Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: JEE-JUN
del.icio.us it!
|
See also: 39, 15; Kai TOUTO O 7r. EXe e). The See also:period of all three lies somewhere within the last See also:decade of the 1st See also:century and the first decade of the 2nd. No See also:evidence is available to determine in what precise See also:order they were written, but it will be convenient to take the two smaller notes before the larger. The so-called Second See also:Epistle of John is one of the excommunicating notes occasionally despatched by early Christian_ leaders to a community (cf. 2 See also:Cor. V. 9). The presbyter or See also:elder warns a See also:Christian community, figuratively addressed as " the elect See also:lady " (cf. 13 with I Pet. i. 1; v, 13; also the plural of 6, 8, Io and 13), against some itinerant (cf. See also:Didache xi. I—2 j teachers who were promulgating advanced Docetic views (7) upon the See also:person of See also:Christ. The See also: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 See also:present (13), and with which they had evidently some connexion. The note was See also:familiar to Irenaeus2 who twice (i. 16, 3, iii. 16, 8) cites ro-r1, once quoting it from the first epistle by See also:mistake, but no tradition, has preserved the name of the community in question, and all opinions on the See also:matter are guess-See also:work. The reference to " all who know the truth " (ver. I) is, of course, to be taken relatively (cf. Rev. ii. 23) ; it does not necessarily imply a centre like See also:Antioch or See also:Rome (See also:Chapman). See also:Whiston thought of See also:Philadelphia, and probably it must have been one of the Asiatic churches. The so-called Third Epistle of John belongs to the Eai.vroAau crvQTaTLKat (2 Cor. iii. I) of the early church, like Rom. xvi. It is a private note addressed by the presbyter to a certain See also:Gaius, a member of the same community or See also:house-church (g) as that to which 2 John is written. A See also:local errorist, Diotrephes (9—Io) had repudiated the authority of the writer and his party, threatening even to excommunicate Gaius and others from the church (cf. See also:Abbott's Diatessarica, § 2258). With this opponent the writer promises (to) to See also:deal sharply in person before very See also:long. Meantime (14) he despatches the present note, in hearty appreciation of his correspondent's attitude and See also:character. The allusion in 9 (gypaika) refers in all likelihood to the " second " epistle (so See also:Ewald, See also:Wolf, See also:Salmon, &c.). In order to avoid the See also:suggestion that it implied a lost epistle, av was inserted at an early See also:stage in the textual See also:history of the note. If EKKXi rtas could be read in 12, See also:Demetrius would be a presbyter; in any See also:case, he is not to be identified with Demas (Chapman), nor is So See also:Selwyn, Christian Prophets (pp. 133—145), See also:Harnack, Heinrici (Das Urchristenthum, 1902, pp. 129 seq.), and von See also:Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, pp. 445-446), after See also:Renan (L'Eglise chritienne, pp. 78 seq.). Von Dobschut2 (Christian See also:Life in the Primitive Church, pp. 218 se q.) and R. Knopf (Das nachapost. Zeitalter, 1905, pp. 32 seq., &c.) are among the most See also:recent critics who ascribe all three epistles to the presbyter. 2 On the early allusions to these brief notes, cf. See also:Gregory: The See also:Canon and See also:Text of the New Testament (1907), pp. 131, 190 seq., See also:Westcott's Canon of the New Testament, pp. 218 seq., 355, 357, 366, &c., and Leipoldt's Geschichte d. neut. Kanons (19o7), i. pp. 66 seq., 78 seq., 99 seq., 151 seq., 192 seq., 232 seq. there any See also:reason to suppose (with Harnack)1 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 See also:papyrus, reveal the anonymous presbyter travelling (so Clem. Alex. Quis dives See also:sale. xlii.) in his See also:circuit or See also:diocese of churches, and See also:writing occasional pastoral letters, in which he speaks not only in his own name but in that of a coterie of like-minded Christians.' It is otherwise with the brochure or manifesto known as the " first epistle." This was written neither at the See also: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 See also:general by certain contemporary phases of semi-gnostic teaching. The polemic is directed against a See also:dualism which See also:developed theoretically into docetic views of Christ's person (ii. 22, iv. 2, &c.), and practically into libertinism (ii. 4, &c.)