JOHN

john, the epistles of. the so-called epistles of john, in the bible, are not epistles in the strict sense of the term, for the first is a homily, and encyclical or pastoral (as has been recognized since the days of bretschneider and michaelis), while the other two are brief notes or letters. nor are they john's, if john means the son of zebedee. the latter conclusion depends upon the particular hypothesis adopted with regard to the general johannine problem, yet even when it is held that john the apostle (q.v.) survived to old age in ephesus, the second and third epistles may be fairly ascribed (with erasmus, grotius, credner, bretschneider, reuss, &c.) to john the presbyter[1], as several circles in the early church held ("opinio a plerisque tradita," jerome: _de vir. ill._ 18). an apostle indeed might call himself a presbyter (cf. 1 pet. v. 1). but these notes imply no apostolic claim on the part of the author, and, although their author is anonymous, the likelihood is that their composition by the great asiatic presbyter john led afterwards to their incorporation in the "instrumentum" of john the apostle's writings, when the prestige of the latter had obscured the former. all hypotheses as to their pseudonymity or composition by different hands may be dismissed. they would never have floated down the stream of tradition except on the support of some primitive authority. if this was not connected with john the apostle the only feasible alternative is to think of john the presbyter, for papias refers to the latter in precisely this fashion (euseb. _h. e._ iii. 39, 15; [greek: kai touto ho p. elege]). the period of all three lies somewhere within the last decade of the 1st century and the first decade of the 2nd. no evidence is available to determine in what precise order they were written, but it will be convenient to take the two smaller notes before the larger. the so-called second epistle of john is one of the excommunicating notes occasionally despatched by early christian leaders to a community (cf. 2 cor. v. 9). the presbyter or elder warns a christian community, figuratively addressed as "the elect lady" (cf. 13 with 1 pet. i. 1; v, 13; also the plural of 6, 8, 10 and 13), against some itinerant (cf. _didache_ xi. 1-2) teachers who were promulgating advanced docetic views (7) upon the person of christ. the note is merely designed to serve (12) until the writer arrives in person. he sends greetings to his correspondents from some community in which he is residing at present (13), and with which they had evidently some connexion. the note was familiar to irenaeus[2] who twice (i. 16, 3, iii. 16, 8) cites 10-11, once quoting it from the first epistle by mistake, but no tradition has preserved the name of the community in question, and all opinions on the matter are guess-work. the reference to "all who know the truth" (ver. 1) is, of course, to be taken relatively (cf. rev. ii. 23); it does not necessarily imply a centre like antioch or rome (chapman). whiston thought of philadelphia, and probably it must have been one of the asiatic churches. the so-called third epistle of john belongs to the [greek: epistolai systatikai] (2 cor. iii. 1) of the early church, like rom. xvi. it is a private note addressed by the presbyter to a certain gaius, a member of the same community or house-church (9) as that to which 2 john is written. a local errorist, diotrephes (9-10) had repudiated the authority of the writer and his party, threatening even to excommunicate gaius and others from the church (cf. abbott's _diatessarica_, § 2258). with this opponent the writer promises (10) to deal sharply in person before very long. meantime (14) he despatches the present note, in hearty appreciation of his correspondent's attitude and character. the allusion in 9 ([greek: egrapsa]) refers in all likelihood to the "second" epistle (so ewald, wolf, salmon, &c.). in order to avoid the suggestion that it implied a lost epistle, [greek: an] was inserted at an early stage in the textual history of the note. if [greek: ekklesias] could be read in 12, demetrius would be a presbyter; in any case, he is not to be identified with demas (chapman), nor is there any reason to suppose (with harnack)[3] that the note of 9 was written to, and suppressed by, him. what the presbyter is afraid of is not so much that his note would not be read (ewald, harnack), as that it would not be acted upon. these notes, written originally on small sheets of papyrus, reveal the anonymous presbyter travelling (so clem. alex. _quis dives salv._ xlii.) in his circuit or diocese of churches, and writing occasional pastoral letters, in which he speaks not only in his own name but in that of a coterie of like-minded christians.