There are three canonical books in the New Testament written by the Apostle Saint John.
The subject will be dealt with under the following headings
Contents
- 1 First Epistle
- 1.1 Authenticity
- 1.2 Place in the Canon
- 1.3 Integrity
- 1.4 Author
- 1.5 Time and Place
- 1.6 Recipient and Purpose
- 1.7 Plot
- 2 Second Epistle
- 3 Third Epistle
First Epistle
Authenticity
A. External evidence
The brevity of this letter (105 verses divided into five chapters) and the lateness of its composition could lead us to suspect that there are no traces of it in the Apostolic Fathers. However, these traces exist and some of them are unquestionable. Saint Polycarp (d. C. 110 – 117, according to Harnack, whose chronology we will follow in this article) writes to the Philippians: “For whoever does not confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh is Antichrist” (c. vi; Funk, “Fathers Apostolic”, I, 304). Here is an evident trace of John I, iv, 2 – 3; so evident that Harnack considers this testimony of Polycarp as conclusive proof that the first Epistle and, consequently, the Gospel of St. John were written towards the end of the reign of Trajan, that is, before 117 AD. C. (compare Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur, I, 658). It is true that Polycarp does not name John or quote his words verbatim; the Apostolic Fathers quote from memory and are not inclined to name the inspired author whom they quote. The argument for Polycarp’s use of I John is strengthened by the fact that he was, according to Irenaeus, a disciple of St. John. The distinctive Johannine phrase “come in the flesh” (en sarki eleluthota) is used also in the Epistle of Barnabas (v, 10; Funk, op. cit., I, 53) which was written around 130 AD. C. We know from the authority of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xx) that this First Epistle of Saint John was quoted by Papias, a disciple of John and a follower of Polycarp (d. C. 145 – 160). Irenaeus (d. D. 181-189) not only cites I John ii, 18, and v, 1 but attributes the citation of John to “St. John the disciple of the Lord” (“Adv. Hær.” 3, 16; Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, V, viii). The Muratorian Canon (AD 195-205) tells the story of St. John’s Gospel writings consistent with a revelation made to the Apostle Andrew and adds: “What is astonishing, then, is that John so frequently in his letters gives us details of his Gospel and tells of himself, etc” — I John i, 1 is quoted here. St. Clement of Alexandria (d. D. 190-203) quotes v, 3, with his usually undoubted accuracy, and he expressly assigns the words to John (“Pædag.”, III, xi; Kirch. Comm., ed. I, p. 281). Tertullian (d. D. 194-221) (agreeing with Dominic) tells us that John, in his Epistle, names as Antichrist those who deny that Christ is come in the flesh (De Præscrip. 33), and clearly attributes to ” John the author of the Apocalypse” various passages of the First Epistle (cf. “Adv. Marc.”, III, 8, and V, 16, in PL, II, 359 and 543; “Adv. Gnost.”, 12, in PL, II, 169; “Adv. Prax.”, 15, in PL, II, 196).
B. Internal evidence
The internal evidence for a common authorship between the Gospel and the First Epistle of St. John is so striking as to be almost universally admitted. It cannot be accidental that in both documents we find the distinctive and ever-recurring words of light, darkness, truth, life, and love; the exact Johannine phrases “walk in the light”, “be of the truth”, “be of the devil”, “be of the world”, “overcome the world”, etc. Only those skeptical and erratic critics like Holtzmann and Schmiedel can deny the strength of this argument on internal evidence; they conclude that both documents come from the same school, not from the same hand.
Place in the Canon
The foregoing citations, the fact that there was never any dispute or doubt among the fathers as to the canonicity of the First Epistle of John, the existence of this document in all the ancient translations of the New Testament and in the great uncial (Sinaitic) manuscripts , Alexandrians, etc) — these are arguments of enormous force to establish the acceptance of this letter by the early Church as canonical Scripture, and to prove that the inclusion of the First Epistle of Saint John in the Canon of the Council of Trent was only the conciliar acceptance of an already existing fact — the fact is that the letter has always been among those approved as Sacred Writings.
Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity in which there is serious doubt is in the famous passage of the three witnesses: “For there are three who bear witness” (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on Earth): “the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three agree in the same thing” (1 John 5:7-8). Over the past three centuries, multiple efforts have been made to expunge the words in parentheses from our edition of the Clementine Vulgate of Canonical Scripture. Let’s examine the facts of the case.
