-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who wrote 2 John and 3 John?
- Thread starter IndyEllis
- Start date
- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Read these:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2057
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1364
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1365
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1366
They show that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were written by the Apostle John.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2057
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1364
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1365
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1366
They show that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were written by the Apostle John.
Upvote
0
Well which is it?
And wasn't apostolic authorship a key consideration in canonisation decisions?
Why are these two books in the canon?
And wasn't apostolic authorship a key consideration in canonisation decisions?
Why are these two books in the canon?
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Because the early church considered them to be 'apostolic'. Whether or not they were actually written by John is irrelevent now - the choosing of which NT books are canonical is deemed by the vast majority of Christians to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost as the writing was.
So, whether John wrote 2nd John, or Paul wrote 2 Timothy, or Peter wrote 2nd Peter, is irrelevent. It's the final verdict that carries divine inspiration, whether nor not every piece of evidence was correctly evaluated. (Ie the church may have included the right books for the wrong reasons.)
(Incidentally, apostolic doesn't necessarly mean written by an apostle, but carrying an apostle's authority.)
Upvote
0
- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
What do you mean, "which is it"? "The presbyter" IS the Apostle John. (Do yo mean something else?)
Apostolic authorship was considered, and since the Apostle John wrote them, they're included.
Upvote
0
This might be able to help you out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_of_John
Great question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_of_John
Great question
Upvote
0
Well, it just so happens that I took "History and Literature of the New Testament" in college, so I'm going to go ahead and pull out my notes on the letters of John (1, 2, and 3 John).
WARNING: The notes are all in Short-Hand... So, if this is NOT correct, DO NOT KILL ME!!! Just lemme know, I'll either fix or delete this post, and we can all be friends again
sorry for wasting like 5 minutes and possibly confusing you :S
Okay, so history: The city of Ephesus has a small Christian congregation there that is split in of itself; some of the church goers do not like the message that the apostle John has brought to them, including some of the leaders. One of the leaders, whose name is Doetrephes, even rebuffs the emissaries that John has sent to the church. So, John then works with those who are hospitable towards his message, and sends them a packet of letters (ones which will be later known to be 1, 2, and 3 John).
The reason for the split, that is, why some like John and some don't, is their view of the concept of "Christology": they fought over whether or not Jesus was truly a human. Sounds like a strange thought, but that was a major issue in the early church, along with some other topics.
Now, let's go in backwards order:
3rd John: In the first verse, "The elder, to my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in truth." This letter is a cover letter for both 1st and 2nd John; it was specifically addressed to a man named Gaius, who is presumed to be a 'dear friend' of John. It basically says that the other two letters are needed to be read to the congregation because of the importance of the message.
2nd John: This is a letter that is addressed specifically to the congregation's leaders, but is meant for the congregation to hear. This letter is a cover letter to 1st John, and was presumed to be read before 1st John was.
1st John: The main, most substantial letter. It's a sermon, that is meant to discuss the issue of christology, and (as my short-hand denotes...) the message is that the church has had a failure to love others, that all are sinners, and that all can be forgiven.
Um...
ok, now that i've typed it all out, i've realized that it doesn't even answer your question... gah... WELL... um... the early church fathers have belief that it was written by a man named Johannine Corpus. This is the apostle John, but not the apostle John who was the dearly beloved of Jesus...
In fact, that's a tough question to answer, because Jesus' John was (I believe) the first to be killed of the apostles after Jesus' death. The Gospel of John, the letters, and the Revelation, were all written about 90AD (approximately, we can never truly know)...
So... um... to answer your question...
I have no clue. lol
But, does that affect my faith in any way? Nope. If I'm really anxious to know, I'll wait till I get to Heaven, and ask God when I'm up there lol...
WARNING: The notes are all in Short-Hand... So, if this is NOT correct, DO NOT KILL ME!!! Just lemme know, I'll either fix or delete this post, and we can all be friends again
sorry for wasting like 5 minutes and possibly confusing you :S
Okay, so history: The city of Ephesus has a small Christian congregation there that is split in of itself; some of the church goers do not like the message that the apostle John has brought to them, including some of the leaders. One of the leaders, whose name is Doetrephes, even rebuffs the emissaries that John has sent to the church. So, John then works with those who are hospitable towards his message, and sends them a packet of letters (ones which will be later known to be 1, 2, and 3 John).
The reason for the split, that is, why some like John and some don't, is their view of the concept of "Christology": they fought over whether or not Jesus was truly a human. Sounds like a strange thought, but that was a major issue in the early church, along with some other topics.
Now, let's go in backwards order:
3rd John: In the first verse, "The elder, to my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in truth." This letter is a cover letter for both 1st and 2nd John; it was specifically addressed to a man named Gaius, who is presumed to be a 'dear friend' of John. It basically says that the other two letters are needed to be read to the congregation because of the importance of the message.
2nd John: This is a letter that is addressed specifically to the congregation's leaders, but is meant for the congregation to hear. This letter is a cover letter to 1st John, and was presumed to be read before 1st John was.
