Chapter XVI: Part 16

[2] Cf. Land's Appendix (_op. cit._ 172-193).

[3] See _Bulletin critique_, 15th June and 25th Aug. 1896, and 25th
Jan. 1897; _Journal asiatique_, 9th series, vol. viii. (1896) pp. 346
sqq. and vol. ix. (1897) p. 529; also _Revue de l'Orient chrétien,
Suppl. trimestriel_ (1897), pp. 41-54, 455-493; and compare Nöldeke
in _Vienna Oriental Journal_ (1896), pp. 160 sqq. The facts are
briefly stated in Duval's _Littérature syriaque_, p. 192. A full
analysis of this second part of John's history has been given by M.
Nau.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS (JOHANNES DAMASCENUS) (d. before 754), an eminent theologian of the Eastern Church, derives his surname from Damascus, where he was born about the close of the 7th century. His Arabic name was Mansur (the victor), and he received the epithet Chrysorrhoas (gold-pouring) on account of his eloquence. The principal account of his life is contained in a narrative of the 10th century, much of which is obviously legendary. His father Sergius was a Christian, but notwithstanding held a high office under the Saracen caliph, in which he was succeeded by his son. John is said to have owed his education in philosophy, mathematics and theology to an Italian monk named Cosmas, whom Sergius had redeemed from a band of captive slaves. About the year 730 he wrote several treatises in defence of image-worship, which the emperor, Leo the Isaurian, was making strenuous efforts to suppress.

Various pieces of evidence go to show that it was shortly after this date that he resolved to forsake the world, divided his fortune among his friends and the poor, and betook himself to the monastery of St Sabas, near Jerusalem, where he spent the rest of his life. After the customary probation he was ordained priest by the patriarch of Jerusalem. In his last years he travelled through Syria contending against the iconoclasts, and in the same cause he visited Constantinople at the imminent risk of his life during the reign of Constantine Copronymus. With him the "mysteries," the entire ritual, are an integral part of the Orthodox system, and all dogma culminates in image-worship. The date of his death is uncertain; it is probably about 752. John Damascenus is a saint both in the Greek and in the Latin Churches, his festival being observed in the former on the 29th of November and on the 4th of December, and in the latter on the 6th of May.

The works of Damascenus give him a foremost place among the
theologians of the early Eastern Church, and, according to Dorner, he
"remains in later times the highest authority in the theological
literature of the Greeks." This is not because he is an original
thinker but because he compiled into systematic form the scattered
teaching of his theological predecessors. Several treatises attributed
to him are probably spurious, but his undoubted works are numerous and
embrace a wide range. The most important contains three parts under
the general title [Greek: Pêgê gnôseôs] ("The Fountain of Knowledge").
The first part, entitled [Greek: Kephàlaia philosophika], is an
exposition and application of theology of Aristotle's Dialectic. The
second, entitled [Greek: Peri aireseôn] ("Of Heresies"), is a
reproduction of the earlier work of Epiphanius, with a continuation
giving an account of the heresies that arose after the time of that
writer. The third part, entitled [Greek: Hekdosis akribês tês
orthodoxou pisteos] ("An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith"),
is much the most important, containing as it does a complete system of
theology founded on the teaching of the fathers and church councils,
from the 4th to the 7th century. It thus embodies the finished result
of the theological thought of the early Greek Church. Through a Latin
translation made by Burgundio of Pisa in the 12th century, it was well
known to Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and in this way it influenced the
scholastic theology of the West. Another well-known work is the _Sacra
parallela_, a collection of biblical passages followed by
illustrations drawn from other scriptural sources and from the
fathers. There is much merit in his hymns and "canons"; one of the
latter is very familiar as the hymn "The Day of Resurrection, Earth
tell it out abroad." John of Damascus has sometimes been called the
"Father of Scholasticism," and the "Lombard of the Greeks," but these
epithets are appropriate only in a limited sense.

The Christological position of John may be summed up in the following
description:[1] "He tries to secure the unity of the two natures by
relegating to the divine Logos the formative and controlling agency.
It is not a human individual that the Logos assumes, nor is it
humanity, or human nature in general. It is rather a potential human
individual, a nature not yet developed into a person or hypostasis.
The hypostasis through which this takes place is the personal Logos
through whose union with this potential man, in the womb of Mary, the
potential man acquires a concrete reality, an individual existence. He
has, therefore, no hypostasis of himself but only in and through the
Logos. It is denied that he is _non-hypostatic_ ([Greek:
anypostatos]); it is affirmed that he is _en-hypostatic_ ([Greek:
enypostatos]). Two natures may form a unity, as the body and soul in
man. So man, both soul and body, is brought into unity with the Logos;
there being then one hypostasis for both natures." There is an
interchange of the divine and human attributes, a communication of the
former which deifies the receptive and passive human nature. In Christ
the human will has become the organ of the divine will. Thus while
John is an adherent of Chalcedon and a dyothelite, the drift of his
teaching is in the monophysite direction. "The Chalcedonian
_Definition_ is victorious, but Apollinaris is not overcome"; what
John gives with the one hand he takes away with the other. On the
question of the Atonement he regards the death of Christ as a
sacrifice offered to God and not a ransom paid to the devil.

