1, 2, 3 John

[Achilles6129]

It seems that many modern scholars do not believe that the Apostle John wrote 1-3 John (much less GJohn or Rev). An interesting reason for believing this is the fact that Diotrephes (in 3 John) rejects the authority of the author of the letter. It is thought impossible that Diotrephes would ever reject the authority of an actual Apostle or that an Apostle would ever be rejected by the churches (but see the Apostle Paul). Thoughts?

 

[Bobinator]

If people rejected Jesus, what makes you think one would ever reject an apostle? Judas Iscariot betrayed the Lord after living with Him for 3 and 1/2 years. Korah lead a rebellion against Moses.

The human heart is an evil thing to behold.

 

[pshun2404]

No one in the early church ever rejected the gospel of John or 1 John as being by any other than John the Apostle before he died. The Apocalypse was accepted by most (some having never received a copy) and is quoted from in the earliest fathers (like Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) but interestingly even up until Eusibius in the early 4th century 2 and 3 John were considered spurious as were 2 Peter and Jude.

Paul

 

[Receiver]

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."
(John 19:26-27)

2 John :1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children...
:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee.

Some will say that "the elect lady" is the church, but John is writing to other members of the church and theer is one church, no "sub churches" i.e. "children". I conclude that John is writing to Mary (the mother of Jesus) and her children.

 

[Achilles6129]

Interesting responses. I'm most interested in the conflict with Diotrephes because it strikes me as extremely interesting that the authority of the Apostle John himself would be rejected at so early a point in church history. However, Bobinator brought up an outstanding point by noting that Moses and others were rejected as well. I think Paul was also rejected by certain early teachers as he notes in his epistles.

Still, it is very interesting that one of the twelve apostles would be rejected.

As far as Pshun's observations regarding 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude:

https://bible.org/seriespage/24-2-john-introduction-argument-and-outline

Early testimony regarding the authorship of 2 John is not as strong as it is for 1 John, “yet the brevity of the letter and the lesser likelihood of its being quoted by Christian authors must be given full weight in assessing the evidence (the same applies to 3 John).”4 The situation would be roughly similar to imposing a requirement that every chapter in one of Paul’s letters be quoted before that book be admitted into the canon, for 2 John is no larger than a small chapter of another letter. Further, neither 2 John nor 3 John have much in the way of edifying quotations—even when compared to a single chapter from most other NT letters. In other words, the struggle for canonicity (which was always bound up with authorship) which 2-3 John faced would have been quite predictable. That these two letters—each of which could have been written on a single sheet of papyrus—were preserved at all is a subtle point in favor of the traditional ascription of their Johannine authorship.

Here's an article on Jude:

https://bible.org/seriespage/26-jude-introduction-argument-and-outline

And 2 Peter:

https://bible.org/seriespage/22-second-peter-introduction-argument-and-outline

 

[Job8]

It seems that many modern scholars do not believe that the Apostle John wrote 1-3 John (much less GJohn or Rev).

Since "unbelief" is the middle name of most modern scholars, the question that Christians should ask themselves is "How much time do we want to waste on pseudo-scholars (possibly pseudo-Christians)?"

As to opposition to apostles, one just has to read the book of Acts. As to opposition to Christ, one just has to read the Gospels.

 

[Achilles6129]

Since "unbelief" is the middle name of most modern scholars, the question that Christians should ask themselves is "How much time do we want to waste on pseudo-scholars (possibly pseudo-Christians)?"

As to opposition to apostles, one just has to read the book of Acts. As to opposition to Christ, one just has to read the Gospels.

Good points. To be clear, though, opposition to Christ in the gospels was obviously from those who were not his true followers. "Christians" (if they could be called that?) opposing the Apostle John is far different in my opinion. I would think that the Apostle John (or any one of the twelve) would be viewed as virtually infallible by the community at that time, but I guess he wasn't.

 

[Job8]

Good points. To be clear, though, opposition to Christ in the gospels was obviously from those who were not his true followers. "Christians" (if they could be called that?) opposing the Apostle John is far different in my opinion. I would think that the Apostle John (or any one of the twelve) would be viewed as virtually infallible by the community at that time, but I guess he wasn't.

We should never forget that Gnosticism and the Judaizers entered the churches at a very early stage and that some of the epistles address those heresies. Paul's apostleship was constantly being challenged.

By the time we get to the seven churches of Asia Minor, we see how corruption had already infected so many churches. The Gnostics battled the truth with a multitude of false gospels and epistles, while corrupting the Scriptures. There is a whole body of "New Testament Apocrypha" (as well as a handful of corrupt NT manuscripts with which the "scholars" are totally enamoured).

So we should not be surprised that John had enemies. The Lord had warned His apostles of how they would be persecuted and betrayed and killed (Mt 24:9-12). But as to the NT writings, God was in full control at all times, and John's writings reveal a very clear and deep perception of Christian truth in very simple words (and the Lord always used simple but powerful words). Anyone who challenges that is certainly out to undermine Scripture its Divine inspiration and preservation.

 

[pshun2404]

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."
(John 19:26-27)

2 John :1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children...
:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee.

Some will say that "the elect lady" is the church, but John is writing to other members of the church and theer is one church, no "sub churches" i.e. "children". I conclude that John is writing to Mary (the mother of Jesus) and her children.

Now if you are of the opinion that the writer of 2 John is NOT the Apostle then I suppose it could be written to Mary while she was living with the Apostle...

The problem with that argument is that Mary lived WITH John until she died so their would be no sense in writing a letter to her....that would be like mother and son texting across the table rather than just speaking to one another...no...this writer (probably not John the Apostle) is addressing the Church!

Paul

 

[Receiver]

Mary lived WITH John until she died ...

a bald statement! Please give your source to say that John was tied to the apron strings of Mary such that he could not go away on business or more importantly church trips to strengthen the fledgling churches and thereby fulfil His Lord's commands to his apostles particularly?

 

[Achilles6129]

Interesting posts.