[1] G. P. Fisher, _Hist. of Chr. Doctrine_, 159 seq. More fully in R.
L. Ottley, _The Doctrine of the Incarnation_, ii. 138-146.
JOHN OF HEXHAM (c. 1160-1209), English chronicler, is known to us merely
as the author of a work called the _Historia XXV. annorum_, which
continues the _Historia regum_ of Simeon of Durham and contains an
account of English events 1130-1153. From the title, as given in the
only manuscript, we learn John's name and the fact that he was prior of
Hexham. It must have been between 1160 and 1209 that he held this
position; but the date at which he lived and wrote cannot be more
accurately determined. Up to the year 1139 he follows closely the
history written by his predecessor, Prior Richard; thenceforward he is
an independent though not a very valuable authority. He is best informed
as to the events of the north country; his want of care, when he
ventures farther afield, may be illustrated by the fact that he places
in 1145 King Stephen's siege of Oxford, which really occurred in 1142.
Even for northern affairs his chronology is faulty; from 1140 onwards
his dates are uniformly one year too late. Prior Richard is not the only
author to whom John is indebted; he incorporates in the annal of 1138
two other narratives of the battle of the Standard, one in verse by the
monk Serlo, another in prose by Abbot Ailred of Rievaux; and also a
poem, by a Glasgow clerk, on the death of Sumerled of the Isles.
The one manuscript of John's chronicle is a 13th century copy; MS. C.
C. C. Cambridge, cxxxix. 8. The best edition is that of T. Arnold in
_Symeonis monachi opera_, vol. ii. (Rolls Series, 1885). There is an
English translation in J. Stevenson's _Church Historians of England_,
vol. iv. (London, 1856). (H. W. C. D.)
JOHN OF IRELAND (JOHANNIS DE IRLANDIA), (_fl._ 1480), Scottish writer,
perhaps of Lowland origin, was resident for thirty years in Paris and
later a professor of theology. He was confessor to James IV. and also to
Louis XI. of France, and was rector of Yarrow (de Foresta) when he
completed, at Edinburgh, the work on which rests his sole claim as a
vernacular writer. This book, preserved in MS. in the Advocates'
Library, Edinburgh (MS. 18, 2, 8), and labelled "Johannis de Irlandia
opera theologica," is a treatise in Scots on the wisdom and discipline
necessary to a prince, especially intended for the use of the young
James IV. The book is the earliest extant example of original Scots
prose. It was still in MS. in 1910, but an edition was promised by the
Scottish Text Society. In this book John refers to two other vernacular
writings, one "of the commandementis and uthir thingis pretenand to the
salvacioune of man," the other, "of the tabill of confessioune." No
traces of these have been discovered. The author's name appears on the
registers of the university of Paris and on the rolls of the Scottish
parliaments, and he is referred to by the Scottish historians, Leslie
and Dempster.
See the notices in John Lyden's Introduction to his edition of the
_Complaynt of Scotlande_ (1801), pp. 85 seq.; _The Scottish
Antiquary_, xiii. 111-115 and xv. 1-14. Annotated extracts are given
in Gregory Smith's _Specimens of Middle Scots_ (1902).
JOHN OF RAVENNA. Two distinct persons of this name, formerly confused
and identified with a third (anonymous) Ravennese in Petrarch's letters,
lived at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century.
1. A young Ravennese born about 1347, who in 1364 went to live with
Petrarch as secretary. In 1367 he set out to see the world and make a
name for himself, returned in a state of destitution, but, growing
restless again, left his employer for good in 1368. He is not mentioned
again in Petrarch's correspondence, unless a letter "to a certain
wanderer" (_vago cuidam_), congratulating him on his arrival at Rome in
1373, is addressed to him.
2. Son of Conversanus (Conversinus, Convertinus). He is first heard of
(Nov. 17, 1368) as appointed to the professorship of rhetoric at
Florence, where he had for some time held the post of notary at the
courts of justice. This differentiates him from (1). He entered (c.
1370) the service of the ducal house of Padua, the Carraras, in which he
continued at least until 1404, although the whole of that period was not
spent in Padua. From 1375 to 1379 he was a schoolmaster at Belluno, and
was dismissed as too good for his post and not adapted for teaching
boys. On the 22nd of March 1382, he was appointed professor of rhetoric
at Padua. During the struggle between the Carraras and Viscontis, he
spent five years at Udine (1387-1392). From 1395-1404 he was chancellor
of Francis of Carrara, and is heard of for the last time in 1406 as
living at Venice. His history of the Carraras, a tasteless production in
barbarous Latin, says little for his literary capacity; but as a teacher
he enjoyed a great reputation, amongst his pupils being Vittorino da
Feltre and Guarino of Verona.