LITERATURE.--The _Life_ of John of Damascus was written by John,
patriarch of Jerusalem in the 10th century (Migne, _Patrol. Graec._,
xciv. 429-489). The works were edited by Le Quien (2 vols., fol.,
Paris, 1712) and form vols. 94 to 96 in Migne's Greek series. A
monograph by J. Langen was published in 1879. A. Harnack's _History of
Dogma_ is very full (see especially vols. iii. and iv.; on the
image-worship controversy, iv. 322 seq.), and so are the similar works
of F. Loofs-Seeberg and A. Dorner. See also O. Bardenhewer's
_Patrologie_, and other literature cited in F. Kattenbusch's excellent
article in Hauck-Herzog, _Realencyklopädie_, vol. ix.

FOOTNOTE:

[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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] So Selwyn, _Christian Prophets_ (pp. 133-145), Harnack, Heinrici
(_Das Urchristenthum_, 1902, pp. 129 seq.), and von Soden (_History
of Early Christian Literature_, pp. 445-446), after Renan (_L'Église
chrétienne_, pp. 78 seq.). Von Dobschütz (_Christian Life in the
Primitive Church_, pp. 218 seq.) and R. Knopf (_Das nachapost.
Zeitalter_, 1905, pp. 32 seq., &c.) are among the most recent critics
who ascribe all three epistles to the presbyter.

[2] On the early allusions to these brief notes, cf. Gregory: _The
Canon and Text of the New Testament_ (1907), pp. 131, 190 seq.,
Westcott's _Canon of the New Testament_, pp. 218 seq., 355, 357, 366,
&c., and Leipoldt's _Geschichte d. neut. Kanons_ (1907), i. pp. 66
seq., 78 seq., 99 seq., 151 seq., 192 seq., 232 seq.

[3] In his ingenious study (_Texte und Untersuchungen_, xv. 3), whose
main contention is adopted by von Dobschütz and Knopf. On this view
(for criticism see Belser in the _Tübing. Quartalschrift_, 1897, pp.
150 seq., Krüger in _Zeitschrift für die wiss. Theologie_, 1898, pp.
307-311, and Hilgenfeld: ibid. 316-320), Diotrephes was voicing a
successful protest of the local monarchical bishops against the older
itinerant authorities (cf. Schmiedel, _Ency. Bib._, 3146-3147). As
Wilamowitz-Moellendorf (_Hermes_, 1898, pp. 529 seq.) points out,
there is a close connexion between ver. 11 and ver. 10. The same
writer argues that, as the substitution of [Greek: âgapêtos] for
[Greek: philtatos] (ver. 1) "ist Schönrednerei und nicht vom besten
Geschmacke," the writer adds [Greek: ón égô ágapô én álêtheía].

[4] This is the force of the [Greek: êmeîs] in 3 John 9-10 (cf. 1
John iv. 6, 14) "The truth" (3 John 3-5) seems to mean a life
answering to the apostolic standard thus enforced and exemplified.

[5] Several of these traits were reproduced in the teaching of
Cerinthus, others may have been directly Jewish or Jewish Christian.
The opposition to the Messianic rôle of Jesus had varied adherents.
The denial of the Virgin-birth, which also formed part of the system
of Cerinthus, was met by anticipation in the stories of Matthew and
Luke, which pushed back the reception of the spirit from the baptism
to the birth, but the Johannine school evidently preferred to answer
this heresy by developing the theory of the Logos, with its implicate
of pre-existence.

[6] On the vexed question whether the language of this paragraph is
purely spiritual or includes a realistic reference, cf. G. E. Findlay
(_Expositor_, 1893, pp. 97 seq.), and Dr E. A. Abbott's recent study
in _Diatessarica_, §§ 1615-1620. The writer is controverting the
Docetic heresy, and at the same time keeping up the line of
communications with the apostolic base.