[4] it is otherwise with the brochure or manifesto known as the "first epistle." this was written neither at the request of its readers nor to meet any definite local emergency, but on the initiative of its author (i. 4) who was evidently concerned about the effect produced upon the church in general by certain contemporary phases of semi-gnostic teaching. the polemic is directed against a dualism which developed theoretically into docetic views of christ's person (ii. 22, iv. 2, &c.), and practically into libertinism (ii. 4, &c.).[5] it is natural to think, primarily, of the churches in asia minor as the circle addressed, but all indications of date or place are absent, except those which may be inferred from its inner connexion with the fourth gospel. the plan of the brochure is unstudied and unpremeditated, resembling a series of variations upon one or two favourite themes rather than a carefully constructed melody. fellowship ([greek: koinonia]) with god and man is its dominant note. after defining the essence of christian [greek: koinonia] (i. 1-3),[6] the writer passes on to its conditions (i. 5-ii. 17), under the antithesis of light and darkness. these conditions are twofold: (a) a sense of sin, which leads christians to a sense of forgiveness[7] through jesus christ, (b) and obedience to the supreme law of brotherly love (cf. ignat. _ad smyrn._ 6). if these conditions are unfulfilled, moral darkness is the issue, a darkness which spells ruin to the soul. this prompts the writer to explain the dangers of [greek: koinonia] (ii. 18-29), under the antithesis of truth and falsehood, the immediate peril being a novel heretical view of the person of christ. the characteristics of the fellowship are then developed (iii. 1-12), as sinlessness and brotherly love, under the antithesis of children of god (cf. ii. 29, "born of him") and children of the devil. this brotherly love bulks so largely in the writer's mind that he proceeds to enlarge upon its main elements of confidence towards god (iii. 13-24), moral discernment (iv. 1-6), and assurance of union with god (iv. 7-21), all these being bound up with a true faith in jesus as the christ (v. 1-12).[8] a brief epilogue gives what is for the most part a summary (v. 13-21) of the leading ideas of the homily.[9] disjointed as the cause of the argument may seem, a close scrutiny of the context often reveals a subtle connexion between paragraphs which at first sight appear unlinked. thus the idea of the [greek: kosmos] passing away (ii. 17) suggests the following sentences upon the nearness of the [greek: parousia] (ii. 18 seq.), whose signs are carefully noted in order to reassure believers, and whose moral demands are underlined (ii. 28, iii. 3). within this paragraph[10] even the abrupt mention of the [greek: chrysma] has its genetical place (ii. 20). the heretical [greek: antichristoi], it is implied, have no [greek: chrisma] from god; christians have (note the emphasis on [greek: hymeis]), owing to their union with the true [greek: christos]. again, the genetic relation of iii. 4 seq. to what precedes becomes evident when we consider that the norm of christian purity (iii. 3) is the keeping of the divine commandments, or conduct resembling christ's on earth (iii. 3-ii. 4-6), so that the gnostic[11] breach of this law not only puts a man out of touch with christ (iii. 6 seq.), but defeats the very end of christ's work, i.e. the abolition of sin (iii. 8). thus iii. 7-10 resumes and completes the idea of ii. 29; the gnostic is shown to be out of touch with the righteous god, partly because he will not share the brotherly love which is the expression of the righteousness, and partly because his claims to sinlessness render god's righteous forgiveness (i. 9) superfluous. similarly the mention of the spirit (iii. 24) opens naturally into a discussion of the decisive test for the false claims of the heretics or gnostic _illuminati_ to spiritual powers and gifts (iv. 1 seq.); and, as this test of the genuine spirit of god is the confession of jesus christ as really human and incarnate, the writer, on returning (in iv. 17 seq.) to his cardinal idea of brotherly love, expresses it in view of the incarnate son (iv. 9), whose mission furnishes the proof of god's love as well as the example and the energy of man's (iv. 10 seq.). the same conception of the real humanity of jesus christ as essential to faith's being and well-being is worked out in the following paragraph (v. 1-12), while the allusion to eternal life (v. 11-12) leads to the closing recapitulation (v. 13-21) of the homily's leading ideas under this special category. the curious idea, mentioned by augustine (_quaest. evang._ ii. 39), that the writing was addressed _ad