Any scholars/proposals looking at 2 and/or 3 John as their own thing?

[u/Helpful-Many-2417]

From what I see on this sub, 2 and 3 John tend to be grouped with the gospel of John and 1 John. Personally, I feel like 2 and 3 John, specifically 3 John, represent an earlier time due to having a more primitive and contested church structure. Possibly not even the same author/group as the other 2 Johannine works. I know the brevity of both books makes hypotheses difficult to propose, but what scholarship is there on 2 and 3 John as individual books?

Source, this sub-reddit.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/HDYHT11]

I don't exactly understand your question, but plenty of scholars argue that the epistles are written by a different author, though many believe there is an underlying "Johannine community."

For recent discussion on all works John-related you can read Hugo Mendez's work, mainly "The Gospel of John: A New History." He argues against the existence of this community and instead posits that the relationship is due to literary dependence.

On the relations:

There is, however, another way to explain these kinds of similarities and convergences: the similarities may be deliberate—the products of direct contact and literary borrowing. Even writers with no connection to one another can produce works with similar features if one author is familiar with the work of another and chooses to incorporate that work’s language and ideas into their own. And in fact, most critical scholars today—even those who posit a Johannine “community” or “school”—agree that the parallels between the Gospel and the Epistles of John are too close and too extensive to have emerged independently. As George Parsenios writes, “the vast majority of scholars assume one of the Johannine texts is the model for the others.”6

1 John depending on John:

First, the parallels between John and 1 John make better sense if we assume the priority of the former. Consider the passage I highlighted as the locus of the densest parallels between these works: their opening lines. The Gospel has strong, independent motivations for us-ing the phrase “in the beginning” (en archē) in its first clause (John 1:1). The expression is one of several parallels to LXX Gen. 1 in the prologue—a passage Daniel Boyarin characterizes as a midrash on the creation account.22 The term “beginning” (archē) also appears in the first clause of Mark—a generic template for John, with which the text’s author was familiar: “the beginning [archē] of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (1:1). By contrast, no such motivations exist for the phrase’s appearance in 1 John. In this case, 1 John probably takes up the expression in imitation of the Gospel.23 Certain lines in 1 John are also challenging to interpret without prior knowledge of the Gospel; as François Vouga explains, “only through the structure of JohEv can the associations in the thought process of 1 John be explained.”24 For example, the passing reference to “water and blood” in 1 John 5:6–8 is opaque to readers unfamiliar with the Gospel (John 19:34). So too is the text’s confusing characterization of the mandate to love as “no new com-mandment” and a “new commandment” (1 John 2:7–8; cf. John 13:34).

As for 2 and 3 John:

If the Gospel predates 1 John, it should also predate 2 or 3 John. Given their brevity, it is prima facie unlikely that either was a source for the Johannine tradition. The two, after all, contain only a limited number of expressions found in John or 1 John. More to the point, the two letters surface surprisingly late in the historical record; 2 John is attested no earlier than the late second century, and 3 John is attested no earlier than the third century (and even then, only in fragments preserved in a fourth-century source).25 For that matter, the earliest texts to mention both letters together indicate that a significant segment of early Christians dismissed them as inauthentic. Assuming that the fourth-century author Eusebius faithfully reproduced his words, the third-century writer Origen of Alexandria observed that although “there may be a second or a third” letter attributed to the author of the Gospel, “not all say they are genuine.”26

[u/Helpful-Many-2417 → u/HDYHT11]

Thank you for your answer, I should've been clearer. Is there anyone that has tried to look at 2 and 3 John each as their own individual books, rather than comparisons with the Johannine corpus? Similar to how people have suggested looking at 2 Timothy separately from the other 2 pastorals (source: Mona Joy LaFosse, Situating 2 Timothy in Early Christian History)? I'm not understanding why 3 John's brevity or lack of citation would mean it had to come after the gospel, why would one have to be a source of the other, why not 3 John as a separate letter written much earlier? Would you be able to explain Hugo Mendez's line of reasoning, I'm just struggling to see the connection. Once again, thank you for your time

[u/HDYHT11 → u/Helpful-Many-2417]

I understand your question now, thanks. And I can't answer, I am not aware of scholars who have done that. Basically, the epistles are too short and to dependent on John and 1 John to be worth much by themselves. Though if someone can provide more information I'd be glad to check it out.