[7] The universal range (ii. 2) ascribed to the redeeming work of
Christ is directed against Gnostic dualism and the Ebionitic
narrowing of salvation to Israel; only [Greek: êmeîs] here denotes
Christians in general, not Jewish Christians. On the answer to the
Gnostic pride of perfectionism (i. 8), cf. Epict. iv. 12, 19. The
emphasis on "you all" (ii. 20) hints at the Gnostic aristocratic
system of degrees among believers, which naturally tended to break up
brotherly love (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 1 seq.). The Gnostics also held that
a spiritual seed (cf. iii. 9) was implanted in man, as the germ of
his higher development into the divine life; for the Valentinian idea
cf. Iren. _Adv. Haer._ i. 64, and Tertull. _De anima_, 11 [haeretici]
"nescio quod spiritale semen infulciunt animae". Cf. the general
discussions by Häring in _Theologische Abhandlungen C. von Weizsäcker
gewidmet_ (1892), pp. 188 seq., and Zahn in _Wanderungen durch
Schrift u. Geschichte_ (1892), pp. 3-74.

[8] Cf. Denney, _The Death of Christ_ (1902), pp. 269-281. The
polemical reference to Cerinthus is specially clear at this point.
The death of Jesus was not that of a phantom, nor was his ministry
from the baptism to the crucifixion that of a heavenly aeon which
suffered nothing: such is the writer's contention. "In every case the
historical is asserted, but care is taken that it shall not be
materialized: a primacy is given to the spiritual.... Except through
the historical, there is no Christianity at all, but neither is there
any Christianity till the historical has been spiritually
comprehended." The well-known interpolation of the three heavenly
witnesses (v. 7) has now been proved by Karl Künstle (_Das Comma
Johanneum_, 1905) to have originally come from the pen of the 4th
century Spaniard, Priscillian, who himself denied all distinctions of
person in the Godhead.

[9] On the "sin to death" (v. 16) cf. Jubilees xxi. 22, xxvi. 34 with
Karl's _Johann. Studien_ (1898), i. 97 seq. and M. Goguel's _La
Notion johannique de l'esprit_ (1902), pp. 147-153, for the general
theology of the epistle. The conceptions of light and life are best
handled by Grill in his _Untersuchungen über die Entstehung des
vierten Evgliums_ (1902), pp. 301 seq., 312 seq.

[10] In Preuschen's _Zeitschrift für die neutest. Wissenschaft_
(1907), pp. 1-8, von Dobschütz tries to show that the present text of
ii. 28-iii. 12 indicates a revision or rearrangement of an earlier
text. Cludius (_Uransichten des Christentums_, Altona, 1808) had
already conjectured that a Gnostic editor must have worked over a
Jewish Christian document.

[11] Dr Alois Wurm's attempt (_Die Irrlehrer im ersten
Johannesbriefe_, 1903) to read the references to errorists solely in
the light of Jewish Christianity ignores or underrates several of the
data. He is supported on the whole by Clemen, in Preuschen's
_Zeitschrift_ (1905), pp. 271-281. There is certainly an anti-Jewish
touch, e.g. in the claim of iii. 1 (note the emphatic [Greek:
hêmin]), when one recollects the saying of Aqiba (Aboth iii. 12) and
Philo's remark, [Greek: kai gar ei mêpô ikanoi theou paides
nomizesthai gegonamen, alla toi tês aeidous eikonos autou, logou tou
hierôt atou theou gar eikôn logos ho presbytatos] (_De conf. ling._
28). But the antithesis of John and Cerinthus, unlike that of Paul
and Cerinthus (Epiph. _Haer._ xxviii.), is too well based in the
tradition of the early Church to be dismissed as a later dogmatic
reflection, and the internal evidence of this manifesto corroborates
it clearly.

[12] "The style is not flowing and articulated; the sentences come
like minute-guns, as they would drop from a natural Hebrew. The
writer moves, indeed, amidst that order of religious ideas which
meets us in the Fourth Gospel, and which was that of the Greek world
wherein he found himself. He moves amongst these new ideas, however,
not with the practised felicity of the evangelist, but with something
of helplessness, although the depth and serene beauty of his spirit
give to all he says an infinite impressiveness and charm" (M. Arnold;
_God and the Bible_, ch. vi.).

[13] By the end of the 2nd century it appears to have been fairly
well-known, to judge from Origen, Irenaeus (iii. 16, 8), and Clement
of Alexandria (_Stran._ ii. 15, 66). In the Muratorian canon, which
mentions two epistles of John, it seems to be reckoned (cf. Kuhn,
_Das Murat. Fragment_, pp. 58 f.) as an appendix or sequel to the
Fourth Gospel. The apparent traces of its use in Ignatius (cf.
_Smyrn._ vi. 2 = 1 John iii. 17; _Smyrn._ vii = 1 John iii. 14, and
_Eph._ xviii. = 1 John v. 6) seem too insecure, of themselves, to
warrant any hypothesis of filiation.