3. Malpaghini (De Malpaghinis), the most important. Born about 1356, he
was a pupil of Petrarch from a very early age to 1374. On the 19th of
September 1397 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and eloquence at
Florence. On the 9th of June 1412, on the re-opening of the studio,
which had been shut from 1405 to 1411 owing to the plague, his
appointment was renewed for five years, before the expiration of which
period he died (May 1417). Although Malpaghini left nothing behind him,
he did much to encourage the study of Latin; among his pupils was Poggio
Bracciolini.
The local documents and other authorities on the subject will be found
in E. T. Klette, _Beiträge zur Geschichte und Litteratur der
italienischen Gelehrtenrenaissance_, vol. i. (1888); see also G.
Voigt, _Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Altertums_, who, however,
identifies (1) and (2).
JOHN OF SALISBURY (c. 1115-1180), English author, diplomatist and
bishop, was born at Salisbury between the years 1115 and 1120. Beyond
the fact that he was of Saxon, not of Norman race, and applies to
himself the cognomen of _Parvus_, "short," or "small," few details are
known regarding his early life; but from his own statements it is
gathered that he crossed to France about 1136, and began regular studies
in Paris under Abelard, who had there for a brief period re-opened his
famous school on Mont St Geneviève. After Abelard's retirement, John
carried on his studies under Alberich of Reims and Robert of Melun. From
1138 to 1140 he studied grammar and the classics under William of
Conches and Richard l'Evêque, the disciples of Bernard of Chartres,
though it is still a matter of controversy whether it was in Chartres or
not (cf. A. Clerval, _Les Écoles de Chartres au moyen âge_, 1895).
Bernard's teaching was distinguished partly by its pronounced Platonic
tendency, partly by the stress laid upon literary study of the greater
Latin writers; and the influence of the latter feature is noticeable in
all John of Salisbury's works. About 1140 he was at Paris studying
theology under Gilbert de la Porrée, then under Robert Pullus and Simon
of Poissy. In 1148 he resided at Moûtiers la Celle in the diocese of
Troyes, with his friend Peter of Celle. He was present at the council of
Reims, presided over by Pope Eugenius III., and was probably presented
by Bernard of Clairvaux to Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, at whose
court he settled, probably about 1150. Appointed secretary to Theobald,
he was frequently sent on missions to the papal see. During this time he
composed his greatest works, published almost certainly in 1159, the
_Policraticus, sive de nugis curialium et de vestigiis philosophorum_
and the _Metalogicus_, writings invaluable as storehouses of information
regarding the matter and form of scholastic education, and remarkable
for their cultivated style and humanist tendency. After the death of
Theobald in 1161, John continued as secretary to Thomas Becket, and took
an active part in the long disputes between that primate and his
sovereign, Henry II. His letters throw light on the constitutional
struggle then agitating the English world. With Becket he withdrew to
France during the king's displeasure; he returned with him in 1170, and
was present at his assassination. In the following years, during which
he continued in an influential situation in Canterbury, but at what
precise date is unknown, he drew up the _Life of Thomas Becket_. In 1176
he was made bishop of Chartres, where he passed the remainder of his
life. In 1179 he took an active part in the council of the Lateran. He
died at or near Chartres on the 25th of October 1180.
John's writings enable us to understand with much completeness the
literary and scientific position of the 12th century. His views imply
a cultivated intelligence well versed in practical affairs, opposing
to the extremes of both nominalism and realism a practical common
sense. His doctrine is a kind of utilitarianism, with a strong leaning
on the speculative side to the modified literary scepticism of Cicero,
for whom he had unbounded admiration. He was a humanist before the
Renaissance, surpassing all other representatives of the school of
Chartres in his knowledge of the Latin classics, as in the purity of
his style, which was evidently moulded on that of Cicero. Of Greek
writers he appears to have known nothing at first hand, and very
little in translations. The _Timaeus_ of Plato in the Latin version of
Chalcidius was known to him as to his contemporaries and predecessors,
and probably he had access to translations of the _Phaedo_ and _Meno_.
Of Aristotle he possessed the whole of the _Organon_ in Latin; he is,
indeed, the first of the medieval writers of note to whom the whole
was known. Of other Aristotelian writings he appears to have known
nothing.