parthos_, has been literally taken by several latin fathers and later writers (e.g. grotius, paulus, hammond), but this title probably was a corruption of _ad sparsos_ (wetstein, wegschneider) or of [greek: pros parthenous] (whiston: the christians addressed as virgin, i.e. free from heresy), if not of [greek: parthenos], as applied in early tradition to john the apostle. the circle for which the homily was meant was probably, in the first instance, that of the fourth gospel, but it is impossible to determine whether the epistle preceded or followed the larger treatise. the division of opinion on this point (cf. j. moffat, _historical new testament_, 1901, p. 534) is serious, but the evidence for either position is purely subjective. there are sufficient peculiarities of style and conception[12] to justify provisionally some hesitation on the matter of the authorship. the epistle may have been written by a different author, or, from a more popular standpoint, by the author of the gospel, possibly (as some critics hold) by the author of john xxi. but _res lubrica, opinio incerta_. it is unsafe to lay much stress upon the apparent reminiscence of iv. 2-3 (or of 2 john 7) in polycarp, _ad phil._ 7 reading [greek: eleluthota] instead of [greek: eleluthenai]), though, if a literary filiation is assumed, the probability is that polycarp is quoting from the epistle, not vice versa (as volkmar contends, in his _ursprung d. unseren evglien_ 47 seq.). but papias is said by eusebius (_h. e._ iii. 39) to have used [greek: e 'ioannou protera] (= [greek: e 'ioannou prote], v. 8?), i.e. the anonymous tract, which, by the time of eusebius, had come to be known as 1 john, and we have no reason to suspect or reject this statement, particularly as justin martyr, another asiatic writer, furnishes clear echoes of the epistle (_dial._ 123). the tract must have been in circulation throughout asia minor at any rate before the end of the first quarter of the 2nd century.[13] the _terminus a quo_ is approximately the period of the fourth gospel's composition, but there is no valid evidence to indicate the priority of either, even upon the hypothesis that both came from the same pen. the aim of each is too special to warrant the conclusion that the epistle was intended to accompany or to introduce the gospel. literature.--the most adequate modern editions of the three epistles are by westcott (3rd ed., 1892), h. j. holtzmann (_hand-commentar zum n. t._, 3rd ed., 1908), b. weiss (in meyer, 6th ed., 1900), baljon (1904) and j. e. belser (freiburg im breisgau, 1906). briefer english notes are furnished by w. alexander (_speaker's commentary_, 1881), w. h. bennett (_century bible_, 1901) and h. p. forbes (_internat. handbooks to new testament_, vol. iv. 1907), while plummer has a concise edition of the greek text (in _the cambridge greek testament_, 1886). huther's edition (in meyer, 1880) has been translated into english (edinburgh, 1882), like rothe's (1878) invaluable commentary on the first epistle (cf. _expository times_, vols. iii. v.). otto baumgarten's popular edition in _die schriften des n. t._ (1907) is, like that of forbes, written from practically the same standpoint as holtzmann's. the earlier commentaries of alford (2nd ed., 1862), c. a. wolf (2nd ed., 1885), ewald (_die joh. briefe ubersetzt und erklaert_, gottingen, 1861-1862), and lucke (3rd ed., revised by bertheau, 1856) still repay the reader, and among previous editions those of w. whiston (_comm. on st john's three catholic epistles_, 1719) and de wette (1837, &c.) contain material of real exegetical interest. special editions of the first epistle have been published by john cotton (london, 1655), neander (1851; eng. trans. new york, 1853), e. haupt (1869; eng. trans. 1879), lias (1887) and c. watson (1891, expository) among others. special studies by f. h. kern (_de epistolae joh. consilio_, tubingen, 1830), erdmann (_primae joh. epistolae argumentum, nexus et consilium_, berlin, 1855), c. e. luthardt (_de primae joannis epistolae compositione_, 1860), j. stockmeyer (_die structur des ersten joh. briefes_, basel, 1873) and, most elaborately, by h. j. holtzmann (_jahrb. fur protest. theologie_, 1881, pp. 690 seq.; 1882, pp. 128 seq., 316 seq., 460 seq.). to the monographs already noted in the course of this article may be added the essays by wiesinger (_studien und kritiken_, 1899, pp. 575 seq.) and wohlenberg ("glossen zum ersten johannisbrief," _neue kirchliche zeitschrift_, 1902, pp. 233 seq., 632 seq.). on 2 john there are special commentaries and studies by ritmeier (_de electa domina_, 1706), c. a. kriegele (_de_ [greek: kuria] _johannis_, 1758), carpzov (_theolog. exegetica_, pp. 105-208), h. g. b. muller (_comment. in