JOHN, GOSPEL OF ST, the fourth and latest of the Gospels, in the Bible, and, next to that of St Mark, the shortest. The present article will first describe its general structure and more obvious contents; compare it with the Synoptic Gospels; and draw out its leading characteristics and final object. It will then apply the tests thus gained to the narratives special to this Gospel; and point out the book's special difficulties and limits, and its abiding appeal and greatness. And it will finally consider the questions of its origin and authorship.

_Analysis of Contents._--The book's chief break is at xiii. 1, the
solemn introduction to the feet-washing: all up to here reports Jesus'
signs and apologetic or polemical discourses to the outer world; hence
onwards it pictures the manifestation of His glory to the inner circle
of His disciples. These two parts contain three sections each.

1. (i.) Introduces the whole work (i. 1-ii. 11). (a) The prologue, i.
1-18. The Logos existed before creation and time; was with the very
God and was God; and all things were made through Him. For in this
Logos is Life, and this Life is a Light which, though shining in
darkness, cannot be suppressed by it. This true Light became flesh and
tabernacled amongst us; and we beheld His glory, as of an
Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John the
Baptist testified concerning Him, the Logos-Light and Logos-Life
incarnate; but this Logos alone, who is in the bosom of the Father,
hath declared the very God. (b) The four days' work (i. 19-51). On the
first three days John declares that he is not the Christ, proclaims
Jesus to be the Christ, and sends his own disciples away to Jesus. On
the fourth day, Jesus Himself calls Philip and Nathanael. (c) The
seventh day's first manifestation of the Incarnate Light's glory (ii.
1-11 ); Jesus at Cana turns water into wine.

(ii.) Records the manifestations of the Light's and Life's glory and
power to friend and foe (ii. 22-vi. 71). (d) Solemn inauguration of
the Messianic ministry (ii. 12-iii. 21): cleansing of the Temple and
prophecy of His resurrection; discourse to Nicodemus on baptismal
regeneration. (e) Three scenes in Judea, Samaria, Galilee respectively
(iii. 32-iv. 54): the Baptist's second testimony; Jesus' discourse
with the woman at the well concerning the spiritual, universal
character of the new religion; and cure of the ruler's son, the reward
of faith in the simple word of Jesus. (f) Manifestation of Jesus as
the vivifying Life-Logos and its contradiction in Judea, v.: the
paralytic's cure. (g) Manifestation of Jesus as the heaven-descended
living Bread and its contradiction in Galilee, vi.: multiplication of
the loaves; walking on the waters; and His discourse on the holy
Eucharist.

(iii.) Acute conflict between the New Light and the old darkness
(vii.-xii). (h) Self-manifestation of the Logos-Light in the Temple
(vii. 1-x. 39). Journey to the feast of tabernacles; invitation to the
soul athirst to come to Him (the fountain of Life) and drink, and
proclamation of Himself as the Light of the world; cure of the man
born blind; allegory of the good shepherd. The allegory continued at
the feast of the dedication. They strive to stone or to take Him. (i)
The Logos-Life brings Lazarus to life; effects of the act (x. 40-xii.
50). Jesus withdraws beyond Jordan, and then comes to Bethany, His
friend Lazarus being buried three days; proclaims Himself the
Resurrection and the Life; and calls Lazarus back to life. Some who
saw it report the act to the Pharisees; the Sanhedrim meets, Caiaphas
declares that one man must die for the people, and henceforward they
ceaselessly plan His death. Jesus withdraws to the Judaean desert, but
soon returns, six days before Passover, to Bethany; Mary anoints Him,
a crowd comes to see Him and Lazarus, and the hierarchs then plan the
killing of Lazarus also. Next morning He rides into Jerusalem on an
ass's colt. Certain Greeks desire to see Him: He declares the hour of
His glorification to have come: "Now My soul is troubled.... Father,
save Me from this hour. But for this have I come unto this hour:
Father, glorify Thy Name." A voice answers, "I have glorified it and
will glorify it again": some think that an angel spoke; but Jesus
explains that this voice was not for His sake but for theirs. When
lifted up from earth, He will draw all men to Himself; they are to
believe in Him, the Light. The writer's concluding reflection: the
small success of Jesus' activity among the Jews. Once again He cries:
"I am come a Light into the world, that whoso believeth in Me should
not abide in darkness."

2. The Logos-Christ's manifestation of His life and love to His
disciples, during the last supper, the passion, the risen life
(xiii.-xx.).