The collected editions of the works are by J. A. Giles (5 vols.,
Oxford, 1848), and by Migne, in the _Patrologiae cursus_, vol. 199:
neither accurate. The _Policraticus_ was edited with notes and
introductions by C. C. I. Webb, _Ioannis Saresberiensis episcopi
Carnotensis Policratici_ (Oxford, 1909), 2 vols. The most complete
study of John of Salisbury is the monograph by C. Schaarschmidt,
_Johannes Sarisberiensis nach Leben und Studien, Schriften und
Philosophie_, 1862, which is a model of accurate and complete
workmanship. See also the article in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._
JOHN (1290-c. 1320), surnamed the Parricide, and called also John of
Swabia, was a son of Rudolph II. count of Habsburg and Agnes daughter of
Ottakar II. king of Bohemia, and consequently a grandson of the German
king Rudolph I. Having passed his early days at the Bohemian court, when
he came of age he demanded a portion of the family estates from his
uncle, the German king Albert I. His wishes were not gratified, and with
three companions he formed a plan to murder the king. On the 1st of May
1308 Albert in crossing the river Reuss at Windisch became separated
from his attendants, and was at once attacked and killed by the four
conspirators. John escaped the vengeance of Albert's sons, and was
afterwards found in a monastery at Pisa, where in 1313 he is said to
have been visited by the emperor Henry VII., who had placed him under
the ban. From this time he vanishes from history. The character of John
is used by Schiller in his play _Wilhelm Tell_.
JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF. The so-called epistles of John, in the Bible, are
not epistles in the strict sense of the term, for the first is a homily,
and encyclical or pastoral (as has been recognized since the days of
Bretschneider and Michaelis), while the other two are brief notes or
letters. Nor are they John's, if John means the son of Zebedee. The
latter conclusion depends upon the particular hypothesis adopted with
regard to the general Johannine problem, yet even when it is held that
John the apostle (q.v.) survived to old age in Ephesus, the second and
third epistles may be fairly ascribed (with Erasmus, Grotius, Credner,
Bretschneider, Reuss, &c.) to John the presbyter[1], as several circles
in the early church held ("Opinio a plerisque tradita," Jerome: _De vir.
ill._ 18). An apostle indeed might call himself a presbyter (cf. 1 Pet.
v. 1). But these notes imply no apostolic claim on the part of the
author, and, although their author is anonymous, the likelihood is that
their composition by the great Asiatic presbyter John led afterwards to
their incorporation in the "instrumentum" of John the apostle's
writings, when the prestige of the latter had obscured the former. All
hypotheses as to their pseudonymity or composition by different hands
may be dismissed. They would never have floated down the stream of
tradition except on the support of some primitive authority. If this was
not connected with John the apostle the only feasible alternative is to
think of John the presbyter, for Papias refers to the latter in
precisely this fashion (Euseb. _H. E._ iii. 39, 15; [Greek: kai touto ho
p. elege]).
The period of all three lies somewhere within the last decade of the 1st
century and the first decade of the 2nd. No evidence is available to
determine in what precise order they were written, but it will be
convenient to take the two smaller notes before the larger. The
so-called Second Epistle of John is one of the excommunicating notes
occasionally despatched by early Christian leaders to a community (cf. 2
Cor. v. 9). The presbyter or elder warns a Christian community,
figuratively addressed as "the elect lady" (cf. 13 with 1 Pet. i. 1; v,
13; also the plural of 6, 8, 10 and 13), against some itinerant (cf.
_Didache_ xi. 1-2) teachers who were promulgating advanced Docetic views
(7) upon the person of Christ. The note is merely designed to serve (12)
until the writer arrives in person. He sends greetings to his
correspondents from some community in which he is residing at present
(13), and with which they had evidently some connexion.
The note was familiar to Irenaeus[2] who twice (i. 16, 3, iii. 16, 8)
cites 10-11, once quoting it from the first epistle by mistake, but no
tradition has preserved the name of the community in question, and all
opinions on the matter are guess-work. The reference to "all who know
the truth" (ver. 1) is, of course, to be taken relatively (cf. Rev. ii.
23); it does not necessarily imply a centre like Antioch or Rome
(Chapman). Whiston thought of Philadelphia, and probably it must have
been one of the Asiatic churches.
The so-called Third Epistle of John belongs to the [Greek: epistolai
systatikai] (2 Cor. iii. 1) of the early church, like Rom. xvi. It is a
private note addressed by the presbyter to a certain Gaius, a member of
the same community or house-church (9) as that to which 2 John is
written. A local errorist, Diotrephes (9-10) had repudiated the
authority of the writer and his party, threatening even to excommunicate
Gaius and others from the church (cf. Abbott's _Diatessarica_, § 2258).