? It is natural to think, primarily, of the churches in See also:Asia See also:Minor as the circle addressed, but all indications of date or See also:place are absent, except those which may be inferred from its inner connexion with the See also:Fourth See also:Gospel. The See also:plan of the brochure is unstudied and unpremeditated, resembling a See also:series of See also:variations upon one or two favourite themes rather than a carefully constructed See also:melody. Fellowship (Kocvwvia) with See also:God and See also:man is its dominant note. After defining the essence of Christian Kocvwvia (i. I–3),4 the writer passes on to its conditions (i. 5–ii. 17), under the See also:antithesis of See also:light and darkness. These conditions are twofold: (a) a sense of See also:sin, which leads Christians to a sense of forgiveness 5 through Jesus Christ, (b) and obedience to the supreme See also: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 KoLvwvta (ii. 18–29), under the antithesis of truth and falsehood, the immediate peril being a novel heretical view of the person of 1 In his ingenious study (Texte and Untersuchungen, xv. 3), whose See also:main contention is adopted by von Dobschutz and Knopf. On this view (for See also:criticism see Belser in the Tubing: Quartalschrift, 1897, pp. 150 seq., See also:Kruger in Zeitschrift See also:fur See also:die wiss. Theologie, 1898, pp. 307-311, and See also: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 (See also:Hermes, 1898, pp. 529 seq.) points out, there is a See also:close connexion between ver. 11 and ver. io. The same writer argues that, as the substitution of ayair$See also:ros for 4'iXraros (ver. I) " ist Schonrednerei and nicht vom besten Geschmacke," the writer adds by Eyw ayazrw iv hXn6E1¢. 2 This is the force of the ilisis in 3 John 9–10 (cf. i John iv. 6, 14) " The truth " (3 John 3–5) seems to mean a life answering to the apostolic See also:standard thus enforced and exemplified. 3 Several of these traits were reproduced in the teaching of See also: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-See also:birth, which also formed part of the See also:system of Cerinthus, was met by anticipation in the stories of See also:Matthew and See also:Luke, which pushed back the reception of the spirit from the See also:baptism to the birth, but the Johannine school evidently preferred to See also:answer this See also:heresy by developing the theory of the See also:Logos, with its implicate of pre-existence. 4 On the vexed question whether the See also:language of this See also:paragraph is purely spiritual or includes a realistic reference, cf. G. E. See also: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 See also:time keeping up the See also:line of communications with the apostolic See also:base. 5 The universal range (ii. 2) ascribed to the redeeming work of Christ is directed against Gnostic dualism and the Ebionitic narrowing of salvation to See also:Israel; only $µsZs here denotes Christians in general, not Jewish Christians. On the answer to the Gnostic See also:pride of perfectionism (i. 8), cf. Epict. iv. 12, 19. The emphasis on " you all " (ii. 20) hints at the Gnostic aristocratic system of degrees among believers, which naturally tended to break up brotherly love (cf. I Cor. viii. i seq.). The Gnostics also held that a spiritual See also:seed cf. iii. 9) was implanted in man, as the germ of his higher development into the divine life; for the Valentinian See also:idea cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. i. 64, and Tertull. De anima, 11 [haeretici] " nescio quod spiritale semen infulciunt animae "). Cf. the general discussions by Haring in Theologische Abhandlungen C. von Weizskcker gewidmet (1892), pp. 188 seq., and Zahn in Wanderungen durch Schrift u. Geschichte (1892), pp. 3-74. Christ. The characteristics of the fellowship are then developed (iii. 1—12), as sinlessness and brotherly love, under the antithesis of See also:children of God (cf. ii. 29, " See also:born of Him ") and children of the See also:devil. This brotherly love bulks so largely in the writer's mind that he proceeds to enlarge upon its main elements of confidence towards God (iii. 13–24), moral discernment (iv. 1–6), and assurance of See also:union with God (iv. 7-21), all these being See also:bound up with a true faith in Jesus as the Christ (v. I—12).6 A brief See also:epilogue gives what is for the most part a See also:summary (v. 13—21) of the leading ideas of the homily.' Disjointed as the cause of the See also:argument may seem, a close See also:scrutiny of the context often reveals a subtle connexion between paragraphs which at first sight appear unlinked. Thus the idea of the Koaµos passing away (ii. 17) suggests the following sentences upon the nearness of the irapobata (ii. i8 seq.), whose signs are carefully noted in order to reassure believers, and whose moral demands are underlined (ii. 28, iii. 3). Within this paragraph$ even the abrupt mention of the Xpiaµa has its genetical place (ii. 20). The heretical avTiXptcTOI, it is implied, have no xpicrjia from God; Christians have (note the emphasis on vµec"s), owing to their union with the true Xpiaros. 