supposed. An epistle to a whole congregation, not to mention the entire Christian church, would also, no doubt, have been more extensive and copious.

If then, in every case, by izλ. zug. a single individual must be understood: the next question will be, what was the name of this Christian lady, who was St. John's friend, probably a widow of advanced age, and a mother of several Christian children (apparently sons, ous, ver. 1,)42 was her name 'Exλntǹ or Κυρία ?

Her name cannot have been 'Exλern, as is supposed by Grotius, Wetstein and others. This is repugnant, partly to the collocation of the words, (in this case the Apostle would have written either sã κυρία Εκλεκτῇ, or Εκλεκτῇ τῇ κυρία),partly to ver. 13, where the sister of this lady is called έxλɛxTr), and clearly in no other sense than that in which St. Paul, Rom. xvi. 13, does so style Rufus, i. e. with reference to the divine x 7.07 and lastly, as it seems, also to

the emphatic address Kugía, in ver. 5. Neither does 'Exλɛr appear to have been a usual woman's name, at least in the Apostolic age, even because this word, like άyos and other such, was a more general designation for all Christians.43

Kugía as a woman's name, not being unusual in this age,44 it is much more probable, that this Christian

42 Because these ríxva were supposed to be daughters, the superscription ad virgines, węòs wagdivous, was given to the epistle. 43 Electus is to be found as a man's name. Herodian Lib I. Tzetzes Chil. VI. Hist. 55.

44 See Corp. Inscript. Gruter. p. 1127, Num. XI; OginTwos nai n yuvǹ zúrou Kugía, cfr. Lexicon Hagiologic. Lips. 1719, p.

woman was called Kugía.45 If St. John had been a strict classic author, we undoubtedly would, in this case, have required that he should have written Kugía ry inλext, cfr. ver. 13, and Rom. xvi. 13, in which latter place, however, the expression & Kugiw, which follows after ixλxròv, seems to have rendered it necessary that the proper name should be placed before it. But St. John is not a classic, and the prelocation of λer is satisfactorily accounted for, partly by the omission of the article, and partly by the usage of the adjective έxλ. which probably, at that time, had lost much of its emphasis.46

There is in no case any reason to adopt the opinion

448, where we find two female martyrs of this name. Inscript. Florent ed. Gorius, p. 63, num. 173, where we find Cyria (Curia) Felicula, which Felicula also occurs in junction with other proper names, for example with Claudia Aemilia, &c. Symmachus Lib. V. ep. 76, and Lib. X. ep. 45, 46, where we find Cyriades. Kúgios, as a man's name, is not uncommon: cfr. Heumann Poecile de Cyria Joannis, Tom. II. p. 421, sqq. Tom. III. p. 14, sqq.

45 This opinion is held by Heumann, Bengel, Carpzov and others.

46 See 1 Pet. i. 1, where we read Пirgos άzórroλos '1. X. ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις.

* The words of the text "in der damahls vielleicht schon wenig mehr accentuirten Gebrauchlichkeit des Beyworts inλ,” I have expressed: "which probably, at that time, had lost much of its emphasis," by which undoubtedly meant that Christians

oi ixλxToì, had, at that time, become so numerous, that the adjective izλ. had lost much of that emphasis which it naturally had while the Christians were but few, and when a Christian or an elect was in the world considered as a byword.-Transl.

of Ritmeier and Wolf: that both izλ. and zug., are appellative nouns, and that the lady is not at all mentioned by name. This would be repugnant to the analogy of the third epistle, and to the epistolary style of the ancients.

But whether Kugía, perhaps, was a deaconess or not; where she lived in Asia Minor? Such and similar questions may, no doubt, be made. But who can answer them?

2. Of raios, to whom the third epistle is written. Besides the one mentioned in our passage, there are three Caiuses mentioned in the New Testament: Caius of Corinth, Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14: Caius a Macedonian, Acts xix. 29, and Caius of Derbe, Acts xx. 4. If any of these is our Caius, it can only be the last.47 But, as the name of Caius was everywhere very common, and the persons of the Johanneic age must have been, partly, quite different from those who were St. Paul's companions, our Caius may be altogether a different person from any of these. He seems, however, to have been a distinguished man in his congregation, but it cannot be determined whether he held any ecclesiastical office, or where he held any such. At all events, he lived in a different community from that of Kugía. If both had resided in the same place, it would be inexplicable that there is not any material reference from the one of these letters to the other.

6

47 Wolfii, Curæ on 3 John 1.

CHAPTER III.

OF THE OCCASION

AND OBJECT OF THESE TWO

EPISTLES, AND WHEN AND WHERE THEY WERE COMPOSED.

IF both these epistles were, as some authors suppose,48 accompanying and dedicatory missives, sent along with the first epistle and the gospel: this object would have been more precisely expressed, and these two works would, in some way or other, have been therein mentioned, and, indeed, designated more distinctly. But this is not the case. Not the remotest reference to the gospel can be found anywhere. In the second epistle we find again certain leading ideas of the first, for example in ver. 5, 6 and 7, but without any reference whatever to that epistle. St. John appears to presuppose only an earlier ORAL instruction. If the second epistle only was an accompanying epistle sent along with the first, what was the use of repeating in the former certain leading ideas of the latter? In this case, too, the precept, ver. 9-11, in which there is nothing personal, would, with more propriety, have been put into the first, which, at all events, was the principal epistle. Ver. 12 is also repugnant to this opinion. An epistle

48 See Kleucker Ueber den Urspr. und Zweck der Apost. Br. (On the Origin and Object of the Apostolic Epistles), p. 324, sqq. and other authors.

Y

to the congregation in which Caius lived is mentioned, 3 John 9. But there is a question, whether St. John really had written* this epistle to the congregation, or only intended to write it, if Diotrephes were less refractory than he was. Even, in the former case, our First Epistle of St. John cannot be meant, inasmuch as that epistle is not addressed to a particular congregation, and contains nothing of what the missive here alluded to must, according to 3 John 10, have contained.

These two epistles, the second and the third, evidently are mutually independent, and also independent of, and unconnected with, the first epistle: they are private missives, having reference to two different congregations.

The occasion and object of the Second Epistle, are contained in the personal relations of St. John to Kyria and her children, which personal relations here are but imperfectly alluded to. It seems that St. John had at this time an opportunity to write to his friend. But, as he expected soon to have a personal interview, he writes briefly, and only what was most necessary, not for the purpose of announcing his arrival—this he does only incidentally in the conclusion-but particularly in order to congratulate his friend on account of the truly Christian conduct of

The author seems, in the commentary, to have justly decided that the Apostle had really written such an epistle. Indeed this cannot be doubted: ygaya seems here quite decisive: ygata av would be too classical, and too Attic for St. John's style.-Transl.