With this opponent the writer promises (10) to deal sharply in person
before very long. Meantime (14) he despatches the present note, in
hearty appreciation of his correspondent's attitude and character.
The allusion in 9 ([Greek: egrapsa]) refers in all likelihood to the
"second" epistle (so Ewald, Wolf, Salmon, &c.). In order to avoid the
suggestion that it implied a lost epistle, [Greek: an] was inserted at
an early stage in the textual history of the note. If [Greek: ekklêsias]
could be read in 12, Demetrius would be a presbyter; in any case, he is
not to be identified with Demas (Chapman), nor is there any reason to
suppose (with Harnack)[3] that the note of 9 was written to, and
suppressed by, him. What the presbyter is afraid of is not so much that
his note would not be read (Ewald, Harnack), as that it would not be
acted upon.
These notes, written originally on small sheets of papyrus, reveal the
anonymous presbyter travelling (so Clem. Alex. _Quis dives salv._ xlii.)
in his circuit or diocese of churches, and writing occasional pastoral
letters, in which he speaks not only in his own name but in that of a
coterie of like-minded Christians.[4] It is otherwise with the brochure
or manifesto known as the "first epistle." This was written neither at
the request of its readers nor to meet any definite local emergency, but
on the initiative of its author (i. 4) who was evidently concerned about
the effect produced upon the Church in general by certain contemporary
phases of semi-gnostic teaching. The polemic is directed against a
dualism which developed theoretically into docetic views of Christ's
person (ii. 22, iv. 2, &c.), and practically into libertinism (ii. 4,
&c.).[5] It is natural to think, primarily, of the churches in Asia
Minor as the circle addressed, but all indications of date or place are
absent, except those which may be inferred from its inner connexion with
the Fourth Gospel.
The plan of the brochure is unstudied and unpremeditated, resembling a
series of variations upon one or two favourite themes rather than a
carefully constructed melody. Fellowship ([Greek: koinonía]) with God
and man is its dominant note. After defining the essence of Christian
[Greek: koinonía] (i. 1-3),[6] the writer passes on to its conditions
(i. 5-ii. 17), under the antithesis of light and darkness. These
conditions are twofold: (a) a sense of sin, which leads Christians to a
sense of forgiveness[7] through Jesus Christ, (b) and obedience to the
supreme law of brotherly love (cf. Ignat. _Ad Smyrn._ 6). If these
conditions are unfulfilled, moral darkness is the issue, a darkness
which spells ruin to the soul. This prompts the writer to explain the
dangers of [Greek: koinonía] (ii. 18-29), under the antithesis of truth
and falsehood, the immediate peril being a novel heretical view of the
person of Christ. The characteristics of the fellowship are then
developed (iii. 1-12), as sinlessness and brotherly love, under the
antithesis of children of God (cf. ii. 29, "born of Him") and children
of the devil. This brotherly love bulks so largely in the writer's mind
that he proceeds to enlarge upon its main elements of confidence towards
God (iii. 13-24), moral discernment (iv. 1-6), and assurance of union
with God (iv. 7-21), all these being bound up with a true faith in Jesus
as the Christ (v. 1-12).[8] A brief epilogue gives what is for the most
part a summary (v. 13-21) of the leading ideas of the homily.[9]
Disjointed as the cause of the argument may seem, a close scrutiny of
the context often reveals a subtle connexion between paragraphs which at
first sight appear unlinked. Thus the idea of the [Greek: kosmos]
passing away (ii. 17) suggests the following sentences upon the nearness
of the [Greek: parousia] (ii. 18 seq.), whose signs are carefully noted
in order to reassure believers, and whose moral demands are underlined
(ii. 28, iii. 3). Within this paragraph[10] even the abrupt mention of
the [Greek: chrysma] has its genetical place (ii. 20). The heretical
[Greek: antichristoi], it is implied, have no [Greek: chrisma] from God;
Christians have (note the emphasis on [Greek: hymeis]), owing to their
union with the true [Greek: Christos]. Again, the genetic relation of
iii. 4 seq. to what precedes becomes evident when we consider that the
norm of Christian purity (iii. 3) is the keeping of the divine
commandments, or conduct resembling Christ's on earth (iii. 3-ii. 4-6),
so that the Gnostic[11] breach of this law not only puts a man out of
touch with Christ (iii. 6 seq.), but defeats the very end of Christ's
work, i.e. the abolition of sin (iii. 8). Thus iii. 7-10 resumes and
completes the idea of ii. 29; the Gnostic is shown to be out of touch
with the righteous God, partly because he will not share the brotherly
love which is the expression of the righteousness, and partly because
his claims to sinlessness render God's righteous forgiveness (i. 9)
superfluous. Similarly the mention of the Spirit (iii. 24) opens
naturally into a discussion of the decisive test for the false claims of
the heretics or gnostic _illuminati_ to spiritual powers and gifts (iv.