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 See also:earth (iii. 3–ii. 4–6), so that the Gnostic9 See also:breach of this law not only puts a man out of See also: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–so 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 See also: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 See also:illuminati to spiritual See also:powers and gifts (iv. r seq.); and, as this test of the genuine Spirit of God is the See also:confession of Jesus Christ as really human and incarnate, the writer, on returning (in iv. 17 seq.) to his See also:cardinal idea of brotherly love, expresses it in view of the incarnate Son (iv. 9), 6 Cf. Denney, The See also:Death of Christ(r9o2), 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 See also:ministry from the baptism to the crucifixion that of a heavenly See also:aeon which suffered nothing: such is the writer's contention. " In every case the See also: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 See also:Christianity at all, but neither is there any Christianity till the historical has been spiritually comprehended." The well-known See also:interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses (v. 7) has now been proved by Karl Kiinstle (Das See also:Comma Johanneum, 1905) to have originally come from the See also:pen of the 4th century Spaniard, See also:Priscillian, who himself denied all distinctions of person in the Godhead. 7 On the " sin to death "(v. i6) cf. See also:Jubilees xxi. 22, See also: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 See also:theology of the epistle. The conceptions of light and life are best handled by Grill in his Untersuchungen fiber die Entstehung See also:des vierten Eegliums (1902), pp. 301 seq., 312 seq. 8 In Preuschen s Zeitschrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft (1907), pp. I–8, von Dobschutz tries to show that the present text of ii. 28-111. i2' indicates a revision or rearrangement of an earlier text. Cludius (Uransichten des Christentums, See also:Altona, 1808) had already conjectured that a Gnostic editor must have worked over a Jewish Christian document. 9 Dr Alois Wurm's See also:attempt (Die Irrlehrer See also: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 sup-ported on the whole by Clemen, in Preuschen's Zeitschrift (1905), pp. 271–281. There is certainly an See also:anti-Jewish touch, e.g. in the claim of iii. I (note the emphatic lipZv), when one recollects the saying of Aqiba (Aboth iii. 12) and See also:Philo's remark, sal yap Ei µcurs Isavol BEOV ,raI&c vouileaBa.L yey6vazsee, liXaa, Tot rift 6st6o6sels6vos See also:alma, X6y0V TOU lepWT 6TOV• BEOV yap ei,u,v Xbyos 6 ,rpeo aTol (De cont. See also:ling. 28). But the antithesis of John and Cerinthus, unlike that of See also:Paul and Cerinthus (Epiph. Haer. See also:xxviii.), is too well based in the tradition of the early Church to be dismissed as a later dogmatic reflection, and the See also:internal evidence of this manifesto corroborates it clearly. whose See also:mission furnishes the See also:proof of God's love as well as the example and the See also: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 See also:special See also:category. The curious idea, mentioned by See also: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, See also:Paulus, See also:Hammond) , but this See also:title probably was a corruption of ad sparsos (See also:Wetstein, Wegschneider) or of rpds aapO vovs (Whiston: the Christians addressed as virgin, i.e. See also:free from heresy), if not of aapO vos, 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 See also:treatise. The See also:division of See also:opinion on this point (cf. J. See also:Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901, p. 534) is serious, but the evidence for either position is purely subjective. There are sufficient peculiarities of See also:style and conception'. 