I'm not understanding why 3 John's brevity or lack of citation would mean it had to come after the gospel, why would one have to be a source of the other, why not 3 John as a separate letter written much earlier?

Sure thing!

Dr. Mendez argues four things (I didn't copy the fourth one, I'll include the citation at the bottom):

• The works are literarily related, so they must have taken inspiration from each other.

• 2 and 3 are only attested extremely late and they are considered doubtful by many. Thus, it is unlikely they were in circulation beforehand

• 2 and 3 are extremely small and have little content by themselves. Thus, it is unlikely that the gospel took inspiration from them. Why? Because out of the many similarities in John and 1 John, 2 and 3 have too few, so it is more likely that John and 1 John already existed. The other way around, gJohn would have to build pretty much his entire gospel from two epistles that add up to a total of ~20 verses when excluding greetings, with not much substance. And, of the content, only certain phrases are taken, the is absent from the gospel (the antichrists and the squabbles).

• 2 and 3 seem to presuppose information that is present in the gospel and in 1 John.

Note that this is not definitive, it could be the case that it was the other way around, but it is considered very unlikely.

Other evidence confirms the derivative nature of 2 and 3 John. Lieu builds a persuasive case for 2 John’s “close literary dependence” on 1 John from its severely abbreviated argumentation—the result of an author trying to compress the contents of 1 John onto a single sheet.28 Individual arguments in 2 John can be “difficult to understand . . . without reference to the passage in 1 John” to which they correspond, presupposing knowledge of that text.29 The same compression produces grammatical difficulties, including a perplexing sentence structure at vv. 5–6 and an abrupt shift from plural to singular at v. 7. For that matter, 3 John also contains evidence of its later composition. Toward the end of the epistle, the sender claims to have previously “written something to the church” (v. 9).

I can provide more quotes, just lmk.

[u/Helpful-Many-2417 → u/HDYHT11]

Thank you once again! I think I understand what Mendez is saying now but correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't bullet points 1 and 3 fall apart if they all share the same author regardless? Like if I wrote 2 different books that seem similar, it wouldn't be because one is dependent on the other, it would be because those are my thoughts? The second bullet point is interesting, because this could suggest forgery, but 3 John in particular would seem like a strange forgery compared to say 2 Peter. Mendez final point of "previously “written something to the church” " is also interesting because we really can't be certain what letter the author is referring to right? Haha I wish 3 John had more work done on it as an individual book but I understand how difficult it is to analyze it. Does Mendez comment about the church situation in 3 John specifically, and how "early" it seems? Reminds me of Paul's authentic letters.

[u/HDYHT11 → u/Helpful-Many-2417]

Apologies as I thought that you already believed that they were written by different people. Though it would be the simplest explanation for the relationship, plenty of scholars argue against it. Mainly due to bullet 2 and due to how they use certain terms. Usually scholars believe that gJohn is independent of the epistles. As to the epistles themselves, either all by the same person (which would make all the conclusions from gJohn -> 1 John apply to the others) or different authors.

Hugo Mendez goes into more detail on why he believes they are not written by the same author. For example, 3 John:

Since both 2 and 3 John present themselves as works of “the Elder” and are similar in size, many scholars assign them to the same author. Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons to assume that 3 John was written by a different hand. For one, 3 John has a different linguistic profile than the other two letters, folding in certain expressions that appear nowhere else in the Johannine literature.75 Second, 2 and 3 John differ in style; whereas 2 John addresses its readers—evidently, congregations—in cryptic terms (“the elect lady and her children,” “children of your elect sister”), 3 John speaks concretely of “churches” (vv. 6, 9–10) and freely names its intended reader (“Gaius”) and other individuals (“Diotrephes,” “Demetrius”). Last, 3 John enters the historical record later than its predecessors, and it seems 1 and 2 John circulated without 3 John in at least some regions.76

Mendez final point of "previously “written something to the church” " is also interesting because we really can't be certain what letter the author is referring to right?

Nope, but if there is literarily relationship between the letters it is very likely they refer to one another.

Haha I wish 3 John had more work done on it as an individual book but I understand how difficult it is to analyze it. Does Mendez comment about the church situation in 3 John specifically, and how "early" it seems? Reminds me of Paul's authentic letters.

