THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES. Unlike I. John, the Second and Third Epistles have the formal address and signature of ordinary let ters. The second is addressed to the 'elect lady and her children.' It is a question whether this designation indicates a person or a church. if the statement in Ill. 9, have written something to the Church," refers to II., it is decisive in favor of the former interpretation. On this hy pothesis the relation between the two Epistles would be that of a general message to a church (II.) supplemented by a more private note to an influential member. Gains (III.). The contents of the two accord well with this view. The letter to the Church praises it for its faithfulness, exhorts to the exercise of mutual love in obedi ence to the command, warns against those who deny Jesus, the incarnate Messiah, and urges that they have no fellowship with such. It closes with a notice of the writer's intention to visit them soon. and a salutation from the sister church with which the writer was at the time. In the Epistle to Gains, the elder commends his hospitality to missionary preachers, takes notice of the self-assertion of a certain Diotrephes whom he will bring to terms when he conies, recom mends the imitation of the good, praises one Demetrius. and closes with a notice of his ex pected visit and the usual salutations.
The two Epistles thus seem to be companion letters. Should the address "elect lady" in II. 1 be taken to mean an individual, no connection between the two can he posited, except on the Lasis of a general similarity of style. and the fact that they have been associated in Christian tra dition from ancient times, though their early his tory is obscure. Tremens (c.180) quotes II. 11
as a statement by John the disciple of the Lord. The Muratorian canon (e.170) speaks of two Epistles of John after mentioning I. John—but whether the reference is to II. and III. or to 1. and II. is somewhat uncertain. Apparently, Clement of Alexandria (c.200) was acquainted with 11I. as well as with 1. and II. Origen (c.225) says that in his day doubts were expressed re garding their authorship. These doubts persisted though their cause is not exactly known. Je rome assigned the Epistles positively to the Presbyter John. not to the Apostle. No quotation from III. John has been discovered in the most ancient Christian writers. and external evidence for it before Origen is lacking. The tradition that the two Epistles were written by the Apostle is supported by the similarity in style, vocabu lary, and thought to I. John. The title Presbyter or Elder in II. and III. is not inconsistent with authorship by the Apostle John, since Peter (1. Peter v. 1) speaks of himself as a 'fellow elder.' If the 'Elder' or 'Presbyter' John. mentioned Uy Papias. was some other one than the Apostle, it is, of course, possible that the letters were written by him. though the latest seholarship tends to identify him as the Apostle. In the nature of the case the date, place of writing. and destination cannot he fixed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Fee the list of works mentioned Bibliography. Fee the list of works mentioned under the article JOHN. GOSPEL OF consult the commentaries of Westeott, Plummer, and Alex ander, and Karl. Johannische Studien (Freiburg, 1S9S).