Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/743

 EPISTLES.] JOHN 09 ever, and in St Augustine s Qusest. Evang., ii. 39, the address ad Parthos is found. Bede adds testimony to the same effect. But such a destination of the epistle is unlikely in itself, receives no support from the Greek Church, and is opposed to ecclesiastical tradition. Hence the best criticism rejects the superscription. It is variously accounted for. Winston, in his Commentary on the Epistles (1719), suggests that the original address was vrpos -rrap- Oevovs, and that this abbreviated appeared in Latin as ad Parthos ; according to others it is a corruption of ad Sparsos, &quot;to the dispersed.&quot; Before textual criticism was studied scientifically, much controversy turned upon the words contained in vers. 7 and 8 of ch. v. The disputed passage, ev TU&amp;gt; ovpavw. . . ev rf) fff, is now omitted by all the leading editors, on indis putable authority. SECOND AND THIED EPISTLES. These are interesting as the only examples of apostolic letters to private persons, except the epistle to Philemon, which have descended to us. Their genuineness is well attested, though with less decisive evidence than that of the First Epistle. Irenoeus quotes 2 John 10, 11. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., ii. 60) alludes to the First Epistle in a way which implies another, iv rfj /x.ei ovi eTrtoroXry. Dionysius of Alexandria (248 A.D.) makes express mention of the Second and Third Epistles ; Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, cites a passage from the Second. The Muratorian canon, as already stated, probably contains a reference to the two minor epistles. On the other hand, Eusebius mentions those epistles among the dvriAeyojiteva, or disputed writings (//. E.,ii. 25); Jerome writes that they were ascribed to John the Presbyter ; Cyprian appears never to cite from them in his own writings (though he records words of Bishop Aurelius, who, speaking in a synod, quotes 2 John 9) ; Tertullian is equally silent ; the Peshito does not contain either epistle. In answer to the doubts thus raised it has been urged that the brevity and unimportance of the two minor epistles sufficiently account for the comparative silence of the first two centuries respecting them ; that the existence of John the Presbyter rests on the slender authority of an inference from a statement by Papias (Eus., H. E. t iii. 39) ; that the style and expressions in the disputed epistles are so manifestly Johanriine that, if they did not proceed from John the apostle, they must be the work of a conscious imitator, who, if honest, would have used his own name, if an intentional deceiver, that of the apostle : that the term 6 Trpecr/SuTepos (&quot; the elder,&quot; or &quot; the aged &quot;), 2 John 1, 3 John 1, is either a title of dignity or descriptive of age (if the first it may be paralleled by the use of (rvfjLirpt(r(3vTepo&amp;lt;;, 1 Pet. v. 1 ; if the second, by that of Trpe&amp;lt;r(3vTr)&amp;lt;;, Phil. 9, both applied by an apostle to himself). The greeting in the Second Epistle iKXeicrfj Kvpia is variously interpreted either of a person (to the elect lady, to the elect Kyria, or to the lady Eclecta), or (b) of a church mystically addressed under a personal appellation. The last hypothesis is unlikely, and is not supported either by New Testament usage or by the early apocryphal writings. If either e/cA-r/cn? or Kvpia be a proper name, it is better to regard xvpta. as such, since t/cXe/cro s is a term applied to all the saints, and in this very letter to the lady s sister, ver. 13. On the whole it is more probable that both e/cAeK-rr; and KvpLa bear their ordinary meanings, and that the A.V. is correct. The Third Epistle is addressed to Gaius or Cuius, a name so common that all identifications must be regarded as purely conjectural. From the epistle we learn that he was a Christian of good report, probably a layman, whom the apostle commends for his hospitality to certain missionaries of the faith who seem to have visited his city. Two other names are mentioned Diotrephes, a leading and ambitious presbyter, who had refused to obey the apostle s injunctions, and Demetrius, either the bearer of the epistle or a member of the same church to which Caius belonged. The time when and the place where these epistles wore written must remain unknown from the absence of any data by which to determine them. The works consulted for this article have been the commentaries of Alford, Ebrard, Liicke, and Reuss on the Epistles, and that of Westcott on the Gospel of St John (Speaker s Commentary) ; &quot;West- cott, The Canon of the New Testament ; Neander s Planting of Chris tianity (Bohn s trans., vol. ii.); F. D. Maurice s Lectures on the Epistles of St John ; and Davidson s Introduction to the New Testa ment. There are also commentaries, among others, by Dtisterdieck, 1852; Luthardt, 1860; Haupt, 1869; Baur, 1848; Hilgenfeld, 1854, the last two representing the Tubingen school of criticism. (A. C. *) JOHN, GOSPEL OF. See GOSPELS, vol. x. p. 818. JOHN THE BAPTIST, the last of the prophets and the &quot; forerunner &quot; of Christ, was born in a TroAis MovSa (accord ing to rabbinical tradition, at Hebron, but according to an ingenious modern interpretation of the phrase, at Jutta), in the beginning of the second half of the year 749 A.u.c. His father Zechariah was a priest &quot;of the course of Abia&quot;; his mother Elizabeth was related to Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose senior he was by six months. The circum stances of his birth are related with much detail in Luke i., but those of his early years are summed up in the single expression at ver. 80 that he &quot; grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.&quot; In his thirtieth year (Autumn, 779 A.U.C.) he began his public life in the &quot; wilderness of Judaea,&quot; the wild district that lies between the Kidron and the Dead Sea, and particularly in the neighbourhood of the Jordan, where multitudes were attracted by his eloquence. His appearance, costume, and habits of life were such as to recall to the minds of his hearers what they had read about the ancient prophets, and particularly about Elijah, who came to be regarded as his prototype. Nor was his preach ing in substance different from theirs : his central doctrine was that &quot; the kingdom of heaven &quot; had come near, and preparation for its speedy arrival by an appropriate change of heart and life was the practical duty he urged. With regard to the nature of the baptism he administered, much uncertainty exists ; for some discussion of its origin and meaning, the reader is referred to the article BAPTISM (vol. iii. p. 348-9). Amongst those who resorted to this rite was John s kinsman, Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had foretold, and now acknowledged, as one mightier than himself, the latchet of whose shoes he was not worthy to unloose. The duration of John s ministry cannot be deter mined with certainty ; it terminated in his imprisonment in the fortress of Machaerus, to which he had been committed by Herod Antipas, whose incestuous marriage with Herodias the Baptist had sternly rebuked, and where he was beheaded under circumstances which are familiar to every reader of the Bible. The date of this event cannot with safety be placed later than the end of 782 A.u.c. For our knowledge of John the Baptist we are almost entirely dependent on the notices contained in the Gospel narratives, but a brief account of his career is also given by Josephus (Ant., xviii. 5); some legends of an obviously fictitious character are contained in the apocryphal Gospels. JOHN, the name of twenty- two popes. JOHN I. (pope from 523 to 526) was a Tuscan by birth, Popes, and was consecrated pope on the death of Hormisdas. In 525 he was sent by Theodoric at the head of an embassy to Constantinople to obtain from the emperor Justin toleration for the Arians; but, whether designedly or not, he succeeded so imperfectly in his mission that Theodoric on his return, suspecting that he had acted only halfheartedly, threw him into prison, where he shortly afterwards died, Felix IV. (or