1 seq.); and, as this test of the genuine Spirit of God is the
confession of Jesus Christ as really human and incarnate, the writer, on
returning (in iv. 17 seq.) to his cardinal idea of brotherly love,
expresses it in view of the incarnate Son (iv. 9), whose mission
furnishes the proof of God's love as well as the example and the energy
of man's (iv. 10 seq.). The same conception of the real humanity of
Jesus Christ as essential to faith's being and well-being is worked out
in the following paragraph (v. 1-12), while the allusion to eternal life
(v. 11-12) leads to the closing recapitulation (v. 13-21) of the
homily's leading ideas under this special category.
The curious idea, mentioned by Augustine (_Quaest. evang._ ii. 39), that
the writing was addressed _ad Parthos_, has been literally taken by
several Latin fathers and later writers (e.g. Grotius, Paulus, Hammond),
but this title probably was a corruption of _ad sparsos_ (Wetstein,
Wegschneider) or of [Greek: pròs parthénous] (Whiston: the Christians
addressed as virgin, i.e. free from heresy), if not of [Greek:
parthénos], as applied in early tradition to John the apostle. The
circle for which the homily was meant was probably, in the first
instance, that of the Fourth Gospel, but it is impossible to determine
whether the epistle preceded or followed the larger treatise. The
division of opinion on this point (cf. J. Moffat, _Historical New
Testament_, 1901, p. 534) is serious, but the evidence for either
position is purely subjective. There are sufficient peculiarities of
style and conception[12] to justify provisionally some hesitation on the
matter of the authorship. The epistle may have been written by a
different author, or, from a more popular standpoint, by the author of
the gospel, possibly (as some critics hold) by the author of John xxi.
But _res lubrica, opinio incerta_.
It is unsafe to lay much stress upon the apparent reminiscence of iv.
2-3 (or of 2 John 7) in Polycarp, _ad Phil._ 7 reading [Greek:
élêluthóta] instead of [Greek: èlêluthénai]), though, if a literary
filiation is assumed, the probability is that Polycarp is quoting from
the epistle, not vice versa (as Volkmar contends, in his _Ursprung d.
unseren Evglien_ 47 seq.). But Papias is said by Eusebius (_H. E._ iii.
39) to have used [Greek: ê 'Ioânnou protéra] (= [Greek: ê 'Ioánnou
protê], v. 8?), i.e. the anonymous tract, which, by the time of
Eusebius, had come to be known as 1 John, and we have no reason to
suspect or reject this statement, particularly as Justin Martyr, another
Asiatic writer, furnishes clear echoes of the epistle (_Dial._ 123). The
tract must have been in circulation throughout Asia Minor at any rate
before the end of the first quarter of the 2nd century.[13] The
_terminus a quo_ is approximately the period of the Fourth Gospel's
composition, but there is no valid evidence to indicate the priority of
either, even upon the hypothesis that both came from the same pen. The
aim of each is too special to warrant the conclusion that the epistle
was intended to accompany or to introduce the gospel.
LITERATURE.--The most adequate modern editions of the three epistles
are by Westcott (3rd ed., 1892), H. J. Holtzmann (_Hand-Commentar zum
N. T._, 3rd ed., 1908), B. Weiss (in Meyer, 6th ed., 1900), Baljon
(1904) and J. E. Belser (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1906). Briefer English
notes are furnished by W. Alexander (_Speaker's Commentary_, 1881), W.
H. Bennett (_Century Bible_, 1901) and H. P. Forbes (_Internat.
Handbooks to New Testament_, vol. iv. 1907), while Plummer has a
concise edition of the Greek text (in _The Cambridge Greek Testament_,
1886). Huther's edition (in Meyer, 1880) has been translated into
English (Edinburgh, 1882), like Rothe's (1878) invaluable commentary
on the first epistle (cf. _Expository Times_, vols. iii. v.). Otto
Baumgarten's popular edition in _Die Schriften des N. T._ (1907) is,
like that of Forbes, written from practically the same standpoint as
Holtzmann's. The earlier commentaries of Alford (2nd ed., 1862), C.
