Third Epistle of John - Early Quotations

Early Quotations

The earliest possible attestations for 3 John come from Tertullian and Origen of Alexandria. Tertullian, "On Monogamy" ch.vi quotes a brief phrase—"follow the better things"— from 3 John 1.11 "Beloved, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good", a phrase that might also have been adapted from the Septuagint Psalm xxxvi. 27 (xxxvii in the Hebrew Bible) or from the First Epistle of Peter 3.11 . Origen's Commentary on Matthew book xi says "But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh", which has been offered as a parallel showing the use of logos in 3 John 1.7. . Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses iii. 16. 7 (written ca. 175), quotes 2 John. 7 and 8, and in the next sentence I John 4:1, 2, as from "the Letter of John."; he does not quote from 3 John. The Muratorian Canon accepts two letters of John only.

The first reference to 3 John is in the middle of the third century; Eusebius says that Origen knew of both 2 and 3 John, however Origen is reported as saying "all do not consider them genuine." Similarly, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen's pupil, was aware of a "reputed Second or Third Epistle of John." Also around this time 3 John is thought to have been known in North Africa as it was referred to in Sententiae Episcoporum, produced by the Seventh Council of Carthage.

There was also doubt about the authority of 3 John, with Eusebius listing it and 2 John as "disputed books" despite describing them as "well-known and acknowledged by most." Although Eusebius believed the Apostle wrote the Gospel and the epistles, it is likely that doubt about the fidelity of the author of 2 and 3 John was a factor in causing them to be disputed. By the end of the fourth century the Presbyter (author of 2 and 3 John) was thought to be a different person to the Apostle John. This opinion, although reported by Jerome, was not held by all, as Jerome himself attributed the epistles to John the Apostle.

All three Johannine epistles were recognised by the 39th festal letter of Athanasius, the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage. Additionally Didymus the blind wrote a commentary on all three epistles, showing that by the early 5th century they were being considered as a single unit.

The late attestation for 3 John in the 3rd century, and doubts about authority continuing until even later, is probably due to the lack of certainty regarding the epistle's authorship. 1 John does not give direct information about its author, but it was considered apostolic, alongside the Gospel of John. 2 and 3 John, in comparison, are written by the mysterious "elder" or "Presbyter". This difference was responsible for the belief that 2 and 3 John were written by some one other than the apostle. Paradoxically their acceptance in to the canon was due to the change in belief that they were in fact of apostolic origin. However Brooke does caution that the late attestation may be due to the very short nature of the letter.