(vi. 9, sqq.; *) 2 Tim. iv. 15, and other places.31 It is much more incredible that the Ephesian John, a mere presbyter, even without mentioning his name, or producing any proof of his authority, should in this age have possessed such an authority in any place as that with which the author of our epistles must have been invested, when he, 2 John 10, prohibited receiving and greeting of heretics, and since he could say, 3 John 10, "If I come I will remember the deeds of Diotrephes." Thus it appears that the authenticity of our epistles can be satisfactorily testified. As long as the genuineness of the gospel and the first epistle remains unquestionable, every attempt to render doubtful the genuineness of the former will be futile and vain. They cannot be a forgery; for such a purpose they are too insignificant and destitute of design. If they are the work of John the Ephesian presbyter, it is, considering their substantial insignificance and brevity, equally difficult to conceive what made the ancient church consider them as Johanneic and apostolical, as in this case it would be inexplicable, why, at a much later period, they were ascribed to John the presbyter than to the Apostle St. John. * I suspect that there is here a misprint: for in 1 Cor. vi. 9, there is indeed nothing to shew that St. Paul had to endure much from ambitious men. We probably ought to read 1 Cor. ix. 6, sqq.; the earlier part of the ninth chapter shews, that by a party at Corinth, many of St. Paul's apostolic privileges were disputed. It is even possible that the intended quotation, is 1 Cor. iv. 9, sqq.-Transl. 31 See Hammond against Grotius, in the Preface to the 2d Epistle. CHAPTER SECOND. OF THE ἐκλεκτὴ Κυρία, Το WHOM THE SECOND, AND OF Tάios, To WHOM THE THIRD EPISTLE IS WRIT TEN. I. Of the inλerǹ Kugía in the former Epistle. Even the ancients differed in opinion respecting this lady.32 Some believed, that here was meant some Christian matron or other, whose name was either 'Exλ or Kugía.33 But others,34 either because they found it unbecoming that the Apostle should write to a lady,3 35 or, perhaps, in order to make this epistle of more importance, and more fit to appear in the collection of Catholic epistles, maintained, (being favoured at least, although not warranted, by comparing with 1 Pet. v. 13,36 that St. 32 See Schol. Matthäi, p. 232, and Ecumenius on this pas sage. 33 This opinion we find in the iπódσis of the 2nd Epistle in Matthäi, p. 150, also in the Synops. Script. S. and in Œcumenius on this passage. 34 See Clemens in the Adumbrat., where we read: significat autem electionem Ecclesiæ Sanctæ. St. Jerome, Ep. XI. ad Ageruchiam. The Schol. Matthäi, p. 151, on ver. 1, and Cassiodorus on Ep. ii. 35 Here may be mentioned the Apologetical remark of Ecumenius: Πρὸς δὲ γυναῖκα γράφων πιστὴν οὐδὲν ὑπεστείλατο, ὅτι ἐν Χρ. Ἰησοῦ οὐδὲ ἄῤῥεν, οὐδὲ θῆλυ οἶδε. 36 How could Clemens, in the Adumbrations, say: Scripta John, by this appellation, denotes some particular congregation, which is not more precisely designated, or the Christian church in general.)37 The last opinion, fanciful and untenable as it is, and manifestly an offspring of the allegorical interpretation of the ancients, has still, amongst modern authors, met with many friends and protectors, 38 who partly have gone even further than its inventors, the ancients. It is believed, that, because it is in every way difficult, more precisely to determine the name of the Christian matron ;-because, ver. 5, xai võv igwrÑ 65, κυρία,—ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, is liable to be misunderstood by scoffers, and seems to offend against decorum; and because it cannot well be conceived how a mere note to an individual Christian matron could have been received into the collection of Catholic epistles; it would be much more reasonable to suppose, that the epistle either was addressed to the Christian church generally, or, being too brief, and too individual for such a purpose, to a particular Christian congregation, perhaps to the congregation estad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine," unless he alluded to 1 Pet. v. 13? 37 The latter is maintained by St. Jerome, the former by Cassiodorus, who says: Joannes Senior, quoniam aetate provectus, electæ Dominæ scribit Ecclesiæ, filiisque ejus, quos sacro fonte genuerat., cfr. the Schol. Matthäi. 38 See Wolfii Cur. on 2 Epist. ver. 1, where the ancient literary sources of this opinion are enumerated. Among modern authors, J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Testament, and Dr. Augusti on the Catholic Epistles, Vol. II. p. 202, have declared in its favour. of Philadelphia,39 or of Jerusalem, which was directly founded by the Lord himself;40 or to any other Christian congregation not named, which regularly used to assemble on Sundays.41 The only thing which might seem, in some degree, to excuse or justify this view, is the supposed difficulty of satisfactorily accounting for the reception of a private letter to an individual, into the collection of the Catholic epistles. The third too, is addressed to an individual, yet no man ever thought of making a congregation of Caius. But it is altogether very doubtful what the ancients meant by a Catholic epistle, at the time when the Catholic epistles were first collected. If they meant by that term circulars, the reception of our epistle among the Catholic epistles would not at all be explained, by supposing it to be addressed to one particular congregation; in this case, we would rather have to suppose that it was addressed to several congregations jointly, or to the whole Christian church generally: but, such a supposition is entirely repugnant to the superscription, as well as also to ver. 12 and 13. If, by the term Catholic epistles, are understood all genuine 39 This is Whiston's opinion. 40 Therefore" Kugía :" the opinion of Dr. Augusti and others. 41 By ixxanoia nugía, were, according to Suidas, understood popular assemblies, which were kept regularly. On this J. D. Michaelis, in the above-mentioned place, founds the most untenable of all conjectures. He himself observes against it, that Kugía thus alone, and without ixxλncia nowhere else is found to be used in this sense. apostolical letters, St. Paul's ( àóoronos) only excepted, the above-mentioned difficulty is entirely removed. But, even in the other case,-if the ancients originally called only such epistles Catholic, as really were encyclical (circulars.)-we have only to bear in mind, that in several churches, the second as well as the third epistle, was not at first incorporated in the collection of Catholic epistles, and that, where they were, sooner or later, received into that collection, this may have been done, either because they were considered as integrant appendices or accompaniments to the first epistle, or because no more suitable place in the canon could be found for their canonical preservation, than the place beside the first epistle, which arrangement, as they were so brief, did not in the least alter the original signification of the term Catholic epistles. If thus the supposed difficulty arising from the reception of our epistle in the collection of Catholic epistles can, in every case, be satisfactorily removed: the hypothesis, that ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία denotes either the whole Christian church, or a particular congregation, falls spontaneously to the ground. This hypothesis can never have the smallest claim to a philological justification, since no rational ground can be imagined why St. John, contrary to the usus loquendi, and contrary to all apostolic usage, should have designated the church generally, or a particular congregation and its members, in a manner so mystical and so allegorical. It would be vain to seek in the entire Apostolical and Apocryphal literature for an example bearing any resemblance to the case here |