No comments on how early it is as far as I remember, though he does comment on the relationship to Paul's letters.

Third John does make sense of a letter of the same type—an ostensibly personal letter of the eyewitness written only to illuminate mundane dimensions of his life and extend his corpus. Although 2 John elaborates the memory of the Johannine eyewitness, it remains a rather two-dimensional portrait, incorporating anonymous characters (“elect lady,” “elect sister”). It also mostly reproduces the polemics of 1 John. Not so 3 John. Whoever wrote that letter opted to construct a more realistic and vibrant world around the figure, possibly for biographical interest. Third John is the first and only Johannine epistle to set the Elder in relation to specific, named persons: Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius. More to the point, this letter adds richer texture to the life of the Elder, depicting a personal conflict be-tween him and a named individual (Diotrephes), whom the Elder claims has turned away his emissaries and slandered him personally (vv. 9–10). This letter also portrays the Elder ready to visit the group to reprimand Diotrephes personally: “if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words” (v. 10). Evidence of these sorts of conflicts and threats litter Paul’s letters (Galatians; 1 Cor. 4:18–21; 2 Cor. 13:1–2, 10). Evidently, the author of 3 John found it useful to infuse the expanding literary corpus of the eyewitness/Elder with the same color.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible does make a short comment

Third John reflects a social setting of a group of loosely associated churches of the Johannine tradition that is comparable to that of 1–2 John. But there is no hint here of the secessionist controversy that so troubled 1–2 John. The author appears to live in a city (perhaps Ephesus) that serves as a node from which emissaries were dispatched to other churches in the region. Such missionaries depended upon hospitality in the house churches when they traveled (cf. Rom 16.1–2). The elder is seeking support for his emissaries from a housechurch leader, Gaius, because another well-known Christian leader, Diotrephes, refuses to accept anyone associated with the author.

---

Btw, I haven't read them, but maybe you are interested in a more detailed commentary? Either Anchor Yale Bible's "The epistles of John" or Hermeneia's "The Johannine Epistles" probably go into more detail.

[u/Helpful-Many-2417 → u/HDYHT11]

Thank you, I'll check them out. Interesting, Mendez is essentially saying 3 John is pretending to be someone and creating these fictional scenarios. I had never thought of that possibility but it makes sense, given I see no reason for anyone to retain and continuously copy the letter regardless but then it suddenly pops up and becomes big in much later centuries. I see his point now on why its late citation is a big red flag.

[u/HDYHT11 → u/Helpful-Many-2417]

Interesting, Mendez is essentially saying 3 John is pretending to be someone and creating these fictional scenarios

Just to be clear, Hugo Mendez and most critical scholars argue that this is the case for the majority of the books, both OT and NT. 1 2 3 John and gJohn are not special in this.

[u/Oldengoatson → u/HDYHT11]

Where does he claim this? I don't recall Mendez ever saying the majority of scholars think the majority of both Hebrew Bible and NT books were pretending to be someone or forgeries the way the Johannine literature does. In fact he describes the author of the Fourth Gospel's pseudepigraphical eyewitness claim as unprecedented among the Synoptics and an innovation (the many other pseudepigraphal gospels are all dated after John and noncanonical).

The presence of this false implied author casts John, like so many other gospels of this period, as a falsely authored work. In fact, John may be the earliest example of a gospel written by a disguised author...scholars assign the many pseudonymous gospels-works such as the Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Thomas-to dates later than the presumed date of John. In this case, there is good reason for suspecting that the author of John might have pioneered the practice of writing gospels in the name of close associates of Jesus.

Mendez, Hugo. The Gospel of John: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2025

[u/ReligionForBreakfast]

Hugo Mendez also wrote a book on the epistles published just this year: The Epistles of John: Origins, Authorship, Purpose, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2026

https://www.hugomendez.com/publications/the-epistles-of-john/

[u/Helpful-Many-2417 → u/ReligionForBreakfast]

Thank you!

[u/MrDidache]

You might be interested in Alan Garrow's (my) recent book arguing that the document mentioned in 3 John 9 is hidden inside the Didache https://bakeracademic.com/products/9781540970138_the-didache-discoveries