplq. Kal Toi! riKvois avTTjs). We have seen that the elder means the Apostle. Who is the lady elect? Is she the elect Kyria? The lady Eklekte? A lady named Ek- lekte Kyria? A lady elect, whose name is omitted? A Church? All these interpretations are defended. We consider, with St. Jerome, that the letter is addressed to a particular church, which St. John urges on to faith in Jesus Christ, to the avoidance of heretics, to love. This interpretation best fits in with the ending to the letter, — " 'The children of thy sister Elect salute thee."
Third Epistle, fourteen verses addressed to Gains, a private indiN-idual. This Gaius seems to have been not an ecclesiastic but a lajinan of means. He is praised by John for his hospitahty to visiting brethren (verses 2-9). The Apostle then goes on: "I had writ- ten perhaps to the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, doth not receive us" (verse 9). This Diotrephes may have been the bishop of the Church. He is found fault with roundly, and Demetrius is set up for an example. This short letter, " twin sister ", as St. Jerome called it, to the second of John's letters, is entirely a personal affair. No doctrine is discussed. The lesson of hos- pitality, especially of care for the preachers of the Gospel, is insisted on. The earliest certain recognition of this letter as Apostolic is by St. Denis of Alexandria (third century). Eusebius refers to the letters called " the second and third of John, whether these chance to belong to the evangehst or to someone else with a name like to his" ("Hist, eccl.". Ill, xxv; Schwartz, II, 1, p. 250) . The canonicity of the letter has already been treated. The greeting and ending of this letter are internal evidence of composition by the author of the previous Johannine letter. The simple and affec- tionate style, the firmness of the rebuke of Diotrephes are strictly Johannine. Nothing certain is known as to time and place of writing; but it is generally sup- posed that the two small letters were written by John towards the end of his long life and in Ephesus.
Fathers: St. Clement of Alexandria, .i^dumbrationes in Epi.^lolam I Joannis in P. G., IX, 733; St. AnonsTiNE, In