A. Greek Manuscript
The part under discussion is not found in any uncial Greek manuscript and is found in only four more recent cursive manuscripts—one from the fifteenth century and three from the sixteenth century. No epistolary Greek manuscript contains this passage.
B. Versions
No Syriac manuscript or family — Peshitta, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has these three witnesses; and its presence in the Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate. Neither do the Coptic manuscripts – both Sahidic and Bohairic – bear any trace of these disputed parts, nor do the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the Copts. The Armenian manuscripts, which favor the Vulgate reading, are admitted to represent a Latin influence dating from the twelfth century; the early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin readings. Of the old Latin manuscripts from Italy, only two have our current reading of the three witnesses: the Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth- or ninth-century manuscript giving some annotations from the New Testament. Even the Vulgate, in most of the early manuscripts, does not contain the passage under discussion. Witnesses to canonicity are: the Theodolf Bible (8th century) in the National Library in Paris; the Cavensis Code (ninth century), the best representative of the type of Spanish texts: Toledano (tenth century); and most of the Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century. There was a dispute over the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in the Fuldence Code (AD 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage in some of the the Latin versions.
C. The Parents
(1) None of the Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem to know the three witnesses as canonical Scripture. When they quote verses 8 and 9 they omit the disputed portions of verses 7 and 8. The fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215), in its decree against Abbot Joachim (see Denzinger n. 431, 10th edition) notes the passage under discussion with the observation “sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur” . Thereafter we find that the Greek Fathers make use of the text as canonical. (2) The Syrian Fathers never use this text. (3) The Armenian Fathers do not use it before the twelfth century. (4) The Latin Fathers make earlier use of this text as Canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) undoubtedly seems to have it in mind when he points to John, x, 30, and adds: “Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est — Et hi tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi) . Also clear is the witness of San Fulgencio (sixth century, “Respuesta contra los Arrianos” in PL, LXV, 224), who refers to the aforementioned witness of San Cipriano. Indeed, outside of St. Augustine, the African Church Fathers must group with St. Cyprian in favor of the canonicity of this passage. The silence of the important and voluminous Saint Augustine and the variations in the form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. Saint Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is used more and more by the Latin Fathers; and by the twelfth century, it is commonly cited as Canonical Scripture.
D. Ecclesiastical Documents
The first defined ecumenical decree is that of the Council of Trent, where the Church establishes the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. We cannot say that the Conciliar decree necessarily includes the three witnesses in the Canon. Since in the preliminary discussions on the signs leading to the canonization of “the whole book with all its parts, as it is desired to be read in the Catholic Church and is contained in the old Latin Vulgate”, there is nothing at all in As for references to this part in particular; for this reason this part in particular is not canonized by the Council of Trent, unless it is true that the text of the three witnesses “is intended to be read in the Catholic Church and is contained in the old Latin Vulgate.” Both conditions must be verified before the canonicity of the texts is certain. None of these conditions has been verified with certainty; on the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was at no time and nowhere intended to be read in the Catholic Church and is not contained in the original Old Latin Vulgate. In any case, the Catholic Theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; for him the authentic decisions of all the Roman Congregations (Sacræ Cardinalium Congregationes) are the signs that guide in the use of the Holy Scriptures, which the Church and only the Church has given him as the Word of God – he cannot pass for above the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (January 13, 1897), through which it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum cannot be safely denied (tuto) or questioned. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Although its approval was not in forma specifica, like the approval of Pius X’s “Lamentabili” decree, all further discussions of the text in question must be carried out with the deference due to this decree. (See “Revue Biblique”, 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, “Prælectiones Dogmaticæ”, II, 250.)
Author
It has been of crucial importance to determine that this letter is authentic, that is, that it belongs to the Apostolic era, that it is apostolic in its origins and that it is reliable. Among those who admit the authenticity and canonicity of the letter, some maintain that the sacred writer was not the Apostle Saint John but John the Presbyter. We have followed the traces of the tradition of the Apostolic origin of the letter to the times of Saint Irenaeus. Harnack and his collaborators admit that Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, assigns its authorship to the Apostle Saint …