THE authority of the First Epistle of John being established, little need be said concerning either the second or third, if we regard the language and the sentiment only, for these so fully accord with the first, that there can be no doubt that he who wrote one, wrote all the three. But it must not be concealed that there were doubts entertained in the primitive Church as to the two latter being canonical. And so late as the days of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, they were ranked among those writings which were then termed αντιλεγομενα, not received by all, or contradicted, because not believed to be the genuine productions of the Apostle John. It is very likely that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to which they were originally sent; and only came to light perhaps long after the death of the apostle, and the death of the elect lady or Kyria, and Gaius or Caius, to whom they were addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers were gone; and the Church of Christ, that was always on its guard against imposture, and especially in relation to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, till it was fully satisfied that they were Divinely inspired. This extreme caution was of the utmost consequence to the Christian faith; for had it been otherwise, had any measure of what is called credulity prevailed, the Church would have been inundated with spurious writings, and the genuine faith greatly corrupted, if not totally destroyed. The number of apocryphal gospels, acts of apostles, and epistles, which were offered to the Church in the earliest ages of Christianity, is truly astonishing. We have the names of at least seventy-five gospels which were offered to, and rejected by, the Church; besides Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, Book of Enoch, &c., some of which are come down to the present time, but are convicted of forgery by the sentiment, the style, and the doctrine. The suspicion, however, of forgery, in reference to the Second Epistle of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, was so strong, that in the third century, when the Peshito Syriac version was made, these books were omitted, and have not since been received into that version to the present day, which is the version still in use in the Syrian Churches. But the later Syriac version, which was made A. D. 508, and is called the Philoxenian, from Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, under whose direction it was formed from the Greek by his rural Bishop Polycarp, and was afterwards corrected and published by Thomas of Charkel, in 616, contains these, as well as all the other canonical books of the New Testament. From the time that the language, sentiments, and doctrines of these two epistles were critically examined, no doubts were entertained of their authenticity; and at present they are received by the whole Christian Church throughout the world; for although they are not in the ancient Syriac version, they are in the Philoxenian; and concerning their authenticity I believe the Syrian Churches have at present no doubts. Dr. Lardner observes that the first epistle was received and quoted by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, contemporary with the apostle; by Papias, who himself had been a disciple of St. John; by Irenæus; Clement of Alexandria; Origen, and many others. The second epistle is quoted by Irenæus, was received by Clement of Alexandria, mentioned by Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, is quoted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. All the three epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril, of Jerusalem; by the council of Laodicea; by Epiphanius; by Jerome; by Ruffinus; by the third council of Carthage; by Augustine, and by all those authors who received the same canon of the New Testament that we do. All the epistles are in the Codex Alexandrinus, in the catalogues of Gregory of Nazianzen, &c., &c.
Thus we find they were known and quoted at a very early period; and have been received as genuine by the most respectable fathers, Greek and Latin, of the Christian Church. Their being apparently of a private nature might have prevented their more general circulation at the beginning, kept them for a considerable time unknown, and prevented them from being reckoned canonical. But such a circumstance as this cannot operate in the present times.
As to the time in which this epistle was written, it is very uncertain. It is generally supposed to have been written at Ephesus between A. D. 80 and 90, but of this there is no proof; nor are there any data in the epistle itself to lead to any probable conjecture relative to this point. I have placed it at A D. 85, but could not wish to pledge myself to the correctness of that date.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5593.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5587.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5577.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4089. -Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4311. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3845. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4444.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2433.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3187. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1025.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 834.
-Year of the CCXVIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 832. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 836. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 837. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 838.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 397.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 133.
-Year of the Julian era, 130.
-Year of the Spanish era, 123.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 89. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 85.
-Year of Artabanus IV., king of the Parthians, 4.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 86.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 10; or the year before the fourth embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 7; or the year before the third embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 10.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first year after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, B.