(iv.) The Last Supper (xiii.-xvii.) (j) Solemn washing of the
disciples' feet; the beloved disciple; designates the traitor; Judas
goes forth, it is night (xiii. 1-30). (k) Last discourses, first
series (xiii. 31-xiv. 31): the new commandment, the other helper;
"Arise, let us go hence." Second series (xv. 1-xvi. 33): allegory of
the true vine; "Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down
his life for his friend"; the world's hatred; the spirit of truth
shall lead them into all truth; "I came forth from the Father and am
come into the world, again I leave the world and go to the Father";
"Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (l) The high-priestly
prayer (xvii). "Father, glorify Thy Son ... with the glory which I had
with Thee before the world was ... that to as many as Thou hast given
Him, He should give eternal life." "I pray for them, I pray not for
the world. I pray also for them that shall believe in Me through their
word, that they may be all one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in
Thee."

(v.) The Passion (xviii.-xix.). (m) In the garden: the Roman soldiers
come to apprehend Him, fall back upon the ground at His declaration "I
am He." Peter and Malchus. (n) Before Annas at night and Caiaphas at
dawn; Peter's denials (xviii. 12-27). (o) Before Pilate (xviii.
28-40). Jesus declares, "My kingdom is not of this world. I have come
into the world that I may bear witness to the truth: everyone that is
of the truth, heareth My voice"; Pilate asks sceptically "What is
truth?" and the crowd prefers Barabbas. (p) The true king presented to
the people as a mock-king; His rejection by the Jews and abandonment
to them (xix. 1-16). (q) Jesus carries His cross to Golgotha, and is
crucified there between two others; the cross's title and Pilate's
refusal to alter it (xix. 17-22). (r) The soldiers cast lots upon His
garments and seamless tunic; His mother with two faithful women and
the beloved disciple at the cross's foot; His commendation of His
mother and the disciple to each other; His last two sayings in
deliberate accomplishment of scripture "I thirst," "It is
accomplished." He gives up the spirit; His bones remain unbroken; and
from His spear-lanced side blood and water issue (xix. 23-37). (s) The
two nobles, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, bind the dead body in
a winding sheet with one hundred pounds of precious spices, and place
it in a new monument in a near garden, since the sabbath is at hand.

(vi.) The risen Jesus, Lord and God (xx.). (t) At early dawn on the
first day of the week, Mary Magdalen, finding the stone rolled away
from the monument, runs to tell Peter and the beloved disciple that
the Lord's body has been removed. Peter and the other disciple run to
the grave; the latter, arriving first, enters only after Peter has
gone in and noted the empty grave-clothes--enters and believes. After
their departure, Mary sees two angels where His body had lain and
turning away beholds Jesus standing, yet recognizes Him only when He
addresses her. He bids her "Do not touch Me, for I have not yet
ascended"; but to tell His brethren "I ascend to My Father and to your
Father, to My God and to your God." And she does so. (u) Second
apparition (xx. 19-23). Later on the same day, the doors being shut,
Jesus appears amongst His disciples, shows them His (pierced) hands
and side, and solemnly commissions and endows them for the apostolate
by the words, "As the Father hath sent Me, so I send you," and by
breathing upon them saying "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins ye
remit, they are remitted to them; whose sins ye retain, they are
retained." (v) Third apparition and culminating saying; conclusion of
entire book (xx. 24-31). Thomas, who had been absent, doubts the
resurrection; Jesus comes and submits to the doubter's tests. Thomas
exclaims, "My Lord and my God"; but Jesus declares "Blessed are they
that have not seen and yet have believed." "Now Jesus," concludes the
writer, "did many other signs, ... but these are written, that ye may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing
ye may have life in His name."

The above analysis is rough, since even distantly placed sections,
indeed the two parts themselves, are interrelated by delicate complex
references on and back. And it omits the account of the adulteress
(vii. 53-viii. 11): (a valuable report of an actual occurrence which
probably belonged to some primitive document otherwise incorporated by
the Synoptists), because it is quite un-Johannine in vocabulary, style
and character, intercepts the Gospel's thread wherever placed, and is
absent from its best MSS. It also omits xxi. This chapter's first two
stages contain an important early historical document of Synoptic
type: Jesus' apparition to seven disciples by the Lake of Galilee and
the miraculous draught of fishes; and Peter's threefold confession and
Jesus' threefold commission to him. And its third stage, Jesus'
prophecies to Peter and to the beloved disciple concerning their
future, and the declaration "This is the disciple who testifies to
these things and who has written them, and we know that his testimony
is true," is doubtless written by the redactor of the previous two
stages. This writer imitates, but is different from, the great author
of the first twenty chapters.