secundam epistolam joannis_, 1783), c. klug (_de authentia_, &c., 1823), j. rendel harris (_expositor_, 6th series, 1901, pp. 194 seq.), w. m. ramsay (ibid., pp. 354 seq.) and gibbins (ibid., 1902, pp. 228-236), while, in addition to hermann's _comment, in joan. ep. iii._ (1778), p. l. gachon (_authenticite de la deuxieme et troisieme epitres de jean_, 1851), poggel (_der zweite und dritte briefe d. apostel johannis_, 1896), and chapman (_journal of theological studies_, 1904, "the historical setting of the second and the third epistles of st john"), have discussed both of the minor epistles together. general studies of all three are furnished by h. j. holtzmann in schenkel's _bibel-lexicon_, iii. 342-352, sabatier (_encyclop. des sciences religieuses_, vii. 177 seq.), s. cox (_the private letters of st paul and st john_, 1867), farrar (_early days of christianity_, chs. xxxi., xxxiv. seq.), gloag (_introduction to catholic epistles_, 1887, pp. 256-350), s. d. f. salmond in hasting's _dict. bible_ (vol. ii), g. h. gilbert (_the first interpreters of jesus_, 1901, pp. 301-332), and v. bartlet (_the apostolic age_, 1900, pp. 418 seq.; from a more advanced critical position by cone (_the gospel and its earliest interpretations_, 1893, pp. 320-327), p. w. schmiedel (_ency. bib._, 2556-2562, also in a pamphlet, _evangelium, briefe, und offenbarung des johannes_, 1906; eng. trans. 1908), j. reville (_le quatrieme evangile_, 1901, pp. 49 seq.) and pfleiderer (_das urchristentum_, 2nd ed., 1902, pp. 390 seq.). the problem of the epistles is discussed incidentally by many writers on the fourth gospel, as well as by writers on new testament introduction like zahn, jacquier, barth and belser, on the conservative side, and hilgenfeld, julicher and von soden on the liberal. on the older syriac version of 2 and 3 john, see gwynn's article in _hermathena_ (1890), pp. 281 seq. on the general reception of the three epistles in the early church, zahn's paragraphs (in his _geschichte d. n. t. kanons_, i. 209 seq., 374 seq., 905 seq.; ii. 48 seq., 88 seq.) are the most adequate. (j. mt.) footnotes: [1] so selwyn, _christian prophets_ (pp. 133-145), harnack, heinrici (_das urchristenthum_, 1902, pp. 129 seq.), and von soden (_history of early christian literature_, pp. 445-446), after renan (_l'eglise chretienne_, pp. 78 seq.). von dobschutz (_christian life in the primitive church_, pp. 218 seq.) and r. knopf (_das nachapost. zeitalter_, 1905, pp. 32 seq., &c.) are among the most recent critics who ascribe all three epistles to the presbyter. [2] on the early allusions to these brief notes, cf. gregory: _the canon and text of the new testament_ (1907), pp. 131, 190 seq., westcott's _canon of the new testament_, pp. 218 seq., 355, 357, 366, &c., and leipoldt's _geschichte d. neut. kanons_ (1907), i. pp. 66 seq., 78 seq., 99 seq., 151 seq., 192 seq., 232 seq. [3] in his ingenious study (_texte und untersuchungen_, xv. 3), whose main contention is adopted by von dobschutz and knopf. on this view (for criticism see belser in the _tubing. quartalschrift_, 1897, pp. 150 seq., kruger in _zeitschrift fur die wiss. theologie_, 1898, pp. 307-311, and hilgenfeld: ibid. 316-320), diotrephes was voicing a successful protest of the local monarchical bishops against the older itinerant authorities (cf. schmiedel, _ency. bib._, 3146-3147). as wilamowitz-moellendorf (_hermes_, 1898, pp. 529 seq.) points out, there is a close connexion between ver. 11 and ver. 10. the same writer argues that, as the substitution of [greek: agapetos] for [greek: philtatos] (ver. 1) "ist schonrednerei und nicht vom besten geschmacke," the writer adds [greek: on ego agapo en aletheia]. [4] this is the force of the [greek: emeis] in 3 john 9-10 (cf. 1 john iv. 6, 14) "the truth" (3 john 3-5) seems to mean a life answering to the apostolic standard thus enforced and exemplified. [5] several of these traits were reproduced in the teaching of cerinthus, others may have been directly jewish or jewish christian. the opposition to the messianic role of jesus had varied adherents. the denial of the virgin-birth, which also formed part of the system of cerinthus, was met by anticipation in the stories of matthew and luke, which pushed back the reception of the spirit from the baptism to the birth, but the johannine school evidently preferred to answer this heresy by developing the theory of the logos, with its implicate of pre-existence. [6] on the vexed question whether the language of this paragraph is purely spiritual or includes a realistic reference, cf. g. e. findlay (_expositor_, 1893, pp. 97 seq.), and dr e. a. abbott's recent study in _diatessarica_, §§ 1615-1620. the writer is controverting the docetic heresy, and at the same