-Day of the Jewish Passover, the twenty-seventh of March, which happened in this year on the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the third of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 9.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 17.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 17, 19, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 24, 25, 27, 27.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 6.
-Year of the Emperor Flavius Domitianus Cæsar, the last of those usually styled the Twelve Cæsars, 5.
-Roman Consuls, Domitianus Augustus Cæsar, the eleventh time, and T. Aurelius Fulvus or Fulvius.
-The years in which Domitian had been consul before were, A. D. 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, and 84.
It should be observed that the date of this epistle is very uncertain. The above is only upon the supposition that it was written about A. D. 85. See the preface.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 875
SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
PREFACE
“SOME,” says Bede, (in the beginning of the eighth century,) “have thought this and the following epistle not to have been written by John the evangelist, but by another, a presbyter of the same name, whose sepulchre is still seen at Ephesus, whom also Papias mentions in his writings. But now it is the general consent of the church, that John the apostle wrote also these two epistles, forasmuch as there is a great agreement of the doctrine and style between these and his first epistle, and there is also a like zeal against heretics.” Compare 2 John 1:5, with 1 John 2:8; — verse 6, with 1 John 5:3; — verse 7, with 1 John 4:3; — 3 John 1:12, with John 19:35. Of John’s peculiar manner of expressing things, compare 2 John 1:7, and 3 John 1:11. — Of the second epistle, which contains only thirteen verses, eight may be found in the first, either in sense or in expression. It is true, Eusebius, in bearing testimony to the authenticity of the first epistle of John, hath insinuated that some ascribed the second and third epistles to another person of the name of John, called “the elder,” of whom he speaks, lib. 3. c. 39. And Jerome likewise hath mentioned this John in his catalogue. But the earliest and best Christian writers ascribe the second and third epistles, as well as the first, to the Apostle John. All the three were received as his by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, and the council of Laodicea; as also by Ruffin, by the third council of Carthage, by Augustine, and by all those authors who received the same canon of the New Testament which we receive. All the three are in the Alexandrian MS. and in the catalogue of Gregory Nazianzen. The second epistle is cited twice by Irenæus as written by John the apostle, declaring, that “they who denied Jesus Christ to be ‘come in the flesh,’ were ‘seducers’ and ‘antichrists,’ verses 7, 8; and that they who ‘bid’ the heretic ‘God speed,’ were ‘partakers of his evil deeds;’” which words are found in verses 10, 11. And Aurelius cites the 10th verse as the words of St. John the apostle.
As to the title of “elder,” taken by the writer of these two short epistles, we cannot infer from this that they were not written by the Apostle John; the word “elder” being, it seems, only intended to denote that the person so called was of long standing in the Christian faith. It was, therefore, an appellation of great dignity, and entitled the person, to whom it belonged, to the highest respect from all the disciples of Christ: for which reason it was assumed by the Apostle Peter. Or, as some think, the word “elder” might be used with a reference to John’s great age, and that he was as well known by the name of “elder” as by his proper name; the word signifying the same as if it had been said, “The aged apostle.” The circumstance, that the writer of these epistles hath not mentioned his own name, is agreeable to John’s manner; who neither hath mentioned his name in his gospel, nor in the first epistle, which are unquestionably his.