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 See also:lay much stress upon the apparent See also:reminiscence of iv. 2-3 (or of 2 John 7) in See also:Polycarp, ad Phil. 7 See also:reading )erlXv06ra instead of iAri1XvOipa1), though, if a See also:literary filiation is assumed, the See also:probability is that Polycarp is quoting from the epistle, not See also:vice versa (as Volkmar contends, in his Ursprung d. unseren Evglien 47 seq.). But Papias is said by See also:Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) to have used it 'Iwavvou irporipa (= it 'Iwlzvvou rrpwrrf, v. 8 ?), i.e. the anonymous See also: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 See also:Justin See also:Martyr, another Asiatic writer, furnishes clear echoes of the epistle (See also:Dial. 123). The tract must have been in circulation throughout Asia Minor at any See also:rate before the end of the first See also:quarter of the 2nd century.2 The See also: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 See also:warrant the conclusion that the epistle was intended to accompany or to introduce the gospel. i " The style is not flowing and articulated ; the sentences come like See also:minute-guns, as they would drop from a natural See also:Hebrew. The writer moves, indeed, amidst that order of religious ideas which meets us in the Fourth Gospel, and which was that of the See also:Greek See also: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 See also:depth and serene beauty of his spirit give to all he says an See also:infinite impressiveness and See also:charm " (M. See also:Arnold; God and the Bible, ch. vi.). 2 By the end of the 2nd century it appears to have been fairly well-known, to See also:judge from See also:Origen, See also:Irenaeus (iii. 16, 8), and See also:Clement of See also:Alexandria (Stran. ii. 15, 66). In the Muratorian canon, which mentions two epistles of John, it seems to be reckoned (cf. See also:Kuhn, Das See also:Murat. Fragment, pp. 58 f.) as an appendix or sequel to the Fourth Gospel. The apparent traces of its use in See also:Ignatius (cf. Smyrn. vi. 2 =1 John iii. 17; Smyrn. vii = 1 John iii. 14, and Eph. xviii. = John v. 6) seem too insecure, of themselves, to warrant any hypothesis of filiation.1862), C. A. Wolf (2nd ed.,1885), Ewald (Die Joh. Briefe iibersetzt and erklaert, See also:Gottingen, 1861–1862), and Lucke (3rd ed., revised by Bertheau, 1856) still repay the reader, and among previous See also:editions those of W. Whiston (See also:Comm. on St John's Three See also:Catholic Epistles, 1719) and de Wette (1837, &c.) contain material of real exegetical See also:interest. Special editions of the first epistle have been published by John See also:Cotton (See also:London, 1655), See also:Neander (1851; Eng. trans. New See also:York, 1853), E. See also:Haupt (1869; Eng. trans. 1879), Liss (1887) and C. See also:Watson (1891, expository) among others. Special studies by F. H. See also:Kern (De epistolae Joh. consilio, See also:Tubingen, 183o), See also:Erdmann (Primae Joh. epistolae argumentum, nexus et consilium, See also:Berlin, 1855), C. E. See also:Luthardt (De primae Joannis epistolae composilione, 1860), J. Stockmeyer (Die Structur des ersten Joh. Briefes, See also:Basel, 1873) and, most elaborately, by. H. J. See also:Holtzmann (Jahrb. fur protest. Theologie, 1881, pp. 690 seq. ; 1882, pp. 128 seq., 316 seq., 46o seq.) . To the monographs already noted in the course of this See also:article may be added the essays by Wiesinger (Studien and 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 evpia Johannis, 1758), See also:Carpzov (Theolog. exegetica, pp. 105–208), H. G. B. See also: 354 seq.) and Gibbins (ibid., 1902, pp. 228–236), while, in addition to See also:Hermann's Comment. in See also:Joan. ep. III. (1778), P. L. Gachon (Authenticite de la deuxibme et troisibme epitres de See also:Jean, 1851), Poggel (Der zweite and dritte Briefe d. Apostel Johannis, 1896), and Chapman (See also: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 See also:Schenkel's Bibel-See also:Lexicon, iii. 342–352, See also:Sabatier (Encyclop. des sciences religieuses, vii. 177 seq.), S. See also:Cox (The Private Letters of St Paul and St John, 1867), See also: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. See also: 320-327), P. W. Schmiedel (Ency. Bib., 2556–2562, also in a pamphlet, Evangelium, Briefe, and Offenbarung des Johannes, 1906; Eng. trans. 1908), J. R6ville (Le Quatribme Evangile, 1901, pp. 49 seq.) and See also: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, See also:Barth and Geiser, on the Conservative See also:side, and Hilgenfeld, Jiilicher and von Soden on the Liberal. On the older See also:Syriac version of 2 and 3 John, see Gwynn's article in Hermathena (189o), 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. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] JOHN, THE APOSTLE |
[next] JOHN, or HAYS (1513–1571) |