JOHN, SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF. Whilst the internal evidence arising from similarity of style and tone of thought between these epistles and the First Epistle of John strongly supports the conclusion that all are from the same pen, the external evidence for their genuineness is less copious and decisive than that for the first epistle. They are not in the Peshito version, which shews that at the time it was executed they were not recognised by the Syrian churches ; and Eusebius places them among the avrtX€76p.ent (H. E. iii. 25). The 1 ith ver. of the Second Epistle, however, is quoted by Irenmus (Ifeter. i. 16. 3) as a saying of John the disciple of the Lord, meaning- thereby, 'without doubt, the apostle. Clement of Alexandria, in referring to John's first epistle, uses the words 'Iumitqms rij Acii-opt erto-roXfj, which shews that he was acquainted with at least two epistles of John ; there is extant in a Latin translation a com mentary by him on the second epistle ; and as Eusebius and Photius both attest that he wrote commentaries on all the seven catholic epistles, it would appear that he must have known and ac knowledged the third also. Origen speaks of the Apostle John having left a second and third epistle, which, however, he adds, all did not accept as genuine (In Yoan. ap. Euseb. vi. 25). Dionysius of Alexandda (Ibid. vii. 25) recognises them as productions of the same John who wrote the Gospel and the first epistle ; and so do all the later Alexan drian writers. Eusebius himself refers to them in his Dem. Evang. 5 without hesitation, as John's; and in the Synod held at Carthag,e (A.D. 256), Aurelius, I3ishop of Chullabi, confirmed his vote by citing 2 John to, ff., as the language of St. John. In the Muratori Fragment, which, however, in the part relating to the epistles of John is somewhat confused or apparently vitiated, there are at least two epistles of John recognised, for the author uses the plural in mentioning John's epistles. In all the later catalogues, with the exception of the Jambics ad Seleucum, they are inserted with the other canonical books of the N. T. There is thus a solid body of evidence in favour of the genuine ness of these epistles ; that they were not univer sally known and received is probably to be ac counted for by their character as private letters to individuals, which would naturally be longer of com ing under general recognition than such as were ad dressed to churches or the Christians of a district.
The only antagonist testimony which has reached us from antiquity is that of Jerome, who says (De vir. Oust. ix. IS) that both epistles were commonly
reputed to be the production not of John the Apostle, but of John the Presbyter ; confirmed by the statement of Eusebius (iii. 25) that it was doubt ful whether they were the production of the evan gelist or of another John. On this it may be observed-1. That the statement of Jerome is cer tainly not true in its full 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 attesting 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 Presbyter, we may, without laying stress on the fact that the existence of the latter is, to say the least, involved in doubt [ JOHN THE PRESBY TER], call attention to the consideration that, whilst the use of the expression 6 1-m/361-epos by the writer of the second 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, writing in his old age, should employ the term z-pEaporEpos to express this fact just as Paul does (Philem. 9), and as Peter does (r Ep. 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 office 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 rpeo-PunIptov in the primitive churches ever received 71-p€0-13u'repos as a title, any more than the members of the church, though collectively ot 67zot and ot neX00/, received individually &roc or d6c/Oor as a title. OD these grounds there seems no reason for attaching any importance to the opinion or tradition reported by Jerome ; though it has been adopted by Erasmus, Grotius, Credner, Jachmann (Comm. iib. cl. Kathol. Br.), and more recently by Ebrard (Olshausen's Comment. vi, 4, E. T. vol. x., and in Herzog's Eucyc. vi. 736).