These epistles have very improperly been termed “general” or “catholic,” since each is inscribed to a single person, one to a woman of distinction, styled “the elect lady,” or, as some render the words, “the elect Kuria,” (taking the latter word for a proper name,) and the other to “Gaius;” probably the same person with Gaius of Corinth, who is styled by St. Paul “his host,” and is celebrated for his hospitality to the brethren; a character very agreeable to that which is here given of Gaius by the Apostle John. There is no fixing the date of these two epistles with any certainty. It in a great measure depends on the date of the first epistle; soon after which, it is generally agreed, both these were written. And this indeed appears exceeding probable from that coincidence, both of sentiment and expression, which occurs in all these epistles, as mentioned above.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 379
2 JOHN
INTRODUCTION
THIS epistle seems to have been written by John to a Christian matron residing in Asia Minor, within the circuit of the apostle’s visitations, who had been accustomed to entertain Christian evangelists on their tours at her hospitable home. From the main point this letter puts, we might suppose it to have been a sort of pendant to his First Epistle; in fact, accompanying the copy of that epistle sent to her Church. It is intended to warn the elect Kyria against the Nicolaitans, whom he brands as antichrist, and against whom the main epistle was directed. Mutual love among Christians, in common love to Christ, must firmly consolidate the Christian body with a most rigid avoidance of the truthless and sensualistic errorists. Kyria is warned to reject these dangerous emissaries of a licentious religionism from her hospitalities, lest she become involved in a supposed sympathy with their heresies and immoralities. John hopes soon to make his visitation at her Church and home, where the subject may receive a fuller discussion. He is joyous at the hearty adherence of her children to apostolic Christianity, and sends the greeting of the children of an elect sister to the elect Kyria.
A large number of able commentators have maintained that this Kyria was not an individual female, but in truth a Christian Church. And if we read it with an allegorical presupposition, the entire epistle will construe very easily in accordance with it. But the whole reads, in every word, naturally and plainly, as a private letter, and as such needs no presupposition. On the contrary, to suppose St. John wrote a letter to a Church, pastor, official board, and people—elaborately addressing them as a lady, and studiously maintaining the double meaning throughout, seems not only artificial, but nearly absurd. Suppose such a performance in real life at the present day, and it is difficult to avoid a sense of the ludicrous. The writer would be reprehended as guilty, to say the least, of bad taste, in such a display of fancy. And the bad taste would be just as evident in an ancient apostle as in a modern bishop.
Kyria, in Greek, signifies lady, and yet was sometimes used as a proper name. The adjective elect was also sometimes a proper name, Electa, and at first it seems doubtful which of these two words was the proper name of the lady here addressed. But that question is decided by the use of the adjective elect in verse 13.
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Second Epistle of John.
CLA_2JO.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
THE authority of the First Epistle of John being established, little need be said concerning either the second or third, if we regard the language and the sentiment only, for these so fully accord with the first, that there can be no doubt that he who wrote one, wrote all the three. But it must not be concealed that there were doubts entertained in the primitive Church as to the two latter being canonical. And so late as the days of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, they were ranked among those writings which were then termed αντιλεγομενα, not received by all, or contradicted, because not believed to be the genuine productions of the Apostle John. It is very likely that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to which they were originally sent; and only came to light perhaps long after the death of the apostle, and the death of the elect lady or Kyria, and Gaius or Caius, to whom they were addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers were gone; and the Church of Christ, that was always on its guard against imposture, and especially in relation to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, till it was fully satisfied that they were Divinely inspired. This extreme caution was of the utmost consequence to the Christian faith; for had it been otherwise, had any measure of what is called credulity prevailed, the Church would have been inundated with spurious writings, and the genuine faith greatly corrupted, if not totally destroyed. The number of apocryphal gospels, acts of apostles, and epistles, which were offered to the Church in the earliest ages of Christianity, is truly astonishing. We have the names of at least seventy-five gospels which were offered to, and rejected by, the Church; besides Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, Book of Enoch, &c., some of which are come down to the present time, but are convicted of forgery by the sentiment, the style, and the doctrine. The suspicion, however, of forgery, in reference to the Second Epistle of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, was so strong, that in the third century, when the Peshito Syriac version was made, these books were omitted, and have not since been received into that version to the present day, which is the version still in use in the Syrian Churches. But the later Syriac version, which was made A. D. 508, and is called the Philoxenian, from Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, under whose direction it was formed from the Greek by his rural Bishop Polycarp, and was afterwards corrected and published by Thomas of Charkel, in 616, contains these, as well as all the other canonical books of the New Testament. From the time that the language, sentiments, and doctrines of these two epistles were critically examined, no doubts were entertained of their authenticity; and at present they are received by the whole Christian Church throughout the world; for although they are not in the ancient Syriac version, they are in the Philoxenian; and concerning their authenticity I believe the Syrian Churches have at present no doubts. Dr. Lardner observes that the first epistle was received and quoted by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, contemporary with the apostle; by Papias, who himself had been a disciple of St. John; by Irenæus; Clement of Alexandria; Origen, and many others. The second epistle is quoted by Irenæus, was received by Clement of Alexandria, mentioned by Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, is quoted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. All the three epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril, of Jerusalem; by the council of Laodicea; by Epiphanius; by Jerome; by Ruffinus; by the third council of Carthage; by Augustine, and by all those authors who received the same canon of the New Testament that we do. All the epistles are in the Codex Alexandrinus, in the catalogues of Gregory of Nazianzen, &c., &c.