A. Wolf (2nd ed., 1885), Ewald (_Die Joh. Briefe übersetzt und
erklaert_, Göttingen, 1861-1862), and Lücke (3rd ed., revised by
Bertheau, 1856) still repay the reader, and among previous editions
those of W. Whiston (_Comm. on St John's Three Catholic Epistles_,
1719) and de Wette (1837, &c.) contain material of real exegetical
interest. Special editions of the first epistle have been published by
John Cotton (London, 1655), Neander (1851; Eng. trans. New York,
1853), E. Haupt (1869; Eng. trans. 1879), Lias (1887) and C. Watson
(1891, expository) among others. Special studies by F. H. Kern (_De
epistolae Joh. consilio_, Tübingen, 1830), Erdmann (_Primae Joh.
epistolae argumentum, nexus et consilium_, Berlin, 1855), C. E.
Luthardt (_De primae Joannis epistolae compositione_, 1860), J.
Stockmeyer (_Die Structur des ersten Joh. Briefes_, Basel, 1873) and,
most elaborately, by H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrb. für protest. Theologie_,
1881, pp. 690 seq.; 1882, pp. 128 seq., 316 seq., 460 seq.). To the
monographs already noted in the course of this article may be added
the essays by Wiesinger (_Studien und Kritiken_, 1899, pp. 575 seq.)
and Wohlenberg ("Glossen zum ersten Johannisbrief," _Neue Kirchliche
Zeitschrift_, 1902, pp. 233 seq., 632 seq.). On 2 John there are
special commentaries and studies by Ritmeier (_De electa domina_,
1706), C. A. Kriegele (_De_ [Greek: kuria] _Johannis_, 1758), Carpzov
(_Theolog. exegetica_, pp. 105-208), H. G. B. Müller (_Comment. in
secundam epistolam Joannis_, 1783), C. Klug (_De authentia_, &c.,
1823), J. Rendel Harris (_Expositor_, 6th series, 1901, pp. 194 seq.),
W. M. Ramsay (ibid., pp. 354 seq.) and Gibbins (ibid., 1902, pp.
228-236), while, in addition to Hermann's _Comment, in Joan. ep. III._
(1778), P. L. Gachon (_Authenticité de la deuxième et troisième
épîtres de Jean_, 1851), Poggel (_Der zweite und dritte Briefe d.
Apostel Johannis_, 1896), and Chapman (_Journal of Theological
Studies_, 1904, "The Historical Setting of the Second and the Third
Epistles of St John"), have discussed both of the minor epistles
together. General studies of all three are furnished by H. J.
Holtzmann in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, iii. 342-352, Sabatier
(_Encyclop. des sciences religieuses_, vii. 177 seq.), S. Cox (_The
Private Letters of St Paul and St John_, 1867), Farrar (_Early Days of
Christianity_, chs. xxxi., xxxiv. seq.), Gloag (_Introduction to
Catholic Epistles_, 1887, pp. 256-350), S. D. F. Salmond in Hasting's
_Dict. Bible_ (vol. ii), G. H. Gilbert (_The First Interpreters of
Jesus_, 1901, pp. 301-332), and V. Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_, 1900,
pp. 418 seq.; from a more advanced critical position by Cone (_The
Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations_, 1893, pp. 320-327), P. W.
Schmiedel (_Ency. Bib._, 2556-2562, also in a pamphlet, _Evangelium,
Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_, 1906; Eng. trans. 1908), J.
Réville (_Le Quatrième Evangile_, 1901, pp. 49 seq.) and Pfleiderer
(_Das Urchristentum_, 2nd ed., 1902, pp. 390 seq.). The problem of the
epistles is discussed incidentally by many writers on the Fourth
Gospel, as well as by writers on New Testament introduction like Zahn,
Jacquier, Barth and Belser, on the Conservative side, and Hilgenfeld,
Jülicher and von Soden on the Liberal. On the older Syriac version of
2 and 3 John, see Gwynn's article in _Hermathena_ (1890), pp. 281 seq.
On the general reception of the three epistles in the early Church,
Zahn's paragraphs (in his _Geschichte d. N. T. Kanons_, i. 209 seq.,
374 seq., 905 seq.; ii. 48 seq., 88 seq.) are the most adequate.
(J. Mt.)