1st John: The main, most substantial letter. It's a sermon, that is meant to discuss the issue of christology, and (as my short-hand denotes...) the message is that the church has had a failure to love others, that all are sinners, and that all can be forgiven.
Um...
ok, now that i've typed it all out, i've realized that it doesn't even answer your question... gah... WELL... um... the early church fathers have belief that it was written by a man named Johannine Corpus. This is the apostle John, but not the apostle John who was the dearly beloved of Jesus...
In fact, that's a tough question to answer, because Jesus' John was (I believe) the first to be killed of the apostles after Jesus' death. The Gospel of John, the letters, and the Revelation, were all written about 90AD (approximately, we can never truly know)...
So... um... to answer your question...
I have no clue. lol
But, does that affect my faith in any way? Nope. If I'm really anxious to know, I'll wait till I get to Heaven, and ask God when I'm up there lol...
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
On what do you base that - he is traditionally held to be the last of the twelve to die (and the only one not to be martyred 'successfully')? James' martydom is described in Acts - it would seem very odd for John to have been killed beforehand but that not to be mentioned.
Upvote
0
I think you did--
From Holman Bible Dictionary:
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3461
Knowledge and use of 1 John is attested from an early date in the writings of Papias (according to Eusebius), Polycarp, and Justin. It was regarded as the work of the apostle John by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Muratorian Canon.
Second and Third John were accepted as Scripture more slowly. Origen reported that their authenticity was questioned, and Eusebius placed them in the list of writings that were disputed, although well-known and acknowledged by most.
The Johannine character of the three letters is universally recognized, but debate over their authorship continues.
Second and Third John were accepted as Scripture more slowly. Origen reported that their authenticity was questioned, and Eusebius placed them in the list of writings that were disputed, although well-known and acknowledged by most.
The Johannine character of the three letters is universally recognized, but debate over their authorship continues.
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
What's important is whether its inspired by God. The assumption now is that God guided the chuch to make the right choice - even if some of the data it used was imperfect. God works through imperfect people and imperfect processes all the time.
Constantly trying to second guess the process, when a lot of the data they had has been lost to us anyway, is a bit pointless if you trust the Holy Spirit to guide the church in just about the closest thing to a complete consensus it has ever managed. Who wrote John 2 might be of academic interest, it might even give an extra insight into what the author was talking about in that or another of his works, but the Chuch isn't going to change its mind on its canonicity even if you show that there is a 90% probability that it was written by a giant guinea-pig.
Upvote
0
But isn't apostolic authorship one of the litmus tests used by the councils to guage whether or not candidate NT books are inspired?
Upvote
0
C
ContentInHim
Guest
Not particularly. The authorship of Hebrews is still up in the air as it doesn't seem to display the hallmarks of Paul's other letters. But that doesn't mean that it isn't inspired. Also, Luke wasn't an apostle, though he was a believer, and yet his writing is critical to the NT because of it's historical accuracy and detail.
Upvote
0
- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
ONE of the tests doesn't make it the SOLE test.
Luke was not an Apostle, yet his Gospel and the book of Acts are considered Scripture.
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Apostolic authority, not apostolic authorship.
And you are still missing the point - it doesn't matter if the data they used was flawed. The real criteria for canonicity is 'inspired by God for use by his Church'. Apostolic authorship is simple one of the ways the church fathers went about trying to discern which books that was. Their discernment is deemed to have been guided by the holy spirit even if some of their data may have been flawed.
Upvote
0
winsome
English, not British
Pope Benedict covers this question in his new book Jesus of Nazareth, though as he says this is a personal opinion not magisterium teaching.
He says Eusebius tells us of a five volume work of the bishop of Hieropolis, Papias. Papias mentions that he had not known or seen the Holy Apostle himself but that he had received the teaching of the faith from people who had been close to the Apostles. He also speaks of others who were likewise disciples of the Lord, and he mentions the names of Arision and Presbyter John. Now, the important point is that he distinguishes between the Apostle and Evangelist John, on one hand, and Presbyter John on the other. Although he had not know the former he had met the latter.
Pope Benedict says this suggests a Johanine school which traced its origins to the Apostle John but in which a certain Presbyter John presided as the ultimate authority. He goes on to suggest that after the death of the Apostle this Presbyter John became the bearer of the Apostles heritage and in time in the collective memory the two became increasingly fused.
He says Eusebius tells us of a five volume work of the bishop of Hieropolis, Papias. Papias mentions that he had not known or seen the Holy Apostle himself but that he had received the teaching of the faith from people who had been close to the Apostles. He also speaks of others who were likewise disciples of the Lord, and he mentions the names of Arision and Presbyter John. Now, the important point is that he distinguishes between the Apostle and Evangelist John, on one hand, and Presbyter John on the other. Although he had not know the former he had met the latter.
Pope Benedict says this suggests a Johanine school which traced its origins to the Apostle John but in which a certain Presbyter John presided as the ultimate authority. He goes on to suggest that after the death of the Apostle this Presbyter John became the bearer of the Apostles heritage and in time in the collective memory the two became increasingly fused.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