Thus we find they were known and quoted at a very early period; and have been received as genuine by the most respectable fathers, Greek and Latin, of the Christian Church. Their being apparently of a private nature might have prevented their more general circulation at the beginning, kept them for a considerable time unknown, and prevented them from being reckoned canonical. But such a circumstance as this cannot operate in the present times.
As to the time in which this epistle was written, it is very uncertain. It is generally supposed to have been written at Ephesus between A. D. 80 and 90, but of this there is no proof; nor are there any data in the epistle itself to lead to any probable conjecture relative to this point. I have placed it at A D. 85, but could not wish to pledge myself to the correctness of that date.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5593.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5587.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5577.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4089. -Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4311. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3845. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4444.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2433.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3187. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1025.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 834.
-Year of the CCXVIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 832. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 836. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 837. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 838.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 397.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 133.
-Year of the Julian era, 130.
-Year of the Spanish era, 123.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 89. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 85.
-Year of Artabanus IV., king of the Parthians, 4.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 86.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 10; or the year before the fourth embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 7; or the year before the third embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 10.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first year after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, B.
-Day of the Jewish Passover, the twenty-seventh of March, which happened in this year on the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the third of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 9.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 17.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 17, 19, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 24, 25, 27, 27.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 6.
-Year of the Emperor Flavius Domitianus Cæsar, the last of those usually styled the Twelve Cæsars, 5.
-Roman Consuls, Domitianus Augustus Cæsar, the eleventh time, and T. Aurelius Fulvus or Fulvius.
-The years in which Domitian had been consul before were, A. D. 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, and 84.
It should be observed that the date of this epistle is very uncertain. The above is only upon the supposition that it was written about A. D. 85. See the preface.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 875
SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
PREFACE
“SOME,” says Bede, (in the beginning of the eighth century,) “have thought this and the following epistle not to have been written by John the evangelist, but by another, a presbyter of the same name, whose sepulchre is still seen at Ephesus, whom also Papias mentions in his writings. But now it is the general consent of the church, that John the apostle wrote also these two epistles, forasmuch as there is a great agreement of the doctrine and style between these and his first epistle, and there is also a like zeal against heretics.” Compare 2 John 1:5, with 1 John 2:8; — verse 6, with 1 John 5:3; — verse 7, with 1 John 4:3; — 3 John 1:12, with John 19:35. Of John’s peculiar manner of expressing things, compare 2 John 1:7, and 3 John 1:11. — Of the second epistle, which contains only thirteen verses, eight may be found in the first, either in sense or in expression. It is true, Eusebius, in bearing testimony to the authenticity of the first epistle of John, hath insinuated that some ascribed the second and third epistles to another person of the name of John, called “the elder,” of whom he speaks, lib. 3. c. 39. And Jerome likewise hath mentioned this John in his catalogue. But the earliest and best Christian writers ascribe the second and third epistles, as well as the first, to the Apostle John. All the three were received as his by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, and the council of Laodicea; as also by Ruffin, by the third council of Carthage, by Augustine, and by all those authors who received the same canon of the New Testament which we receive. All the three are in the Alexandrian MS. and in the catalogue of Gregory Nazianzen. The second epistle is cited twice by Irenæus as written by John the apostle, declaring, that “they who denied Jesus Christ to be ‘come in the flesh,’ were ‘seducers’ and ‘antichrists,’ verses 7, 8; and that they who ‘bid’ the heretic ‘God speed,’ were ‘partakers of his evil deeds;’” which words are found in verses 10, 11. And Aurelius cites the 10th verse as the words of St. John the apostle.