time keeping up the line of communications with the apostolic base. [7] the universal range (ii. 2) ascribed to the redeeming work of christ is directed against gnostic dualism and the ebionitic narrowing of salvation to israel; only [greek: emeis] here denotes christians in general, not jewish christians. on the answer to the gnostic pride of perfectionism (i. 8), cf. epict. iv. 12, 19. the emphasis on "you all" (ii. 20) hints at the gnostic aristocratic system of degrees among believers, which naturally tended to break up brotherly love (cf. 1 cor. viii. 1 seq.). the gnostics also held that a spiritual seed (cf. iii. 9) was implanted in man, as the germ of his higher development into the divine life; for the valentinian idea cf. iren. _adv. haer._ i. 64, and tertull. _de anima_, 11 [haeretici] "nescio quod spiritale semen infulciunt animae". cf. the general discussions by haring in _theologische abhandlungen c. von weizsacker gewidmet_ (1892), pp. 188 seq., and zahn in _wanderungen durch schrift u. geschichte_ (1892), pp. 3-74. [8] cf. denney, _the death of christ_ (1902), pp. 269-281. the polemical reference to cerinthus is specially clear at this point. the death of jesus was not that of a phantom, nor was his ministry from the baptism to the crucifixion that of a heavenly aeon which suffered nothing: such is the writer's contention. "in every case the historical is asserted, but care is taken that it shall not be materialized: a primacy is given to the spiritual.... except through the historical, there is no christianity at all, but neither is there any christianity till the historical has been spiritually comprehended." the well-known interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses (v. 7) has now been proved by karl kunstle (_das comma johanneum_, 1905) to have originally come from the pen of the 4th century spaniard, priscillian, who himself denied all distinctions of person in the godhead. [9] on the "sin to death" (v. 16) cf. jubilees xxi. 22, xxvi. 34 with karl's _johann. studien_ (1898), i. 97 seq. and m. goguel's _la notion johannique de l'esprit_ (1902), pp. 147-153, for the general theology of the epistle. the conceptions of light and life are best handled by grill in his _untersuchungen uber die entstehung des vierten evgliums_ (1902), pp. 301 seq., 312 seq. [10] in preuschen's _zeitschrift fur die neutest. wissenschaft_ (1907), pp. 1-8, von dobschutz tries to show that the present text of ii. 28-iii. 12 indicates a revision or rearrangement of an earlier text. cludius (_uransichten des christentums_, altona, 1808) had already conjectured that a gnostic editor must have worked over a jewish christian document. [11] dr alois wurm's attempt (_die irrlehrer im ersten johannesbriefe_, 1903) to read the references to errorists solely in the light of jewish christianity ignores or underrates several of the data. he is supported on the whole by clemen, in preuschen's _zeitschrift_ (1905), pp. 271-281. there is certainly an anti-jewish touch, e.g. in the claim of iii. 1 (note the emphatic [greek: hemin]), when one recollects the saying of aqiba (aboth iii. 12) and philo's remark, [greek: kai gar ei mepo ikanoi theou paides nomizesthai gegonamen, alla toi tes aeidous eikonos autou, logou tou hierot atou theou gar eikon logos ho presbytatos] (_de conf. ling._ 28). but the antithesis of john and cerinthus, unlike that of paul and cerinthus (epiph. _haer._ xxviii.), is too well based in the tradition of the early church to be dismissed as a later dogmatic reflection, and the internal evidence of this manifesto corroborates it clearly. [12] "the style is not flowing and articulated; the sentences come like minute-guns, as they would drop from a natural hebrew. the writer moves, indeed, amidst that order of religious ideas which meets us in the fourth gospel, and which was that of the greek world wherein he found himself. he moves amongst these new ideas, however, not with the practised felicity of the evangelist, but with something of helplessness, although the depth and serene beauty of his spirit give to all he says an infinite impressiveness and charm" (m. arnold; _god and the bible_, ch. vi.). [13] by the end of the 2nd century it appears to have been fairly well-known, to judge from origen, irenaeus (iii. 16, 8), and clement of alexandria (_stran._ ii. 15, 66). in the muratorian canon, which mentions two epistles of john, it seems to be reckoned (cf. kuhn, _das murat. fragment_, pp. 58 f.) as an appendix or sequel to the fourth gospel. the apparent traces of its use in ignatius (cf. _smyrn._ vi. 2 = 1 john iii. 17; _smyrn._ vii = 1 john iii. 14, and _eph._ xviii. = 1 john v. 6) seem too insecure, of themselves, to warrant any hypothesis of filiation.