First John-Introduction-Canonicity of Johannine Epistles
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Tuesday January 31, 2017
First John: Canonicity of Johannine Epistles
Lesson # 2
The term “canon” or “canonicity” in Christianity refers to a collection of many books acknowledged or recognized by the early church as inspired by God.
Canonicity is actually determined by God or in other words, a book is not inspired because men determined or decreed that it was canonical but rather it is canonical because God inspired it.
It was not the Jewish people who determined what should be in their Old Testament and it was not the Christian community that determined which Christian literary works would be in the New Testament canon.
Therefore, inspiration determines canonization.
Canonicity is determined authoritatively by God and this authority is simply recognized by His people.
The biblical canon is not, of course, primarily a collection or list of literary masterpieces, like the Alexandrian lists, but one of authoritative sacred texts. Their authority is derived not from their early date, nor from their role as records of revelation (important though these characteristics were), but from the fact that they were believed to be inspired by God and thus to share the nature of revelation themselves. This belief, expressed at various points in the OT, had become a settled conviction among Jews of the intertestamental period, and is everywhere taken for granted in the NT treatment of the OT. That NT writings share this scriptural and inspired character is first stated in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Peter 3:16. Pagan religion also could speak of ‘holy scriptures’ and attribute them on occasion to a deity (see J. Leipoldt and S. Morenz, Heilige Schriften [Leipzig, 1953], pp. 21f., 28–30), but the Jewish and Christian claims were made credible by the different quality of biblical religion and biblical literature. In a dictionary of biblical theology, the canon provides both boundaries and a basis. We are not engaged in producing a general survey of ancient Jewish and Christian religious ideas; if we were, all the surviving literature from the period would have an equal claim to our attention. Rather, we are engaged in interpreting the revelation of God, and for this the books which are believed to embody that revelation, and their text, are alone directly relevant. The accepted ways of arranging the canonical books are also significant, in so far as they highlight the historical progression of revelation and the literary forms in which it was given.
At the beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius classified 2 and 3 John as among the “disputed” epistles of John.
During the fifth century, the Peshitta (Syrian translation of Bible) included 1 John but not these two epistles.
However, both of these epistles were employed by the early church fathers since they paraphrased, cited or interpreted verses or passages from all of John’s epistles.
It appears from the writings of the church fathers that 2 John was cited more than 3 John.
Even though 2 and 3 John were not universally accepted as part of the canon early in the church’s history, they eventually were considered as part of the canon of the New Testament.
First epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (ca. ad 96), the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (ca. ad 110-115), and the Didache (between ad 90-120) contain allusions or indirect references to 1 John and/or 2 and 3 John.
Also, containing references to these epistles are the epistle of Barnabas (ca. ad 130), the Shepherd of Hermas (before ad 150), the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (ca. ad 150).
Both the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr (ca. ad 150), and another early apologetic work of uncertain authorship, the epistle to Diognetus contain references to all three epistles of John (dated by scholars between ad 125-225).
The following also have allusions to the epistles of John: (1) Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians (before ad 140), and (2) the testimony of Papias (a contemporary of Polycarp), which survives only in quotation by Eusebius.
These works contain the first undeniable quo¬tations from the Johannine Letters.
Furthermore, Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (ca. ad 180) includes in three passages direct citations of 1 and 2 John.
In 1.16.3, Irenaeus quotes from 2 John 11 in which he adds that the epistle was written by the Lord’s disciple John, who was also the author of the fourth gospel.
In 3.16.5, he quotes from 1 John 2:18-19 and 21-22, and 3.16.8 is quoted from 2 John 7-8, 1 John 4:1-2 and 5:1.
All of these are part of Irenaeus’ arguments against the Gnostics.
All these are the earliest works, which in the opinion of many New Testament scholars probably do reflect knowledge of one or more of the Johannine epistles.
The Muratorian Canon (ca. ad 200) is a fragment of an early Latin list of books considered canonical, thought to be associated with the church of Rome.
It describes how John wrote the fourth Gospel and then refers to his “epistles” although the number is disputed.
Later the fragment adds, “Certainly the Epistle of Jude and two of the previously mentioned John are accepted in the catholic church.”
Although the meaning of this statement is disputed, R. Brown takes this as a reference to 1 and 2 John.
Katz tried to see a reference to all three letters by taking “catholic” to refer not to the church but to the “catholic epistle” of John, namely 1 John.
It has also been argued that the Muratorian Canon would have placed 1 John with the Gospel and thus must refer at this point to 2 and 3 John.
It appears that 2 John may have been considered part of 1 John in the West.
Irenaeus quotes 2 John 7-8 in Adv. haer. 3.16.8 as coming from the epistle he has already quoted, which has to be 1 John, quoted in 3.16.5.
If so, the Muratorian Canon may well be referring to 1 and 2 John combined, plus 3 John as a separate letter.
However, this is far from certain.
Tertullian quotes 1 John more than 40 times, referring to it as the work of John the apostle.
Clement of Alexandria (died ca. ad 220) not only quotes 1 John a number of times but attributes this to John the apostle and speaks of it as “the greater epistle,” which indicates he knew at least one more of the Johannine letters and considered them to come from the same author.
It would appear that the other Johannine letter Clement knew was 2 John, since his Adumbrationes contains a commentary on 2 John.
Origen quoted frequently from 1 John and referred to it as written by the apostle John.
According to Eusebius, Origen knew of both 2 and 3 John, although he was aware that all did not consider them genuine.
As a matter of fact, Origen never quotes 2 or 3 John in any of his surviving works.
The only firsthand evidence that he knew more than one Johannine letter rests on the use of a plural in the Latin translation (the Greek original is lost) of his Homilies on Joshua (7.1) where he refers to the “epistles” of John.
This is somewhat ques¬tionable because later in the same work (7.4) he speaks in the singular of “his epistle.”
According to Eusebius Origen’s pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria regarded 1 John to be written by the same author as the fourth Gospel, although he distinguished both 1 John and the fourth Gospel in style from Revelation, which he therefore attributed to a different author.
Dionysius also knew there did exist a so-called second or third epistle of John.
It can be determined from the external evidence that 1 John, at least, was being quoted without question as to its authenticity or authority well before the end of the second century in both the West and the East.
It also appears that the author was accepted to be John the apostle, who was understood to be the author of the fourth Gospel as well.
Akin writes “The canonicity of 1 John was never questioned. Second and Third John were viewed as antilegomena or disputed. It is likely the books were not widely circulated due to their private nature and brevity, and as a result, they were not well-known among the churches. Athanasius included them in his 39th Paschal Letter (a.d. 367), and the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) accepted them as canonical.”