As to the title of “elder,” taken by the writer of these two short epistles, we cannot infer from this that they were not written by the Apostle John; the word “elder” being, it seems, only intended to denote that the person so called was of long standing in the Christian faith. It was, therefore, an appellation of great dignity, and entitled the person, to whom it belonged, to the highest respect from all the disciples of Christ: for which reason it was assumed by the Apostle Peter. Or, as some think, the word “elder” might be used with a reference to John’s great age, and that he was as well known by the name of “elder” as by his proper name; the word signifying the same as if it had been said, “The aged apostle.” The circumstance, that the writer of these epistles hath not mentioned his own name, is agreeable to John’s manner; who neither hath mentioned his name in his gospel, nor in the first epistle, which are unquestionably his.
These epistles have very improperly been termed “general” or “catholic,” since each is inscribed to a single person, one to a woman of distinction, styled “the elect lady,” or, as some render the words, “the elect Kuria,” (taking the latter word for a proper name,) and the other to “Gaius;” probably the same person with Gaius of Corinth, who is styled by St. Paul “his host,” and is celebrated for his hospitality to the brethren; a character very agreeable to that which is here given of Gaius by the Apostle John. There is no fixing the date of these two epistles with any certainty. It in a great measure depends on the date of the first epistle; soon after which, it is generally agreed, both these were written. And this indeed appears exceeding probable from that coincidence, both of sentiment and expression, which occurs in all these epistles, as mentioned above.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 379
2 JOHN
INTRODUCTION
THIS epistle seems to have been written by John to a Christian matron residing in Asia Minor, within the circuit of the apostle’s visitations, who had been accustomed to entertain Christian evangelists on their tours at her hospitable home. From the main point this letter puts, we might suppose it to have been a sort of pendant to his First Epistle; in fact, accompanying the copy of that epistle sent to her Church. It is intended to warn the elect Kyria against the Nicolaitans, whom he brands as antichrist, and against whom the main epistle was directed. Mutual love among Christians, in common love to Christ, must firmly consolidate the Christian body with a most rigid avoidance of the truthless and sensualistic errorists. Kyria is warned to reject these dangerous emissaries of a licentious religionism from her hospitalities, lest she become involved in a supposed sympathy with their heresies and immoralities. John hopes soon to make his visitation at her Church and home, where the subject may receive a fuller discussion. He is joyous at the hearty adherence of her children to apostolic Christianity, and sends the greeting of the children of an elect sister to the elect Kyria.
A large number of able commentators have maintained that this Kyria was not an individual female, but in truth a Christian Church. And if we read it with an allegorical presupposition, the entire epistle will construe very easily in accordance with it. But the whole reads, in every word, naturally and plainly, as a private letter, and as such needs no presupposition. On the contrary, to suppose St. John wrote a letter to a Church, pastor, official board, and people—elaborately addressing them as a lady, and studiously maintaining the double meaning throughout, seems not only artificial, but nearly absurd. Suppose such a performance in real life at the present day, and it is difficult to avoid a sense of the ludicrous. The writer would be reprehended as guilty, to say the least, of bad taste, in such a display of fancy. And the bad taste would be just as evident in an ancient apostle as in a modern bishop.
Kyria, in Greek, signifies lady, and yet was sometimes used as a proper name. The adjective elect was also sometimes a proper name, Electa, and at first it seems doubtful which of these two words was the proper name of the lady here addressed. But that question is decided by the use of the adjective elect in verse 13.